By the Court.—Heard Shri Rajnikant, learned Standing counsel and Shri A.K. Shukla, learned counsel for respondent No. 1.

2. This Special Appeal under Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules has been preferred by the State of U.P. and the Deputy Inspector of Schools (in short DIOS) concern against the judgment and order dated 13.8.1999 of the learned Single Judge allowing writ petition No. 8576 of 1997 (Ram Babu Katiyar v. State of U.P. and others) directing for according approval to the appointment of respondent No. 1 as an ad hoc teacher in the institution Ram Prasad Sarva Janki Inter college, Roora, Kanpur Dehat.

3. Ram Babu Katiyar respondent No. 1 in this appeal had filed the above writ petition for quashing of the order of DIOS dated 25.2.1997 refusing to grant approval to his ad hoc appointment as a Lecturer, Commerce in the institution. The DIOS by the order impugned in the writ petition elaborately discussed the procedure followed by the Committee of Management in selecting the petitioner for his appointment as an ad hoc Lecturer. It records that the substantive vacancy of the post of Lecturer, Commerce at the institution was meant to be filled up by promotion but as the only qualified teacher in the institution, Surendra Babu Mishra was not eligible for being promoted as he had not completed 5 years of continuous service, the post was left open to be filled up by direct recruitment. The complete procedure right from notifying the post to the Commission, advertising it in the newspaper and selection through a duly constituted Selection Committee was adopted. There was no discrepancy in the procedure adopted for selection and appointment of the petitioner but as there was a ban imposed on appointments w.e.f. 31st August 1991, it is not possible to accord approval. Therefore, the approval to the appointment was refused only for the reason that there was a ban on appointments w.e.f. 31st August 1991.

4. The learned Single Judge in his judgment and order dated 13.8.1999 records that it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that the ban was lifted on 26.9.1991 and since the petitioner was appointed subsequently ie. on 5.9.1992 his appointment was not affected by the ban order. He accordingly allowed the writ petition and directed for granting approval.

5. The only argument of learned Standing counsel is that in view of the ban vide D.O. dated 31.8.1992 no selection/appointment could have been made and therefore, the direction to accord approval is not justified.

6. In reply it has been submitted that the appointment was not made during the period of ban. The appointment has now been approved. Therefore, in the absence any error in the selection process, the appointment of the respondent No. 1is not liable to be disturbed.

7. Respondent No. 1 has filed a supplementary-affidavit on 6.1.2011 and has brought on record the order of the DIOS dated 8.2.2000 whereby pursuant to the directions by the learned Single Judge; approval has been granted to the appointment of the petitioner. The aforesaid affidavit or the order of approval is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the petitioner is working ever since his appointment and is getting salary.

8. The above approval though subject to decision of this writ petition has not been faulted with. It has not been challenged. At the same time, in the earlier order of the DIOS dated 25.2.1997 which was impugned in the writ petition it had been held that the appointment of the petitioner was in accordance with law and the entire procedure for selection and appointment was followed which means that the selection and appointment of respondent No. 1 is in order. Thus, there is no reason to disturb the selection and appointment of respondent No. 1.

9. In the counter-affidavit filed in the writ petition the only stand taken by the State/DIOS was that the State Government had imposed ban on the appointments w.e.f. 31.8.1991 and in this view of the matter, the