The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of prior approval of the Inspector for filling any vacancy of non-teaching post of any recognized aided institution, as well as the control of the power of approval by other provisions and regulations of the Act.

1. Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri C.B. Yadav, learned Chief Standing Counsel.

2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 19.1.2005 passed by a learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.

3. Brief facts necessary for deciding the appeal are; Janta Inter College, Indrapur, District Gorakhpur is a recognised Institution under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The petitioner-appellant's case in the writ petition was that for appointment against Class-IV post, he made an application and was selected on 28.6.2000. The Principal of the Institution forwarded necessary documents to the District Inspector of Schools for grant of approval of appointment of the writ petitioner-appellant. Since no approval was granted by the District Inspector of Schools, the principal issued the appointment order on 16.5.2001 appointing the petitioner as Class-IV employee. The Principal again wrote to the District Inspector of Schools for approval and payment of salary. The District Inspector of School made an inspection and put an endorsement on the attendance register on 31.5.2002 that the petitioner was appointed without seeking approval and directed the Principal to strike out the name of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner has been informed that his name has been struck out. The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 31.5.2002 issued by the District Inspector of Schools. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment has dismissed the writ petition.

4. Sri Arvind Srivastava has raised two submissions. The first submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the District Inspector of Schools having failed to exercise his jurisdiction to consider the grant of approval within reasonable time for the appointment, shall be deemed to have been made. He has placed reliance upon a case of Rajendra Yadav v. Deputy Director of Education, Gorakhpur, reported at 1993 (3) AWC 2423.

5. The second submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that in event, the Regulation 101 is construed that it does not contemplate any deemed approval, the said Regulation is arbitrary having not provided for any guidelines to exercise the power and jurisdiction by the authority. He has placed reliance upon the two judgements of the apex Court for the above submission, that is 2003 (5) S.T. 180: Krishna Mohan Pvt. Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors. and 1998 (8) S.T. 386: State of Kerala and Ors. v. Travancore Chemicals & Manufacturing Co. and Anr.

6. Sri C.B. Yadav, learned Chief Standing Counsel refuting the submission of the appellant contended that Regulation 101 does not provide for any deemed approval and there being no approval of selection of the appellant-writ petitioner, he could not have been appointed and the appointment is void. He further submitted that Regulation 101 cannot be said to confer any arbitrary exercise of power by the District Inspector of Schools.

7. We have considered the submissions and perused the records.

8. The first submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is based on deemed approval. The concept of the deemed approval of appointment is not unknown to the legislature, in the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, Section 16(F) as well as Regulation 6 of Chapter-II, the concept of the express deemed approval is very much there.

9. In Regulation 6 (6) of Chapter-II, it is provided that:

6 (6). Within three weeks from the date of receipt of the propose under Clause (5) the Inspector shall communicate his decision thereon to the Manager failing which the Inspector shall be deemed to have given his concurrence to the resolution passed by the Committee of Management.

10. The said Regulation is with regard to the recommendation of the Committee of Management for promotion of Teacher into L.T. Grade or Lecturer, the above Regulation thus clearly contemplate deemed approval; thus wherever th