Judgment A. K. Ganguly, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged in this writ petition an order issued vide memo No.539 dated 6th September, 1993 which is annexure-13 to the writ petition, by the Director, Primary Education, bihar, Patna (respondent No.2 ). 2. The question which falls for consideration in this case is whether the appointment of the petitioner from a panel which has not been approved by the Director, Primary Education is valid or not? The said question arises in the following facts of the case: the petitioner claims to have passed his matriculation examination in 1st Division in the year 1980 and thereafter he took his admission in the primary Teachers Training College, nawadah and completed his training in 1984 and got a second division. Then on an advertisement published in the newspaper inviting applications for appointment of Assistant Teachers in different government basic schools in the year 1988, the petitioner made his application seeking his appointment against the reserved backward quota. Thereafter the petitioner was interviewed and he appeared before the selection committee on 23rd April, 1989 and the Divisional Selection committee, Magadh Division, Gaya prepared a panel of selected candidates according to merit. The petitioner contends that his name as successful candidate figured at serial No.11 in magadh Division. On the basis of the aforesaid selection process the petitioner was appointed under Memo no.25, dated 3rd February, 1992 to the post of Assistant Teacher on matriculate trained scale pursuant to a resolution adopted in the Divisional committee meeting. The said appointment of the petitioner was in rajkiya Buniadi Vidyalaya, Goasa, nawadah (hereinafter called the said school) and according to the petitioner the said appointment was made against the vacant post. The petitioner has annexed his appointment letter as Annexure-3 to this writ petition. Thereafter the petitioner immediately joined on 4th february, 1992 and is continuously working as an Assistant teacher in the said School. In the appointment letter which the petitioner has annexed, it has been made clear that such appointment has been given to the petitioner in anticipation of approval of the panel. The petitioner has thereafter stated that even though he was regularly working in the post to which he was appointed and discharged his duties, his salary was not paid. In the appointment letter which the petitioner has annexed, it has been made clear that such appointment has been given to the petitioner in anticipation of approval of the panel. The petitioner has thereafter stated that even though he was regularly working in the post to which he was appointed and discharged his duties, his salary was not paid. As the salary of the petitioner was not being paid, the head Master of the said School (Respondent No.6) wrote several letters to the Director, Primary education Bihar, Patna, for sending approval of appointment of the petitioner. As on repeated requests and on representation of the petitioner, the said approval was not forthcoming, he filed a writ-petition being C. W. J. C. No.4034 of 1993 before this Court for securing the approval of his appointment from respondent No.2. The said writ-petion was disposed of on 6th August, 1993 by a Division Bench of this Court with the following observation:- "it is accordingly directed that the director must pass orders in the present matter keeping in view the relevant Rules within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order. The petitioner, if so advised, may also file representation setting out the full facts relating to his claim may also seek an opportunity of personal hearing before the Director. The writ application is accordingly disposed of" 3. Thereafter the petitioner made a representation which is at annexure-12 to the writ petition and on the said representation an order was passed by the Director, Primary education, Patna (respondent No.2), inter alia, to the effect that the panel from which the petitioners appointment took place was not approved by the Director, Primary education of Magadh Division and hence the appointment of the petitioner by the then Regional deputy Director, Primary Education, gaya, is irregular and as the recognition of such an irregular appointment cannot be given, no salary can be paid to the petitioner. It was further stated that the petitioner be not treated as a Government servant from the date of his appointment. The said order has been challenged in this writ-petition by the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that no approval by the Director of Primary (Education to the panel in question is required. 4. It was further stated that the petitioner be not treated as a Government servant from the date of his appointment. The said order has been challenged in this writ-petition by the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that no approval by the Director of Primary (Education to the panel in question is required. 4. This Court is unable to accept the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner inasmuch as the appointment letter itself shows that the appointment of the petitioner was made in anticipation of the approval. Therefore, the approval is treated to be a requirement for a valid appointment. Apart from that in paragraph 15 of the writ-petition the petitioner has disclosed letters of the head Master of the said School seeking approval of the respondent no.2 to the panel in question. Apart from that the petitioner himself came to this Court and filed the aforesaid writ-petition in order to obtain a mandamus from this Court upon respondent No.2 for giving approval to the said panel and pursuant to the order of this Court, as aforesaid, the petitioner has also made a representation seeking approval. Thereafter the approval was rejected by respondent no.2. Now it is not open to the petitioner, in the facts of this case, to contend that approval to the said panel is not required. 