JUDGMENT :

RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the inaction on the part of the District Basic Education Officer, Sitapur for not granting formal approval of the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher in the institution in question i.e. Sanatani Madhyamik Vidyalaya Bihat Virampur, Sitapur.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he was duly appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher and the appointment letter to that effect has been issued on 13.1.2017, which is contained in Annexure No.10 to the writ petition. Perusal of the aforesaid appointment letter reveals that the aforesaid appointment of the petitioner has been made pursuant to the decision of Selection Committee dated 5.12.2016 and since the approval was required from the District Basic Education Officer, therefore, necessary papers have been sent before the District Basic Education Officer for approval.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred Rule 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978. The aforesaid Rule provides procedure for selection. As per Sub-rule (5) of aforesaid Rule 10, if the District Basic Education Officer is satisfied that the candidate recommended by the Selection Committee possesses the minimum qualifications prescribed for the post may pass order for approval, but if the District Basic Education Officer is not satisfied as aforesaid, he shall return the papers to the Management with the direction that the matter shall be reconsidered by the Selection Committee. Sub-clause (iii) of Sub-rule (5) of Rule 10 categorically provides that if the District Basic Education Officer does not communicate his decision within one month from the date of receipt of the papers under clause (4), he shall be deemed to have accorded approval to the recommendations made by the Selection Committee.

5. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since more than one month time has lapsed, therefore, appointment of the petitioner shall be approved under the deeming provision.

6. Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla has invited attention of this Court towards para-14 of the counter affidavit of the District Basic Education Officer, which provides that relevant papers in respect of appointment of the petitioner are within the file of the District Basic Education Officer, but there is no receiving of those papers, therefore, it appears that with the collusion of one dealing Clerk Sri Naval Kishore and the Committee of Management, these papers got received in the office at later stage.

7. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the reference of papers has already been given in the appointment letter of the petitioner, which has been referred above.

8. Be that as it may, if the relevant papers are within the file, which is in the office of District Basic Education Officer in respect of appointment of the petitioner, the District Basic Education Officer may not take any other view for the reason that there is no allegation against the petitioner that he has done something wrong.

9. Further, the next question arises as to what is the fault of the petitioner if those papers were not mentioned in the receiving register of the office of the District Basic Education Officer, which would rather cause prejudice to the petitioner, therefore, it appears that the petitioner is not at all on the fault if those papers are not indicated in the receiving register of the District Basic Education Officer, however the same are available on the record.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that in the instant case, one nominee was sought from the office of the District Basic Education Officer for making selection on the post in question, but said nominee was not sent and the selection exercise was completed in absence of the nominee of the Distri