SUDHIR NARAIN, J. The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 7th May, 1986 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria respondent No. 1 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition ). 2. The facts in brief are that Pandit Jawahar Lal Krishak Intermediate College, Mahuabari, Lar Road, Deoria (hereinafter referred to as the institu tion) is a recognized institution under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. One Vindhyachal Singh was working as L. T. grade teacher in the said institution. He retired from the institution sometimes in the year, 1983. A permanent vacancy arose on the retirement of Sri Vindhyachal Singh, in the institution. One Sri Heera Lal was working as C. T. grade teacher. Ha was promoted as L. T. grade teacher in the institution in July, 1984. On his promotion in L. T. grade post a vacancy to the post of C. T. grade teacher fell vacant in the institution. The Committee of Management proceed to make ad hoc appointment of a teacher in C. T. grade. The post was adver tised. The petitioner applied for the post. The Selection Committee was constituted and the petitioner was interviewed. The Selection Committee recommended the petitioners name for appointment as an Assistant Teacher in C. T. grade. The Management sought approval of the District Inspector of Schools who accorded his approval by his order dated 23-10-1984. In pursuance of the approval granted by the District Inspector of Schools, an appointment letter was issued to the petitioner on 24-10-1984 and he joined the institution on the same day. 3. The District Inspector of Schools by his order dated 10-12-1984 revoked the order granting the approval on 23-10-1984. The petitioner filed writ petition No. 1069 of 1985. The writ petition was allowed and the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 10-12-1984 was quashed. The matter was directed to be considered again. 4. The District Inspector of Schools by the impugned order dated 7th May, 1986 has disapproved the appointment of the petitioner OQ the ground that there is excess staff in the College. The petitioner has filed the writ petition in this Court and an interim order was passed by this Court on 14-10-1986 staying the operation of the order dated 7th May, 1986. The peti tioner is working as Assistant Teacher since then. 5. The petitioner has filed the writ petition in this Court and an interim order was passed by this Court on 14-10-1986 staying the operation of the order dated 7th May, 1986. The peti tioner is working as Assistant Teacher since then. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 6. The District Inspector of Schools, respondent No. 1 had taken the view that the teachers and staff in the institution are in excess and, therefore, no approval can be granted for the post on which the petitioner has been appointed. 7. In paragraph 17 of the writ petition it has been categorically stated that the petitioner was appointed on a permanent and sanctioned post and the said post is still existing. 8. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1. In paragraph 20 of the counter- affidavit this fact has not been specifically denied. It is only stated that the appointment of the petitioner was in a short vacancy on ad hoc basis. It has not been stated that me post on which the petitioner was appointed was not a sanctioned post. 9. It is not denied that Sri Heera Lal was working as a O. T. grade teacher in July, 1984. The petitioner has been appointed on the vacancy caused on promotion of Sri Heera Lal. In case the post had not been sanc tioned, Sri Heera Lal could not have been appointed. There is no averment that Sri Heera Lal was not working against any sanctioned post. The respon-4ente have also not filed any evidence to show that the post on which Sri Heera Lal was working has been abolished. The District Inspector of Schools had granted the approval of the appointment of the petitioner by his order dated 23-10-1984no other reason has been indicated in the impugned order dated 7th May, 1986 to revoke the order of his approval. 10. In case an appointment is made on a sanctioned post, the appoint ment cannot be invalidated subsequently merely on the ground that the teachers working in the institution are in excess as provided under the policy laid down by the Education Department of the Government. It is open to the Government to abolish the post and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 11. It is open to the Government to abolish the post and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ peti tion is allowed. The order passed by respondent no. 1 is hereby quashed. The parties shall bear their own costs. -------- Petition allowed. .