Hon’ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.—The petitioner claims that he has been selected on the post of assistant teacher in Janta Uchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Jeerakhpur, Baraipar, Jaunpur (for short “the College”) which is a recognised and aided institution. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 30.6.2017 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur, whereby he has rejected the claim of the petitioner for payment of salary.

2. Essential facts are that the Janta Uchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Jeerakhpur, Baraipar, Jaunpur receives financial aid from the State Government and is governed by the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 and the U.P. Secondary Education (Services Selection Boards), Act, 1982.

3. In the college, there are 11 sanctioned posts of assistant teacher. A regular incumbent on the said post namely Prakash Mishra retired on 30.6.2015, hence a vacancy arose on the post of Assitant Teacher. Management of the College sent requisition to the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board (for short “the Board”) but no regular selection has been made, hence the post remained vacant. The committee of management on 12.7.2015 passed a resolution for making selection against the said post and issued advertisement in two daily newspapers “ Aaj” & “Jan Sandesh Times” on 10.1.2016 inviting applications from the eligible candidates against the said vacancy. The selection committee found the petitioner suitable and selected him. The committee of management in its resolution dated 7.2.2016 accepted recommendation of the selection committee and submitted the requisite papers to the DIOS for his approval.

4. When no decision was taken by the District Inspector of Schools, the Committee of Management preferred a Writ Petition No. 20445 of 2016 for issuance of necessary directions to the DIOS. This Court on 5.5.2016 while disposing of the writ petition, issued a direction to the DIOS to take appropriate decision in the matter in accordance with law.

5. By the impugned order, the DIOS has turned down the request of the Committee of Management to accord approval to appointment of the petitioner only on the ground that after 25.1.1999 the State Government has rescinded all Removal of Difficulties Orders, the Committee of Management does not have any authority/power to make any kind of appointment.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that view taken by the District Inspector of Schools is contrary to law laid down by the Full Bench in the case of Santosh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2015(7) ADJ 179 (FB). He next submits that the DIOS is not justified in ignoring the law laid down by this Court which is binding upon him. He further submits that the order is non-speaking and without considering the matter in proper perspective. He also submits that order shows that it suffers from non-application of mind and no reason h7s been assigned by him for reaching the conclusion which he has recorded in the impugned order.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

8. In view of the facts that only question of law is involved, the parties are agreed that the matter be disposed of finally in terms of the Rules of the Court.

9. In the college it is stated that one post is lying vacant since 30.6.2015. The requisition was sent by the institution through District Inspector of Schools on 25.5.2015 but the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board has failed to make any selection against the said vacancy. The Committee of Management took a resolution on 3.10.2015 to both the said post in view of the interest of the students whose studies were effected in absence of the teacher in the institution. From the record it appears that the post was advertised in two news papers and after completing the procedure of the recruitment papers were sent