JUDGMENT K.N. Singh, J. - Those two writ petitions arise out of the same matter and, as such, we consider it proper to dispose them of by a common judgment. 2. Sri Sita Ram Inter College, Sirsi, district Basti is a recognised and aided institution. In the year 1973 an advertisement was issued for appointment of a lecturer in Economics in the College. Hari Krishna Chatruvedi along with Ram Keshaw Rai (petitioner of Writ No. 20 of 1975) and many others applied for the said post. The Selection Committee, constituted under the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, recommended Ram Keshav Rat for appointment to the post of lecturer. The names of Hari Krishna Chaturvedi and one other person was included in the waiting list. The management committee forwarded all the relevant papers to the District Inspector of Schools, Basti, on 9th August, 1973, for obtaining his approval. The district Inspector of Schools did not pass any order within the prescribed period of two weeks from the date of the receipt of the relevant papers. On 27th August, 1973, the District Inspector of Schools passed an order disapproving the selection of Ram Keshav Rai and further directing the management to appoint Hari Krishna Chuturvedi as lecturer in the College. The management thereupon issued an appointment letter to Hari Krishna Chaturvedi, but it lodged a protest with the District Inspector of Schools against his order dated 27-8-1973. Ram Keshav Rai made a representation to the Deputy Director of Education, Gorakhpur against the order of the District Inspector of Schools. The Deputy Director of Education, Gorakhpur, by his order dated 9-7-1974 set aside the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 27-8-73 and also the selection made by the Selection Committee for the appointment of Hari Krishna Chaturvedi to the post of lecturer. Hari Krishna Chaturvedi thereupon filed Writ Petition No 5834 of 1974 challenging the validity of the order of the Deputy D rector of Education dated 9-7-1974 as well as the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 13-9-1974 communicating the order of the Deputy Director of Education to the Manager of the College Ram Keshav Rai filed Writ Petition No. 20 of 1974 challenging the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 27-8-1973 on a number of grounds. 3. 3. Learned counsel appearing for Hari Krishna Chaturvedi urged that the Deputy Director of Education had no jurisdiction to entertain any representation on behalf of Ram Keshav Rai or to pass any order setting aside the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 27-8-1973. We find force in this contention. 4. Under Section 16-F of the Act, as it then existed, the order of the District Inspector of Schools approving or disapproving the' recommendation of the Selection Committee could not be challenged at the instance of a candidate before the Deputy Director of Education. Under sub-section (3) of Section 16-F, the management of the College could make a representation against the order of the District Inspector of Schools before the Regional Deputy Director. It is the admitted case of the parties that the management did not make any representation to the Deputy Director of Education. Instead Ram Keshav Rai whose selection was not approved by the District Inspector of Schools, had made the representation There is no provision in the Act or the Regulations framed there under on fearing any right on a person, whose selection may have been disapproved, to approach the Deputy Director of Education by way of a representation against the order of the District, Inspector of Schools. In the circumstances the Deputy Director of Education had no jurisdiction to pass the order dated 9th July, 1974. The contention raised on behalf of Hari Krishna Chaturvedi is, accordingly, upheld. 5. Even though we have upheld the contention raised on behalf of Hari Krishna Chaturvedi that the Deputy Director of Education had no jurisdiction to set aside the order of the District Inspector of Schools or the selection made by the Selection Committee, he is not entitled to any relief for the reasons which we would record while dealing with the writ petition filed by Ram Keshav Rai. 6. Learned counsel for Ram Keshav Rai has urged that the District Inspector of Schools had jurisdiction to approve or disapprove the recommendation. of the Selection Committee under Section 16-F (2) of the Act, but he could not disapprove the recommendation made in favour of Ram Keshav Rai and at the same time approve the appointment of another candidate whose name was placed in the waiting list, We find force in this contention. 7. of the Selection Committee under Section 16-F (2) of the Act, but he could not disapprove the recommendation made in favour of Ram Keshav Rai and at the same time approve the appointment of another candidate whose name was placed in the waiting list, We find force in this contention. 