JUDGMENT : D.S. Sinha, J. Heard Sri Faujdar Rai, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri R.S. Mishra, learned Counsel representing the contesting Respondent No. 4, Sri Ram Surat Shukla. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order and judgment dated 3rd December, 1984, passed by the Deputy Director of Education VII Region, Gorakhpur, the Respondent No. 1 on an appeal preferred by the committee of management of Gramodaya Inter College, Barhayapar, Gorakhpur through the manager, the Respondent No. 3, under Clause (7) of Regulation 6 of Chapter II of the Regulations, framed under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, against the order dated 12th June, 1981, passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur, the Respondent No. 2, whereby he had disapproved the resolution passed by the Respondent No. 3 with regard to the promotion of the Respondent No. 4 on the post of lecturer of Sociology in the institution. 3. From the pleadings and various annexure produce before this Court, it appears that the resolution of the managing committee resolving to promote the Respondent No. 4 was submitted to the Respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 16th October, 1980. Thereafter correspondence exchanged between the Respondent No. 2 and the Respondent No. 3 with the object of seeking and production of certain material relevant to the approval sought by the Respondent No. 3. Last communication from the management in that regard was 27th February, 1981 which was received by the Respondent No. 2 on 28th February, 198,1. Eventually, the Respondent No. 2 passed an order on 12th June, 1981 declining to give approval to the resolution of the Respondent No. 3 with regard to the promotion of the Respondent No. 4. 4. The Respondent No. 1 has allowed the appeal on the ground that requisite approval to the resolution of the Respondent No. 3 with regard to the promotion of the Respondent No. 4 would be deemed to have been granted under Clause (6) of Regulation 6 of Chapter II of the Regulations in as much as the Respondent No. 2 had failed to communicate the decision within three weeks from the receipt of the proposal as envisaged under the said clause. 5. 5. Indisputably, the last communication from the Respondent No. 3 to the Respondent No. 2 in connection with the approval of the resolution for promotion of the Respondent No. 4 was addressed on 27th February, 1981 and the same had been received by the Respondent No. 2 on 28th February, 1981. Therefore, for the purposes of Clause (6) of Regulation 6 of Chapter- II of the Regulations the relevant date would be 28th February, 1981, and the Respondent No. 2 was obliged to communicate his decision in the matter of approval of the resolution of the Respondent No. 3 for promotion of the Respondent No. 4 within three, weeks from 28th February. 1981. Obviously, the Respondent No. 2 passed the order declining to grant approval on 12th June, 1981, on a date on which the approval to the proposal of the Managing Committee had come into existence under Clause (6) of Regulation 6 of Chapter-II of the Regulations, and there was hardly any power to decline approval left to be exercised by the Respondent No. 2. The Respondent No. 1 has rightly held that the requisite approval to the proposal of the Respondent No. 3 with regard to the permission of the Respondent No. 4 would be deemed to have been given under Clause (6) of Regulation 6, aforesaid. 6. Thus, the decision of the Respondent No. 1 is perfect and no exception can be taken to that. 7. In the result, the impugned order of the Respondent No. 1 is upheld. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.