( 1 ) BY an order dated 3rd November. 1997, prior approval was accorded for filling up the two posts of Assistant Clerks and four posts of Peons. Accordingly, petitioners No. 1 and 2 were appointed on the posts of Peons. By an order dated 16th December, 1997, the financial approval was accorded to the appointments of the petitioners from the date of their finding which is apparent from Annexure 6 to the writ petition.

( 2 ) MR. V. K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that despite these two orders, the petitioners are not being paid their salaries.

( 3 ) MR. K. R. Singh, learned. Standing Counsel contends that said appointments could not be made without prior a proval in view of Regulation 101. Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. in the present case, prior approval to the appointment having not been granted, there is no scope for payment of salary.

( 4 ) I have heard both Mr. V. K. Singh and Mr. K. R. Singh at length.

( 5 ) REGULATION 100, Chapter III of the said Regulations provides that various provisions mentioned in the said Regulation would not be applicable in case of Class IV staff. The appoi