S. P. SRIVASTAVA, J. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur refusing to accord ap proval to the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Assistant clerk in Dr. Bhag-wan Das Intermediate College Hindi Bhaghaila, Jaunpur, the petitioner has ap proached this Court praying for quashing of the aforesaid order dated 31-8-95 requiring the respondent No. 1 the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur to pay to the petitioner the salary due to him in accordance with law. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent No. 1 and have carefully perused the record. 3. The relevant facts shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this case lie in a narrow compass. Dr. Bhagwan Das In termediate College Hindi Bhaghaila, Jaun pur an Educational Institution which is duly recognised under the provisions of U. P. In termediate Education Act and the regula tions framed thereunder. This Institution also receives grants-in-aid and falls within the perview of the U. P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 (U. P. Act No. 24 of 1971) with the sanction of various posts in the clerical cadre by the year 1980 in all three posts of Assistant clerks and one post of Head Clerk for the aforesaid Institution became available as duly sanctioned posts. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Clerk by the Management vide the order dated 29-9-91 and was allowed to join the post on 1-10-91. The Management thereafter repre sented to the respondent No. 1 seeking ap proval of the appointment so that the pay ment of salary and allowances etc. may be released in the favour of the new appointee in accordance with the provisions contained in U. P. Act No. 24 of 1971. In regard to granting or withholding of the approval to the appointment of the petitioner remain pending undecided for a long time and ul timately the District Inspector of Schools was directed by this Court to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner vide the order of the Court dated 4-4-95 pursuant to the aforesaid order the District Inspector of Schools vide the impugned order passed by him have refused the grant the approval sought for by the petitioner. 4. 4. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the District Inspector of Schools as well as the counter affidavit filed by him indicates that the only ground on which the approval in question sought for in regard to the appointment of the petitioner has been refused is that one post of Assistant Clerk out of the total number of 4 posts in the clerical cadre which stood sanctioned in ac cordance with law has been taken to be served and not available so as to accom modate the petitioner therein, in view of the provisions contained in Regulation 20 Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. The District Inspector of Schools has observed that in fact out of the three post of the Assistant Clerk which stood duly sanc tioned ; the Management had appointed only two Assistant Clerks and one post of Assistant Clerk was kept lying vacant throughout prior to the same having been filled by the appointment of the petitioner and since the vacancy in this post was al lowed to remain unfilled for a long duration, the post itself was liable to be treated as dead. He has referred to the provisions con tained in Regulations 20 of Chapter-II of the Regulations indicated hereinabove which is to the following effect: "where the Committee of Management has failed to advertise any sanctioned post which has fallen vacant in accordance with the Regulations contained in this Chapter within a period of three months from the date of occurrence of any vacan cy, such post shall he deemed to have been sur rendered and shall not be filled up unless its crea tion is sanctioned afresh by the Director. " 5. It may be noticed that Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U. P. In termediate Education Act is contained to the provisions relating to the appointments of heads of the Institutions and teachers with reference to the Sections 16-E, Section 16-F and Section 16-FF of the U. P. Inter mediate and Education Act. It may, how ever, be noticed that the aforesaid Regula tion 20 of Chapter II in an unambiguous term stipulates that the said Regulation will apply only to the sanctioned post which falls vacant inaccordance with the Regulations contained in that Chapter. It may, how ever, be noticed that the aforesaid Regula tion 20 of Chapter II in an unambiguous term stipulates that the said Regulation will apply only to the sanctioned post which falls vacant inaccordance with the Regulations contained in that Chapter. It is, therefore, obvious that Regulation 20 of the Regula tions contained in Chapter II of the Regula tions can stand attracted only in case the vacancy relates to a sanctioned post of the Head of the Institution or the teacher. In other words, a post referred to in Regula tion 20 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Educa tion Act can only be a post of teacher to be sanctioned for the High School or Inter mediate College and not the non-teaching Staff sanctioned for such officials of School. 6. In the aforesaid view of the matter the sole ground on which the District In spector of Schools has based his decision refusing the approval sought for is totally misconceived and without any legal basis. The approval in question in my considered opinion should not have been refused solely on the ground on which the impugned decision has been taken by the respondent authority. 7. I am however, of the considered opinion that while saddling the State with the burden in regard to payment of salary and other allowances to the non-teaching staff or even the teaching staff, the District Inspector of Schools has to be satisfied in regard to the justification for the appoint ment. It has to be established that the ratio in regard to the teachers and taught is main tained in such a manner so as to justify the appointment of a teacher. Similar even for non-teaching staff, it has to be established that the post sought to be filled up is neces sary to cope with the work load. In. this connection, the State Government has al ready set out norms and the requisite guide lines which have to a taken into account while coming to the conclusion as to whether the appointment in respect where of the approval is sought for is really required. The mere fact that once the post is sanctioned it will continue to remain avail able irrespective of the necessity is not suffi cient by itself for granting the approval. It may be that a sanctioned post is rendered surplus. The mere fact that once the post is sanctioned it will continue to remain avail able irrespective of the necessity is not suffi cient by itself for granting the approval. It may be that a sanctioned post is rendered surplus. All these matters have to be taken into account while granting the approval in respect of an appointment which has the result of saddling the state with the liability for the payment of salary as envisaged under the provisions of U. P. Act No. 24 of 1971. Further, the District Inspector of Schools has also to ensure that the appointment in respect whereof the approval is sought is granted after following the prescribed pro cedure and is in accordance with law. 8. Considering the facts and cir cumstances brought on record and the con clusions indicated hereinabove, this writ petition succeeds in part. The impugned order passed by the District Inspector of Schools dated 31-8-95, a true copy of which as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, is quashed with the direction to the District Inspector of Schools the respondent No. 1, to reconsider the matter in regard to the granting or withholding the approval to the appointment of the petitioner in the light of the observations made hereinabove. The District Inspector of Schools, the respon dent No. 1, shall ensure that the decision is taken within a period not later than six weeks from the production of a certified copy of this order before the said authority. 9. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Petition partly allowed. .