7. Sub-section (2) of the Section 16-F lays down that the name of the selected candidate shall be forwarded for approval to the Inspector in the cate of selection of a teacher The statement so forwarded shall contain the names, qualifications and other particulars of all the candidates along with the name of the selected candidate. The Inspector is thereupon required to give his decision within two weeks of the receipt of the relevant papers failing which approval shall be deemed to have been accorded Clause (d) of Regulation 9 as contained in Chapter II framed under the Act further lays down that the Selection Committee shall send the name of the selected candidate along with two others in the waiting list drawn up in order of merit and the list along with the note shall be forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools for approval Sub-section (2) of Section 16-F confers power on the District Inspector of Schools to approve or disapprove the recommendation made by the Selection Committee. The provisions of the Act and the Regulations framed thereunder do not confer any power on the District Inspector of Schools to pick out a person for appointment from the waiting list prepared by the Selection Committee. If the District Inspector of Schools disapproves the recommendation made by the Selection Committee, in that event fresh selection has to be made, but the District Inspector of Schools has no power to approve appointment of a person whose name may be in the waiting list. The purpose and the object of the waiting list to meet the situation when the selected person fails to join his duties for some reason or the other then the authorities may appoint the person whose name be in the waiting list. The District Inspector of Schools in the instant case purported to disapprove the recommendation made by the Section Committee in favour of Ram Keshav Rai and at the same time he approved the application of Hari Krishna Chaturvedi, whose name was included in the waiting list. The District Inspector of Schools in the instant case purported to disapprove the recommendation made by the Section Committee in favour of Ram Keshav Rai and at the same time he approved the application of Hari Krishna Chaturvedi, whose name was included in the waiting list. In our opinion the District Inspector of Schools exceeded his jurisdiction in directing the management to appoint Hari Krishna Chaturvedi as lecturer in the college. 8. Learned counsel further urged that, since the District Inspector of Schools failed to accord approval or disapproval within two weeks from the date of the receipt of the relevant records, the approval stood accorded under the deeming provision of sub section (2) of Section 16-F of the Act. It is indisputable that the District Inspector of Schools is under a mandatory duty to give his decision within two weeks of the receipt of the relevant papers and, if he fails to exercise his power within that period, the approval shall be deemed to have been accorded. Section 16-F (2) creates a legs fiction which comes into play automatically on the expiry of two weeks. In the instant case the petitioner has asserted in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the writ petition that all the relevant papers were submitted to the District Inspector of Schools, Basti, on 9 8-1973, but the District Inspector of Schools failed to pass any order within two weeks thereof. In paragraph no. 10 of the counter-affidavit of Sheo Ram Pandey, filed on behalf of the District Inspector of Schools, it is conceded that no decision was taken in the matter within two weeks same confidential enquiries were instituted by the District Inspector of Schools. It is, however; relevant to ante that Sri Shiv Ram Pandey has conceded in that very paragraph that the confidential enquiry had been completed on 20th August, 1973 i.e. much before the period of two weeks had expired. The District Inspector of Schools, had ample time to take a decision in the matter within two weeks as enquiry had been completed by August 20, 1973. The District Inspector of Schools, however, failed to take any decision within two weeks. Instead he took the decision on 27-8-1973 which was clearly beyond two weeks. The District Inspector of Schools, had ample time to take a decision in the matter within two weeks as enquiry had been completed by August 20, 1973. The District Inspector of Schools, however, failed to take any decision within two weeks. Instead he took the decision on 27-8-1973 which was clearly beyond two weeks. In the circumstances the deeming provision as contained d in sub-section (2) of Section 16-F would come into pily and the recommendation of the Selection Committee for appointment of the petitioner of Writ No. 20 of 1975 (Ram Keshav Rai) to the post of lecturer stood approved by operation of law. Therefore, the District Inspector Schools could have no jurisdiction to disapprove the selection or to direct for the appointment of Sri Hari Krishna Chaturvedi. 9. For the reasons stated above, we allow Writ Petition No. 20 of 1975 filed by Ram Keshav Rai and quash the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 27-8-1973. 10. As regards Writ Petition No. 5834 of 1974 filed by Hari Krishna Chaturvedi, we have already recorded our reasons that the order of the Duputy Director of Education dated 9th of July, 1974 was without jurisdiction but, in view of what we have stated while dealing with the writ petitioner filed by Ram Keshav Rai, it is not possible to grant any relief to Hari Krishna Chaturvedi. 11. In the result we dismiss Writ Petition No. 5834 of 1974. 12. The parties shall bear their own costs.