Prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools for filling vacancies of non-teaching staff in recognized and aided institutions under Regulation 101 of Chapter III of the Regulations made under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, is required, but deemed approval may be granted if the DIS fails to communicate his decision within a reasonable time.

( 1 ) PETITIONER herein is aggrieved by orders dated 25. 4. 1996 and 22. 10. 1996 passed by the District inspector of Schools. Deoria and the Regional Deputy Director of Education respectively.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case lie in a short compass. Sri Krishna Inter College, Ashrarn Barhi. Deoria is a recognised and aided intermediate college. A vacancy in class IV post occurred in the college due to retirement of permanent incumbent Shri Teju. The Principal of the college by his letter dated 28. 2. 1995 sought the permission of the District Inspector of Schools to make appointment in the vacant post. The District Inspector of Schools, it seems, did not respond to the request of the Principal. Accordingly, by another letter dated 30. 8. 1995. the District inspector of Schools was again requested to grant permission to make appointment in the vacant class IV post but the District Inspector of Schools again did not pay any heed to the request of the Principal who again wrote another letter dated 27. 11. 1995 making a similar request. This letter too was not responded by the District Inspector of Schools whereupon the vacancy in question was advertised in the local newspaper "panch Bhuj" in its issue dated 17. 10. 1995. Applications were received and upon consideration of the inter se suitability of various candidates, the petitioner was selected for appointment on 25. 12. 1995. The District Inspector of schools was requested by letter dated 13. 1. 1996 to accord financial approval to the appointment of the petitioner which in the meantime was issued on 30. 12. 1995 and pursuant to which the petitioner had joined his duties on 1. 1. 1996, The District inspector of Schools sat tight over the matter despite several letters written by the principal in continuation of his letter dated 13. 1. 1996 and ultimately by letter dated 25. 4. 1996 (being Annexure-10 to the writ petition), the District inspector of Schools invited the attention of the Principal to notification dated 30. 7. 1992 which was construed by the District Inspector of Schools as a notification imposing ban on appointment. The petitioner then filed a Writ Petition No. 16812 of 1996 challenging the aforesaid order of the District Inspector of Schools. The writ petition was disposed of in terms of the following direction : "the contention raised by the learned counsel is based on averments of fact which require verification, I, therefore, consider it appropriate to direct the petitioner to approach the Regional deputy Director of Education. Gorakhpur, before whom the petitioner may file an application along with a certified copy of this order within a period of one week. On such an application being filed the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Gorakhpur, will look into the facts and examine the matter and if he finds the statement of fact made by petitioner which has been referred to above to be correct he shall pass appropriate orders in respect of the approval for the appointment of the petitioner. In case approval is granted, payment of salary of the petitioner with effect from the date of appointment shall be ensured. In case, however, petitioners case is found not acceptable the Regional Deputy Director of Education shall give reasons for rejecting the claim. With these directions, the writ petition is finally disposer of. Sd. /a. P. Singh, J. 15. 5. 1996. "

( 3 ) PURSUANT to the aforesaid direction of this Court, the matter was considered by the Regional deputy Director of Education who by his order dated 22. 10. 1996 (Annexure No. 13) rejected the petitioners representation on the grounds firstly, that there was a ban on appointment in view of the provisions contained in Regulation 101 of Chapter III of the Regulations and secondly, that the procedure for appointment was not followed.

( 4 ) I have heard Sri A. N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, standing counsel representing opposite parties 1 and 2 and Shri K. Sahi representing