JUDGMENT J.M.L. Sinha, J. - This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that the order dated 27th July, 1974 (Annexure o to the writ petition) passed by the Deputy Director of Education, 5th Region, Varanasi be quashed. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition briefly stated are as follows : The Managing Committee of the Sarvodaya Inter College Shahpur passed a resolution promoting petitioner 1 to the post of Lecturer in Hindi and petitioner 2 to the post of Lecturer in Civics The approval of the District Inspector of Schools was duly obtained to that appointment. Later on the Deputy Director of Education (respondent 2) directed the District Inspector of Schools not to make any payment of salary to the teachers who had been promoted or appointed after the receipt of the Government Order dated 24th January, 1974. It appears that on account of the aforesaid order payment of salary was withheld and hence the writ petition. 3. The petition in opposed on behalf of respondents. The stand taken by the respondents is two fold viz : (1) That the appointment of the petitioner having been made after issue of the Government order dated 24th January, 1974 was invalid (2) That the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Lecturers was neither called for nor was in accordance with the regulations. 4. Now so far as the first contention is concerned it stands covered by two decisions of this Court Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7035 Connected with Civil Misc. writ Petition No. 6411 of 1974 -Shobhnath Shukla and others v. Radhey Shyam Pandey and others decided on 16-2-1979 and Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 4920 of 1974 - Deep Chand Srivastava and others v. District Inspector of Schools and others decided on 11-7-1978. In both these writ petitions appointment of some teachers was made subsequent to the Government order dated 24th January, 1974 and on that ground payment of salary to them was withheld when the matter came up before this Court it was shown that paragraph 6 of the order dated 24th January, 1974, on the basis of which the appointments were alleged to be invalid and salary was withheld, had been deleted by another Government order dated 15/16-6-1974. It was consequently held by this court that in view of the withdrawal of paragraph 6 from the Government order dated 24-1-1974 the order of promotion made by the Committee of Management could not be held to be contrary to law. As for the sacred contention, according to the provisions contained in the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and the Regulations framed thereunder regarding appointment or promotions of teachers. It is open to the District Inspector if Schools to prove the appointment promotion or to withheld approval. If the promotion of the petitioners in the present case was not called for, looking to the needs of the institution, or was in any manner not in accordance with the regulation. that fact should have been considered by the District Inspector of Schools when the matter came up before him for approval. Once the District Inspector of Schools accorded the approval alter having given his thought to the whole matter the Deputy Director of Education could not interfere without there being power conferred on him either by the Intermediate Education Act or by Regulations framed thereunder. Learned standing counsel could not invite our attention to any provision in the Intermediate Education Act or Regulations Framed thereunder conferring such power on the Deputy Director of Education, we are, therefore, not prepared to accept that the Deputy Director of Education could ask tor the payment of the salary of the petitioners being withheld on the assumption that their promotion was not called for looking to the needs of the institution, or that their promotion was net in accordance with the provisions of the Act or the Regulations framed thereunder. 5. In the above view of the matter this petition is allowed. The order dated 27-7-1974 passed by the Deputy Director of Education (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed ana it is directed that the petitioners shall be paid their salary to which they became entitled as a consequence of the approval accorded by the District Inspector of Schools unless they have already been paid the same. 6. No order is made as to costs.