Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard Sri Yogesh Kumar Saxena, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ravi Ranjan, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Rajesh Kumar, Advocate holding the brief of Sri P.K. Prajapati, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4.

2. Three teachers in L.T. Grade retired on reaching the age of superannuation on 30-6-1999 in a minority institution known as Christian Inter College, Mainpuri. The vacancy arose on 1-7-1999. The Committee of Management vide letter dated 2-9-1999 sought permission from the District Inspector of Schools to advertise three posts in general subject. The District Inspector of Schools vide an order dated 25-9-1999 granted permission for advertising the posts and for the initiation of the selection process for the appointment of Assistant Teachers in L.T. Grade.

3. It transpires that an advertisement were issued in the Hindi Newspaper ‘Amar Ujala’ dated 29-9-1999 and in the English newspaper ‘Statesman’ on 5-10-1999. Further, a Selection Committee was duly constituted and the said committee recommended the names of the petitioners for appointment as Assistant Teachers. The committee of management issued the appointment letters dated 6-10-2000 in favour of the petitioners and simultaneously sent the papers to the District Inspector of Schools for financial approval.

4. It transpires that the District Inspector of Schools by an order dated 29-3-2003 refused to accord approval to the appointment of the petitioners on the ground that the advertisement was made after three months from the date of the occurrence of the vacancy and, therefore held that the selection was violative of Regulation 20 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The petitioners challenged the said order of the District Inspector of Schools in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19401 of 2003, which was allowed by a judgment dated 4-10-2003 holding that the advertisement were made within the stipulated period of three months and remitted the matter back to the District Inspector of Schools to decide the matter afresh. The District Inspector of Schools by an order dated 19-1-2005 again rejected the claim of the petitioners on a variety of reasons. Consequently, the present writ petition.

5. The District Inspector of Schools in the impugned order has held that the advertisement was not issued as per the procedure contemplated under Regulation 17(a) of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act and that the post ought to have been advertised subjectwise instead of categorywise. The District Inspector of Schools further held that the selection proceedings were against the provisions of Section 16-FF of the Intermediate Education Act read with Regulations 17(a) to 17(g) of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, and further held that the proceedings of the Selection Committee were not placed before the District Inspector of Schools. The District Inspector of Schools further found that the appointment given to the petitioners was prior to the approval sought from the District Inspector of Schools and therefore, the Committee of Management had committed a gross irregularity.

6. In my view, the District Inspector of Schools has proceeded on erroneous grounds and has gone on a witch hunt with the sole purpose of rejecting the claim of the petitioner for ulterior reasons best known to him. Initially, the District Inspector of Schools had refused to approve the appointments of the petitioners on the ground that the advertisement was made in violation of Chapter-II, Regulation 20 of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act and, now by the impugned order, has taken out new grounds, which were not available to him when the initial order was passed by him. In the opinion of the Court, the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools appe