JUDGMENT : RAVI S. DHAVAN, J. 1. The Petitioner, Mahesh Chandra Sharma, claims salary on the post of a teacher in the L.T. grade which has been denied to him by the District Inspector of Schools, Aligarh, by his order of 24 April, 1993 (Annexure 10 to the writ petition). 2. The contention in the writ petition is that the Petitioner had been appointed on a sanctioned post and, thus, he is entitled to continue and receive consequential salary. The issue is not whether the Petitioner had been appointed on a sanctioned post on a clear vacancy, but whether the Petitioner's appointment, itself, has been sanctioned. 3. It is on record in paragraph 9 of the writ petition that the intimation of the vacancy has been sent to the District Inspector of Schools on 10 August, 1990 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition). In this context, in so far as the Petitioner is concerned, he had, already been processed for an appointment on 28 July, 1990 and permitted to join duties at the Institution by the Management. These facts are referred to in paragraph 12 and 13 of the writ petition and correspond to Annexure-4 and 5 to the writ petition. It is also on record that the approval which the Petitioner claims, for whatever it was worth, from a clerk in the officer of District Inspector of Schools, is questionable. In so far as the Accounts Officer was concerned, be was awaiting the requisite approval which ought to be granted by the District Inspector of Schools 4. Consequent upon a bunch of petitions being decided by this Court and the decision of which reported in Smt. Dropad Mittal vs. Mandaliya Balika Vidalyaya Nirikshak Pratham (R.I.G.S. 1st), 1992 (2) UPLBEC 1484 the Petitioner also got an occasion to make a representation to the District Inspector of Schools. 5. Thus, the District inspector of Schools while considering the representation of the Petitioner passed his order of 24 April, 1993 (Annexure 10 to the writ petition), declined to pass an order for the grant of the salary which may be due to the Petitioner. The reasons, in effect, relevant to the controversy are short. 5. Thus, the District inspector of Schools while considering the representation of the Petitioner passed his order of 24 April, 1993 (Annexure 10 to the writ petition), declined to pass an order for the grant of the salary which may be due to the Petitioner. The reasons, in effect, relevant to the controversy are short. The District Inspector of Schools has also reflected on the situation that la so far as the appointment was concerned, that had already been made and no approval had been given and, thus, notwithstanding that the Petitioner may have been teaching or the management had given him an appointment he cannot sanction the salary. The District Inspector of Schools has given valid reasons on why he cannot grant sanction on the salary which the Petitioner claims for the simple reason that the Petitioner continued on an appointment on which approval had not been granted. 6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner cited two cases 1986 UPLBEC 172 and 1992 UPLBEC 836. Neither of these cases apply to the situation of the present case in both these cases, the matter was consequent upon an approval having been granted by the appropriate authority and the issue was something else. The relevant issue in the present case is on the appointment of the Petitioner. 7. The Court does not find any infirmity or irregularity in the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 24 April, 1993 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) and thus, declines to interfere in the present writ petition and it is dismissed in limine.