JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. - By the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the prayer is that the respondents may be directed to pay the past salary of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher in C. T. Grade since 8-7-1988 till today and the continue to pay salary in future regularly till the petitioner continues on the post of Assistant Teacher in C. T. Grade in the said institution. 2. The factual metrix of the case is that one Sri Neera Lal Sharma was promoted in L.T. Grade from C. T, Grade and consequently a vacancy occurred in C. T. Grade. The Committee of Management by its resolution dated 8-4-1988 resolved that the District Inspector of Schools may be informed about the vacancy that has occurred in C. T. Grade and the applications for the said purpose may be invited from the persons desiring to join and serve as Assistant Teacher in C.T. Grade (vide Annexure-1 to the petition). The matter was referred to the District Inspector of Schools in pursuance of Para 2 of the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second Order), 1981 (for short the order). The vacancy was notified and the petitioner was one of the applicants along with some other candidates. The petitioner secured higher quality marks (vide Annexure-2 to the petition) and was consequently appointed by order dated 30-4-1988 (vide Annexure-3 to the petition) and the matter was intimated to the District Inspector of Schools. That letter was received in the Office of District Inspector of Schools on 3-5-1988, but no order has been passed by the District Inspector of Schools. The petitioner is regularly serving on the said post and no payment of salary has been made to petitioner since 8-7-1988. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that in pursuance of para 3 (iii) of the said order either the District Inspector of Schools indicates his decision with seven days from the date of receipt of particulars, otherwise it shall be deemed that the District Inspector of Schools has given his approval. 4. Even though time was granted to the learned Standing for Counsel for filing counter affidavit by order dated 30-4-1990 and the petition was directed to be listed in the third week of July, 1990, but no counter affidavit has been filed even after six weeks. 4. Even though time was granted to the learned Standing for Counsel for filing counter affidavit by order dated 30-4-1990 and the petition was directed to be listed in the third week of July, 1990, but no counter affidavit has been filed even after six weeks. Later on, it appears that on 21-8-1990 again time was granted till September 17,1990 to file counter affidavit but even then no counter affidavit has been filed as yet. Under the circumstances there is no justification to grant further time to Standing to file counter affidavit The learned standing counsel urged that the petitioner was not entitled to his salary. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The provisions of para 2 (iii) of the Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 is very explicit which provides procedure for filing short terms vacancies of teachers caused by grant of leave etc. The Committee of Management has got power to fill up a vacancy by promoting senior most teacher in the next lower grade and the Committee of Management shall inform the District Inspector of Schools alongwith the -particulars of teacher so promoted. The Committee of Management, in view of the Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981, intimated the vacancy to the District Inspector of Schools and the said vacancy was also notified on the notice board. The petitioner was one of the applicants and he secured fighter quality marks. Consequently he was appointed on 30-4-1988 and intimation was sent to the District Inspector of Schools for approval under Para 3 (iii) of the Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981. But the District Inspector of Schools did not accord any approval. It was urged that the provisions of Para 2 (iii) of the Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 indicate that the same is mandatory. As the expression 'shall' has been used, it is mandatory on the part of the District Inspector of Schools to communicate his decision within seven days. The legislature has also taken care to express its intendment by a deeming clause that the approval shall be deemed to have been accorded in case the District Inspector of Schools fails to communicate his decision within seven days. The District Inspector of the Schools did not communicate his decision within seven days in the present case and hence the approval shall be deemed to have been accorded. The District Inspector of the Schools did not communicate his decision within seven days in the present case and hence the approval shall be deemed to have been accorded. Consequently the petitioner was entitled ;o his salary from the date of his appointment. The petitioner has made representation (vide Annexure-7 to the petition), but to no response. 6. In view of the discussions made above, the present petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondent No. 1, the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh, is directed to make payment of arrears of salary to the petitioner since 8-1-1988 till 30-9-1990 positively by 30-12-1990 and the salary of October and November, 1990 shall be paid to petitioner by 15th of December, 1990 and thereafter by 15th of each succeeding month the petitioner shall be paid his salary regularly till the continues to serve as Assistant Teacher in C. T. Grade in the said college on the short terms vacancy. There shall be no order as to costs.