Hon’ble Abhinava Upadhya, J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order of the Hon’ble Single Judge by which the writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that the selection made by the Committee of Management is illegal as the Committee of Management had no power to make selection of a teacher in an aided institution which is governed by the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, Payment of Salaries Act, 1971 and U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 and Regulations and Rules framed under these Acts.

3. The case set up by the petitioner-appellant is that in the Bajaj Rashtriya Inter College, Fatehpur, Sikri, District Agra, two posts of L.T.Grade Assistant Teachers were created by the Director of Education vide its order dated 31.3.1991. Upon such creation of posts, the Committee of Management proceeded to fill up the same on ad hoc basis under Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982 after sending requisition to the Board and waiting for two months. Subsequently, the petitioner was selected and appointed on the said post by the Committee of management. According to the appellant papers were forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools (in short the DIOS) for grant of approval but the approval was not forthcoming nor the petitioner was getting salary, therefore, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10996 of 1992 connected with Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30972 of 1992 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16918 of 1993 was filed. This Court after considering the case of the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions dismissed the petition holding therein that the appointments of the petitioners were not made in accordance with law, inasmuch as, advertisement inviting applications for the said selection was not published. The learned Single Judge in that writ petition vide the said judgment dated 12.9.1997, however observed that the Committee of Management of the concerned institution would be entitled to make appointment on the said posts in accordance with law.

4. On the strength of the aforesaid observation of the Court granting liberty to the Committee of Management to make appointment in accordance with law, it appears that the committee of management again proceeded to make selection itself and appointed the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher on 15.10.1997.

5. The contention of the petitioner before the Hon’ble Single Judge was that inspite of advertisement being made and papers duly sent to the DIOS, the appointment ought to have been approved and salary released but to the contrary the DIOS vide order dated 11.5.2006 rejected the claim of the petitioner amongst others, on the ground that the appointment was made without following the prescribed procedure and without prior approval of the DIOS.

6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner again came up before this Court by filing writ petition challenging the order of the DIOS dated 11.5.2006 on the ground that in the earlier writ petition No. 10996 of 1992 vide order dated 12.9.1997, liberty was granted to the committee of management to make appointment and therefore, the committee of management had proceeded to select and appoint the petitioner in accordance with law and on this ground assailed the order of the DIOS. The Hon’ble Single Judge by the judgment impugned did not accept the claim of the petitioner and dismissed the writ petition holding that the committee of management had no power to make any selection on a substantive post after coming into force of the 1995 Rules.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the impugned judgment passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge and the earlier judgment passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge dated 12.9.1997 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10996 of 1992 and othe