Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—It transpires that an advertisement dated 6.6.2000 was issued by the Principal of Janta Inter College, Indrapur, district Gorakhpur, inviting applications for an appointment on a Class-IV post. The petitioner applied and was selected by the selection committee on 28.6.2000. The Principal forwarded the necessary documents, on the same date, to the District Inspector of Schools for granting financial approval of the appointment of the petitioner. Since no financial approval was granted by the District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur, the Principal issued an appointment letter dated 16.5.2001 appointing the petitioner as a Class-IV employee. On 16.12.2001 and again on 29.1.2002, it transpires that the Principal of the College issued further reminders to the District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur to grant financial approval to the appointment of the petitioner. It transpires that the District Inspector of Schools made an inspection and while perusing the attendance register made an endorsement on the attendance register on 31.5.2002 holding that the petitioner was appointed without seeking previous approval and directed the Principal to strike off the name of the petitioner from the attendance register. By an order dated 20.7.2002 the Principal informed the petitioner that his name has been struck off from the attendance register. Consequently, the present writ petition had been filed for the quashing of the order dated 31.5.2002 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur as well as the order of the Committee of Management.

2. Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Chandrachud Pandey, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Principal by a letter dated 28.6.2000 had sought previous permission from the District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur, which remained pending and therefore, the appointment of the petitioner was deemed to have been approved by the respondents. In this regard the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision in Rajendra Yadav v. Deputy Director of Education, Gorakhpur, 1999(3) AWC 2123, wherein it was held that if the approval was not accorded by the District Inspector of Schools under Regulation 101 of Chapter-III of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Eduction Act, 1921, in that eventuality, the approval would be deemed to have been granted by the District Inspector of Schools after the expiry of two weeks. Further, reliance on the same issue was made on a decision in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20534 of 2004, Committee of Management v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 25.8.2005 and in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.42289 of 2000, Ram Prakash Sharma v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 6.5.2005.

4. In my opinion, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is devoid of any merit. Regulation 101 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Eduction Act, reads as follows :

“101. Appointing Authority except with prior approval of inspector shall not fill up any vacancy of non- teaching post of any recognised aided institution:

Provided that filling of the vacancy on the post of Jamadar may be granted by the Inspector.”

4. The aforesaid provision provided that the appointing authority would not fill in any vacancy of a non-teaching staff except with the prior approval of the inspector. Therefore, previous approval is necessary for filling up the vacancy. Regulation 101 prohibits filling up of the vacancy of a non-teaching staff before taking prior approval from the Inspector. The reason for seeking previous approval is, to safeguard the interest of the dependants of the teachers and other employees under the provisions of the Dying in Harness Rules for whom a provision for compassionate appointm