JUDGMENT : L. Rath, J. - The Petitioner, a teacher of the Radhamohan M.E. School, Patasura is before this Court seeking the relief of quashing Annexures-4 and 11, the letters of the Inspector of Schools, opposite party No. 3. refusing to pay his salary on the ground that his appointment being without prior approval was illegal and the Managing Committee was responsible to make the payment. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the Petitioner was appointed in pursuance of the resolution of the Managing Committee of the school on 30-7-1980 and joined the post on 1-8-1980. Since the Petitioner was not paid his dues, he approached the Inspector of Schools who however made the impugned communications to him stating that one Sarat Chandra Panda, opposite party No. 6, had been earlier appointed by the Managing Committee and had been relieved to undergo C.T. training and hence in any vacancy arising in the school, Shri Panda had the right to be adjusted instead of the Petitioner. He further stated that the appointment of the Petitioner without prior approval being an illegality, neither his appointment could be approved nor any payment could be made to him by the Government. During the pendency of the case, an order was passed by this Court on 9-11-1983 directing the opposite parties to dispose of the recommendation of the Managing Committee in Annexure-7 seeking approval of the Petitioner's appointment. In pursuance of the order of this Court, the opposite party No. 3 on a detailed analysis of the entire case and the rival claims of the Petitioner and the Opposite party No. 6 approved the appointment of the Petitioner with effect from 1-8-1980. In reaching the conclusion, he found that opposite party No. 6 had been appointed in the leave vacancy of one Braja Kishore Satpathy who had been relieved for undergoing C.T. training. The appointment of opposite party No. 6. had been extended till 31-3-1980 or till Shri Satpathy joined on return from C.T. training whichever, was earlier. Later on, the opposite party No. 6 being selected for C.T. training was relieved of his duties on 27-8-1979. The appointment of opposite party No. 6. had been extended till 31-3-1980 or till Shri Satpathy joined on return from C.T. training whichever, was earlier. Later on, the opposite party No. 6 being selected for C.T. training was relieved of his duties on 27-8-1979. After Shri Satpathy came back from training and joined the school, a further vacancy arose due to the resignation of an Assistant Teacher, Shri P.K. Das, against which vacancy the Petitioner was appointed with effect from 1-8-1980 though without the approval of the Inspector of Schools. Considering such facts and circumstances, the opposite party No. 3 accorded approval to the appointment of the Petitioner with effect from 1-8-1980. Subsequently on 25-2-1984, the opposite party No. 3 again passed order vide Annexure-II. purpoted to be made 10 pursuance of Memo. No. 6980(3) EYS dated 17-2-1984 of the Deputy Secretary to Govt. of Orissa, Education and Youth Services Department, withdrawing the order of approval communicated in Annexure-9. The Petitioner amended his prayer in the writ petition and sought quashing of the Annexure-11 and for payment of his dues. 2. The facts as averred would show that opposite party No. 6 had been appointed purely against a leave vacancy only. Once the question of approval of the appointment of the Petitioner was kept pending before this Court and the opposite parties had been called upon to dispose of the matter and in pursuance of such order decision had been taken by the Inspector according approval with effect from 1-8-1980, thereafter no authority lay in him to withdraw the approval. The order of approval once made was subject to the scrutiny of this Court it having been passed during pendency of the case under the express permission of this Court, The order once passed was within the cognizance of this Court and hence could not have been altered or interfered with by the opposite party No. 3 without obtaining permission of the Court. On this account alone the order passed in Annexure-11 is liable to be set aside. On this account alone the order passed in Annexure-11 is liable to be set aside. Even apart from that, since the Petitioner had been appointed against a new vacancy caused due to resignation of one P.K Das, It had nothing to do with the claim of the opposite party No. 6 As the Inspector had found in Annexure-9, the opposite party No. 6 had been appointed only in the leave vacancy of Shri B.K. Satpathy and his term of appointment was co-extensive with the leave availed by Shri Satpathy. Such appointment could not have remained alive after the joining of Shri B.K. Satpathy and hence it has to be said that the reasons recorded in Annexure-9 for according approval of the Petitioner's appointment were reasonable. 3. Once conclusion is reached that the Petitioner's appointment had been validly approved with effect from 1-8-1980 it follows that he has to be paid his salary and allowances for the period he has served the school. 4. In the result, the writ application is allowed. The order in Annexure-11 is quashed and the Petitioner shall be deemed to have been validly appointed in the school since 1-8-1980 and is entitled to the emoluments due to him since the date of his appointment. The dues of the Petitioner be calculated by the opposite party No. 5 and bills submitted to opposite party No. 4 within a period of three months from today and payment of the dues be made to the Petitioner within one month from the receipt of the bills. 5. The writ petition is allowed with costs. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 400/-. K.C. Jagadev Roy, J. I agree. Petition allowed. Final Result : Allowed