The court interpreted the statutory provisions relating to the appointment of teachers in secondary schools and held that the publication of the vacancy in the notice board and in a widely circulated newspaper, the appointment against a short-term vacancy was not subject to the reservation quota, and the appointment was deemed to have been approved by the District Inspector of Schools after the expiry of seven days from the receipt of the papers in his office.

( 1 ) THE refusal of approval of appointment of the petitioner, made against a short term vacancy, has since been challenged in this writ petition. The grounds of refusal are three fold. The first ground is that the vacancy was notified only at the notice board and it was not published in a widely circulated newspaper. The second ground was that the appointment was made against a vacancy meant for reserved quota and the third ground was that there were only two applications.

( 2 ) MR. V. K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the first ground cannot be sustained since the notice was also published in sanmarg which has wide circulation which is apparent from Annexure-8. The said sanmarg has been accepted as a widely circulated newspaper by order dated 24th June, 1996 passed by the Sahayak Suchna Nirdeshak contained in annexure-8 to the writ petition. Therefore, according to him, the first ground cannot be sustained. He then contends that by reason of the decision in the case of Krishna Nand Dwivedi v. District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur, (1994) 1 UPLBEC 461, declaring the provision of recruitment only through advertisement in the notice board as ultra vires, appointments made prior to the said judgment are saved by reason of the declaration contained in paragraph 25 of the said decision. Therefore, even if there is an infraction in the matter of publication, the same could not invalidate the appointment. So far as the decision in the case of Radha Raizada and others v. Committee of Management, Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter College and others, 1994 (3)UPLBEC 1551, restating the provision and saving it from vires and observed that it has to be published in two widely circulated newspapers one in Hindi and other in English. It has been held to be inapplicable in cases where such appointments are approved or deemed to have been approved before the decision in the case of Radha Raizada (supra ). Therefore, according to him, publication in one newspaper, as in the present case, would be saved as has been held in the case of Ashika Prasad Shukla v. District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad and another, 1998 (3)UPLBEC 1722 (DB ). He then contends that if there is proper advertisement whether there were only two applicants or more is immaterial. It is publication for advertisement which we are concerned not the number of the response to such advertisement. Therefore, the third ground, according to him, cannot be sustained. He then contends that since the appointment was against a short term vacancy, provision of reservation quota cannot be applied as has been held in the case of Chatur Singh and another v. Regional Deputy Director of Education. Agra, Writ Petition No. 34097 of 1996, decided by this Court, on 3rd December, 1996 since been followed in the case of smt. Pratima Chauhan and another v. Regional Deputy Director of Education and others, 1991 (1) LBESR 953 (All), Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed since the petitioners appointment shall be deemed to have been approved by reason of the provision of clause (iv) of paragraph 2 (3) of the U. P. Secondary Education Services commission (Removal of Difficulties) Second Order ). 1981. On these grounds, he prays that the writ petition be allowed.

( 3 ) MR. K. R. Singh, learned standing counsel on the other hand contends that after the decision in the case of Radha Raizada (supra), all cases where approval has been granted if there is any infraction in the matter of advertisement in that event, the question cannot be covered by the decision in the case of Ashika Prasad Shukla (supra ). According to him, after the decision in the case of Radha Raizada, all appointments made in violation of the principle laid down therein cannot be accepted unless it falls within the scope and ambit of the decision in the case of Ashika prasad Shukla (supra ). In the present case, there having been no approval or deemed approva