( 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 a