5. In this matter the respondents have filed two counter-affidavits, one by respondent No.4 and another by respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5. In the counter-affidavit which has been filed by respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 the stand which has been taken is that in matters relating to approval of panel, the Director, respondent No.2, is guided by a notification No.1067, dated 17th August, 1988, as contained in Annexure-A to the said counter affidavit. Relying on the said notification dated 17th August, 1988 learned counsel for the respondents contends that the said notification was issued pursuant to the direction of the supreme Court and in terms of the said notification the approval by the director, Primary Education to the panel in question is a must. Relying on the said notification dated 17th August, 1988 learned counsel for the respondents contends that the said notification was issued pursuant to the direction of the supreme Court and in terms of the said notification the approval by the director, Primary Education to the panel in question is a must. In the said notification it has been stated that the regional Deputy Director of education may be the competent authority for making appointment to the post of teacher in the Government basic school but as a result of such appointment various irregularities have been committed and the matter was taken to Court and pursuant to the order of the Court, an advertisement was published for making regular appointment of the teacher for which liberty was also given to the teachers who had moved the Court to apply. It is also stated that in the light of the said order the department published an advertisement for the entire State vide letter No.1001 dated 27th July, 1988. In the writ petition, the petitioner has also stated that he applied pursuant to an advertisement which was published in 1988. Therefore, the said advertisement which was issued throughout the State inviting applications from legible candidates for the post of Assistant teachers in the basic schools in respect of which it was made clear that the regional Deputy Director of education concerned shall prepare a panel on the basis of the interview and shall make appointment after obtaining prior approval of the director, Primary Education, Patna, bihar to that panel. Therefore, the appointment should take place only after the approval of the Director and not in anticipation of the approval. 6. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has stated that the said requirement is only in respect of appointment for Tirhut Division, muzaffarpur and Chapra Division and not in respect of the appointment of the petitioner which is in respect of magadh Division. Such contention is not accepted by this Court inasmuch as for appointment to the same post different standards and procedures cannot be prescribed and if it is so prescribed then it will be violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India. Such contention is not accepted by this Court inasmuch as for appointment to the same post different standards and procedures cannot be prescribed and if it is so prescribed then it will be violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India. Apart from that on a fair reading of the notification dated 17th August, 1988, it appears that the same was passed pursuant to the directions of the Court and the same was to be made applicable to the advertisement which is published "in respect of the entire State" and from further perusal of the said notification it appears that the said notification was forwarded to all the Divisions and the operation of the said notification, therefore, cannot be confined to any particular division. The contention to that effect raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is, therefore, rejected. 7. In the counter-affidavit it has been further stated that apart from the fact that there is no approval to the appointment of the petitioner, the appointment letter does not show that the same was made to any particular scale nor does it show that the same was signed by any body other than the regional Deputy Director of education. In fact the Committee which has prepared the panel for such appointment consists of Regional deputy Director of Education and three Senior District Education officers but the appointment letter only shows the signature of the regional Deputy Director of education. Apart from that the panel from which the said appointment has been made has also been disclosed in the counter- affidavit and the panel also does not contain any signature except that of the Regional Deputy director of Education. All these go to show that the appointment of the petitioner is not regular. It has also come on the record that a communication dated 23rd March, 1992, was issued by the Special director Education, Bihar Patna, to the Regional Deputy Director of education, Magadh Division, Gaya that the panel in question dated 13th august, 1991, did not correctly follow the new reservation police and as such the same was returned and was not approved. The petitioners appointment having been made from the said panel cannot be held to be legal. 8. The petitioners appointment having been made from the said panel cannot be held to be legal. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, in support of his contention, relied on certain regulations being Circular No.4557 dated 15th December, 1976 and contended that those have been framed under Sec.7 of the Bihar non-Government Elementary Schools (Taking Over Control and management) Act, 1976. This Court is of the view that the regulations dated 15th December, 1976 are a mere administrative circulars and they can be supplemented and altered by the notification dated 17th August, 1988, which has been issued by the appropriate authority expressly in the name of the Governor. Therefore, the said notification which directly applies to the appointments with which this court is concerned in this writ-petition, will govern the cases of the petitioners appointment and as the petitioners appointment has not complied with the requirement under the said notification, dated 17th august, 1988, namely, prior approval of the panel by the Director, Primary education, Bihar, Patna, the appointment of the petitioner cannot be sustained by this Court. 9. This writ application is thus dismissed. All interim orders passed earlier are vacated. There will be no order as to costs. As the petitioners appointment is invalid from the very inception, this Court is of the view that he is not entitled to any payment of salary even for the period he allegedly worked. Petition Dismissed