https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314407 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. en-us Tue, 04 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Jun 2024 20:09:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314407 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 04 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314407