Appointment without prior approval under Regulation 101 declared void and confers no rights on candidate

The HC dismissed the appellant's petition challenging disapproval of appointment. The court held that under Regulation 101 of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, appointments made without prior approval from the District Inspector of Schools are void and confer no rights. Distinguishing between "prior approval" and "approval," the court ruled that the former makes any unauthorized action a nullity, unlike the latter which allows subsequent rectification. Since the appellant was appointed without seeking required prior approval, the appointment was wholly illegal and void. Additionally, the Regional Joint Director found that the candidate ranked first on the select list had neither declined nor resigned, making the appellant's appointment improper.

---

---

Issues involved: Interpretation of Regulation 101 of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 regarding prior approval for filling non-teaching posts in recognized aided institutions.

The judgment dealt with a case where a Senior Clerk and Junior Clerk post became vacant in a college, leading to a dispute over the appointment process. The appellant was initially appointed without prior approval from the District Inspector of Schools, which was deemed mandatory u/s Regulation 101. The Regional Joint Director later disapproved the appointment, citing the post as promotional and requiring promotion rather than direct recruitment. The appellant challenged this decision through various legal proceedings.

The appellant argued that post facto approval granted by the District Inspector of Schools should validate the appointment, as it was found that no qualified person was available for promotion. The appellant contended that the District Inspector examined all aspects, including vacancy availability and fairness of the selection process, before granting post facto approval.

The court referred to previous decisions and emphasized the distinction between "approval" and "permission." It highlighted that Regulation 101 mandates prior approval for filling non-teaching posts, making any appointment without such approval illegal and void. The court cited Supreme Court rulings to support the importance of prior approval in such cases.

The court dismissed the appeal, stating that the appellant's appointment without prior approval was illegal and conferred no rights. It noted that the Regional Joint Director found that the candidate initially selected had not declined the appointment, making the appellant's appointment improper. The court upheld the decision that the appointment lacked merit and was rightfully dismissed.

---