Hon’ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

2. The petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 13.11.2014 passed by respondent No. 4 i.e. District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur refusing to grant financial approval to the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Clerk in the institution in question. The grounds of rejection are that no prior approval has been taken as per the provisions of Regulation 101 Chapter III which provides for determination of sanctioned post prior to the initiation of the selection process.

3. Challenging the refusal to grant financial approval, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in Preet Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others, 2011 (9) ADJ 591. The Regulation 101 has been interpreted by this Court and it was held that looking to the language of Regulation 101 which says that no appointment shall be made on a non-teaching post without there being approval of the District Inspector of Schools, the prior approval is required between selection and appointment of the incumbent against the vacant post. No prior approval is required before making selection for filling up the vacancy.

4. In the case of Preet Kumar Srivastava (supra), Regulation 101 as existed prior to the amendment made on 31.12.2009, was under consideration which reads as under:

“The appointing authority shall not fill up any vacancy on a non-teaching staff of a recognized aided institution except with the prior approval of the Inspector.”

Whereas the amended Regulation 101 vide notification dated 31.12.2009 is as follows :

“fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh fujh{kd ds iwokZuqeksnu ds flok; fdlh ekU;rk izkIr] lgk;rk izkIr laLFkk ds f'k{k.ksRrj in dh fjfDr dks ugha HkjsxkA izfrcU/k ;g gS fd ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd leLr fjfDr;ksa dh la[;k f'k{kk funs'kd] ekè;fed dks miyC/k djk;sxk rFkk laLFkk esa Nk= la[;k n'kkZrs gq;s inksa dks Hkjs tkus ds vkSfpR; dks Hkh Li"V djsaxsA f'k{kk funs'kd ekè;fed ls vkns'k izkIr gksus ij ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd mDr fjfDr;ksa dks Hkjus gsrq fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh dks vuqefr iznku djsxk vkSj vuqefr iznku djrs le; 'kklu }kjk fu/kkZfjr vkj{k.k fu;eksa ,oa inksa ds vkSfpR; ds fy;s fu/kkZfjr ekudks dk ikyu djk;sxkA"

5. A perusal of Regulation 101 as amended on 31.12.2009 indicates that by way of amendment, in the existing provision it was added that before filling up the vacancy, the District Inspector of Schools shall intimate the vacancy position (in the institution in question) to the Director of Education (Madhyamik) and also justify the number of sanctioned post considering the strength of students in the said institution. The approval to fill up the vacant post shall be granted by the District Inspector of Schools after receipt of the order/direction of the Director of Education (Madhyamik). While granting permission to fill up the post, the District Inspector of Schools was to ensure that the reservation rules and the sanctioned strength in the institution as determined by the State Government shall be strictly adhered to.

6. The vacancy had occurred on 31.1.2014 on account of retirement of the then incumbent Sri Kripa Shankar Tiwari and hence the amended Regulation 101 vide notification dated 31.12.2009 were made applicable.

7. The contention of the petitioner is that the sanctioned strength has already been determined by the Joint Director of Education pursuant to the Government Order dated 15.6.2012 issued in compliance of the directions dated 22.5.2012 passed by this Court in the case of Dhruv Narain Singh v. State of U.P. in Writ Petition No. 26307 of 2010.

8. An information in this regard was sent by the District Inspector of Schools to the Manager of the institution vide communication dated 9.11.2012. Objections were invited and the sanctioned strength of teaching and non-teaching staff in the institution has been determined. As per the sanctioned