JUDGMENT K.N. Singh, J. - By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has claimed relief for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 5-5-1977, 21-5-1975 and 19-3-1974(sic?) passed by the State Government, Deputy Director of Education and the District Inspector of Schools, respectively and also for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to fix the petitioners salary in the revised scale of pay and treating him to be a lecturer with effect from 1-1-1965. 2. The petitioner was working as Assistant Teacher in L. T. Grade in Saraswati Inter College, Hathras, district Aligarh, an aided and recognised institution. The management of the college promoted the petitioner from L. T. Grade to Lecturer's grade on 1-1-1965 and submitted the papers to the District Inspector of Schools for approval The District Inspector of Schools, by his order dated 6-4-1968 granted approval to the petitioner's promotion and appointment to the Lecturers grade. On some complaint being made against the petitioner s promotion and appointment, the District Inspector of Schools, by his order dated 1-6-1968 stayed the order of approval. The petitioner thereupon filed a writ petition in this court which was dismissed by a learned single Judge. The petitioners special appeal was allowed and the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 1-6-1968 was quashed. Thereafter the District Inspector of Schools fixed the petitioner's salary in the revised scale of pay. The Deputy Director of Education treated the petitioner in Lecturer's grade with effect from 1-1-1965. The Deputy Director of Education, however, did not approve the action of the District Inspector of Schools. The Director of Education referred the matter to the State Government by bis letter dated May 5, 1977. The State Government held that the petitioner was entitled to salary in Lecturers grade with effect from April, 13, 1968 the date on which he assumed charge of the lecturer. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order of the State Government, Deputy Director of Education and the District Inspector of Schools. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that ever since the promotion and appointment to lecturers grade on 1-1-1965 the petitioner had been working in that grade and teaching students. The approval granted by the District Inspector of Schools on 6-4-1968 would related back to the date of the petitioners appointment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that ever since the promotion and appointment to lecturers grade on 1-1-1965 the petitioner had been working in that grade and teaching students. The approval granted by the District Inspector of Schools on 6-4-1968 would related back to the date of the petitioners appointment. The respondent authorities had committed patent error in granting the benefit to the petitioner for the period for which he worked as Lecturer In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent District Inspector of Schools, it is asserted that the management submitted the papers to the District Inspector of Schools on 14-7-1965 for obtaining approval to the petitioners promotion since tire papers were incomplete the District Inspector of Schools asked for additional information and the management took undue time in submitting the necessary information. The District Inspector of Schools, therefore, could grant approval on 6-4-68 and thereafter the petitioner was allowed to join as lecturer on April 13,1968. It is further asserted on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner is entitled to his salary in lecturers grade with effect form 13-4-1968 and not for any prior period. 4. The question which arises as to on what date the petitioner acquired right to lecturers grade. According to the petitioner he acquired right to receive salary in lecturers grade from 1-1-1965 namely, the date on which he was promoted by the management to the lecturers grade. On the other hand on behalf of the respondent it is urged that the petitioner could not be entitled to the lecturers grade with effect from 1-1-1965 as the petitioner's appointment could not be valid in lecturer's grade unless prior approval from the Inspector of Schools was obtained. Since the approval was granted on 6th April, 1968 petitioner could be entitled to petitioners grade only thereafter. 5. There is no dispute that the District Inspector of Schools granted approval to the petitioners appointment on 6-4-1968, the management could not appoint the petitioner to the post of lecturer prior to that date as prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools is necessary for appointment of a teacher. If the management makes appointment of a teacher without prior approval, the teacher concerned would not be entitled to any legal right. The petitioner could not, therefore, be entitled to lecturers grade prior to 6-4-1968 even though he may have been working on that grade. If the management makes appointment of a teacher without prior approval, the teacher concerned would not be entitled to any legal right. The petitioner could not, therefore, be entitled to lecturers grade prior to 6-4-1968 even though he may have been working on that grade. Whenever the statute require prior approval for any appointment, approval on subsequent date, would not relate back to initial date of appointment or validate appointment with retrospective effect. After the petitioners promotion on lecturers grade was approved on 6-4-1968, a fresh letter of appointment was issued in favour of the petitioner on 13-4-1968 and the petitioner started working in that grade with effect from that date. In these circumstances the petitioner is entitled to lecturers grade with effect from April 13, 1968. 6. Learned counsel then urged that since the management had forwarded the papers to the District Inspector of Schools on 14-7-1965 and as the Inspector failed to communicate his disapproval of the petitioners promotion, the managements proposal stood automatically approved after the expiry of two weeks. Section 16-F (2) of the Act lays down that the name of selected candidate shall be forwarded for approval by the management to the Inspector along with a statement showing the names, qualifications and other particulars of all candidates. The Inspector of Schools shall give his decision within two weeks on receipt of the relevant papers, failing which the approval shall be deemed to have been accorded. Placing reliance on this provision, the petitioner claims that the proposal of the management stood approved. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the District Inspector of Schools, it is asserted that the relevant papers which had been sent to the District Inspector of Schools by the management were not complete. The District Inspector of Schools asked for additional information and relevant papers. The enquiry into the matters took time and it was only on 6-4-68 that the District Inspector of Schools approved the petitioners appointment to lecturers grade. Since the management had failed to submit the relevant papers, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of deeming provision as contained in Section 1-F (2) of the Act. The enquiry into the matters took time and it was only on 6-4-68 that the District Inspector of Schools approved the petitioners appointment to lecturers grade. Since the management had failed to submit the relevant papers, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of deeming provision as contained in Section 1-F (2) of the Act. However, the petitioner did not raise this question in this earlier writ petition filed against the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 1-6-1968, staying his approval dated 6-4-1968 the petitioner has now set up a new case which he failed to set up in his writ petition no. 3707 of 1968. On this ground also the petitioner cannot be granted any relief in the matter. 7. In the result we do not find any - manifest error of law in the impugned order warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs.