AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 1467
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amgarh. The Committee of Management resolved to fill up the vacancies. The vacancies were advertised and applications were invited. The appellant along with respondent no. 5 and others applied and the Selection Committee recommended a list in which respondent No. 5 was placed at Sl. No. 1 and the appellant was placed at Sl. No. 2. An appointment order was issued in favour of respondent No. 5. It was alleged that respondent No. 5 expressed his inability to join, on the basis of which the Committee of Management issued another letter of appointment dated 8.2.2007 in favour of the petitioner who accepted the appointment letter and joined on 12.2.2007. After the issuance of the appointment letter the institution forwarded the papers to the Dis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Regional Joint Director thereafter passed a fresh order dated 14.3.2011 rejecting the claim of the appellant on the ground that no prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools was obtained before making the appointment and that it was not a case of deemed approval since no application was made by the management seeking prior approval. The Joint Director further held that the appellant who was placed at Sl. No. 2 in the select list could not have been given appointment since no proof of refusal by respondent No. 5 for accepting appointment could be proved. The appellant, being aggrieved, filed a writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by judgment dated 25.5.2011. The learned Single Judge held, that under Reg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....strict Inspector of Schools is contemplated in Regulation 101, the prior approval embraces itself an examination of all aspects of the matter including existence of the vacancy, the nature of the vacancy, whether vacancy is to be filled up by the management or it be filled by appointing a dependent of the deceased employee, which was all examined by the District Inspector of Schools. The learned Senior Counsel thus contended that all these aspects were duly considered by the District Inspector of Schools and since no one was eligible for the said post and the process was found to be fair, the District Inspector of Schools had rightly granted post facto approval for the appointment of the petitioner, which should be maintained and the order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nod Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (7) ADJ 36, Principal, Intermediate College, Jaura Bazar, District Kushinagar and another vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012 (5) AWC 4648 and Preet Kumar Srivastava vs. State of U.P. through Secretary, Secondary Education, Government of U.P., Lucknow and others 2011 (89) ALR 346. In our opinion the said decisions are clearly against the appellant and in consonance with the principles laid down by the learned Single Judge. In all the three decisions, it was held that the previous permission is not required to be obtained by the institution before advertising the said post and that previous approval is required to be taken at the time of appointment. On the other hand Regulation 101 has bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mission to issue advertisement by Appointing Authority and if such permission is granted by Inspector, the Appointing Authority can fill up the post. Regulation 101 provides prior approval with regard to vacancy of non-teaching staff and permission is contemplated only for filling the post of sweeper. Regulation thus indicates that when the permission is given to the Appointing Authority to fill up post of sweeper. There is no further prior approval is required. This provision being in nature of proviso to the main Regulation shall operate as an inception to the first part of Regulation. Thus, the use of two words in Regulation 101 i.e., 'prior approval' and 'permission' itself negates construction of Regulation as contended....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The requirement of prior approval in Regulation 101 is a condition precedent before issuing an appointment letter and is mandatory. 22. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that prior approval contemplated under Regulation 101 is prior approval by the District Inspector of Schools after completion of process of selection and before issuance of appointment letter to the selected candidate." Another Division Bench in Miss Shailja Shah vs. Executive Committee, 1995 (25) ALR 88 also considered the expression "prior approval" and "approval" and held that two words connotes different situation. The Division Bench held that where the statutes uses the term "prior approval", anything done without prior approval was a null....