The main legal point established in the judgment is that appointments in recognized aided institutions must comply with the statutory requirements, and the prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools is necessary before the appointment is made.

JUDGMENT :

(Order on application for Condonation of Delay)

1. Having heard learned counsel for respective parties and having gone through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay, we are satisfied that delay has sufficiently been explained.

2. Accordingly, application is allowed and the delay in preferring the special appeal is hereby condoned.

(Order on memo of appeal)

3. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Yadav "Warsi" learned counsel for appellant-Committee of Management of the Institution in question, Sri Surendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2, and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

4. Under challenge in this intra-court appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules is the judgment and order dated 08.01.2020 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.5223 (S/S) of 2002 whereby learned Single Judge has directed that appointment of respondent nos.1 and 2-petitioners shall be treated to have been approved and further that they shall be given arrears of their salary with effect from the date they were given appointment. Learned Single Judge has also observed that all consequential benefits of seniority and promotion shall also be extended to respondent nos.1 and 2 from the date of their appointment.

5. It has been argued by learned counsel for appellant-Committee of Management of the Institution that in absence of any material to arrive at a conclusion that the very initial appointment of respondent nos.1 and 2-petitioners was made in conformity with the statutory requirement of the then existing Regulation 101 of Chapter III of Regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the directions issued by learned Single Judge in the judgment and order under appeal are erroneous. He has further argued that non-fulfillment of statutory requirement in the matter of appointment where payment of salary of the incumbent is charged with the State Exchequer, has to be necessarily in conformity with the Rules regulating the conditions of service which will include the recruitment. In this view, submission is that since the very initial appointment of respondent nos.1 and 2 was not lawful, hence the directions issued by learned Single Judge cannot be permitted to be sustained.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 has submitted that there is no error in the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge for the reason that the same is based on pronouncement of law made by this Court in the case of Preet Kumar Srivastava vs. State of U.P. thru' Secondary Edu. & others, reported in 2011 (9) ADJ 591. He has further stated that once this Court passed interim order on 14.09.2009 which was complied with by the District Inspector of Schools by passing the order dated 19.07.2010, prior approval of appointment of respondent nos.1 and 2-petitioners will be deemed to have been accorded. He has also relied in this regard upon a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunda Motiram Bodalkar vs. Swami Vivemanand Shikshan Sanstha and others, reported in (2010) 6 SCC 712 and has submitted that once the post is created after sanction by the competent authority, the permission to fill up the same is intrinsic in such sanction/creation of the post. It has, thus, been argued that there was no illegality so far as the appointment of respondent nos.1 and 2 is concerned and accordingly it has been submitted by learned counsel for respondents that the special appeal needs to be dismissed.

7. Learned Standing Counsel has also made his submission and has argued that requirement of Regulation 101 of Chapter III of the Regulations as referred to herein above is a mandatory requirement and in absence of fulfillment of said statutory requirement, the very initial appointment of respondent nos.1 and 2-petitioners cannot be said to be lawful. He has further stated that the order dated 19.07.2010 passed by the District Inspector