S. P. SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respon dents No. land 3. 2. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner claims that in a proceeding initiated by the Committee of Management for filling up a substantive vacancy in the post of Assistant Clerk in the Islamia Inter College, Saharanpur which is an educational institution recognised under the provisions of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act and is within the purview of the Uttar Pradesh High School & Inter mediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers & Other Employees) Act, 1971 (U. P. Act No. 24 of 1971), he was selected for appointment on the post in question and was in fact appointed on 3-2-97. He further claims that he had joined the post on 3-2-97 itself but inspite of the information in regard to the proceedings relating to the selection of the petitioner and his appoint ment having been sent to the District In spector of Schools, he is not being paid any salary. 4. In the circumstances, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus requiring the District Inspector of Schools to pay him salary admissible to an appointee on the post of Assistant Clerk and not to interfere in his functioning as such. 5. It may be noticed that Regulation l0l of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Educa tion Act requires the appointing authority to obtain prior approval of the District In spector of Schools in respect of an appoint ment made by it as against a vacancy in any non-teaching post. The aforesaid provision prohibits filling up of the vacancy without prior approval being obtained from the Dis trict Inspector of Schools. This Court in its decision in the case of Dingur v. District Inspector of Schools and others (Civil Misc. The aforesaid provision prohibits filling up of the vacancy without prior approval being obtained from the Dis trict Inspector of Schools. This Court in its decision in the case of Dingur v. District Inspector of Schools and others (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9195 of 1997 decided on 2-6-97) has already clarified that the Regulation 101 of the Regulations does not suffer from any constitutional or any other invalidity and taking into consideration the provisions contained in the U. P. Inter mediate Education Act and Regulations framed thereunder relating to the recruit ment and appointment of non-teaching staff in an institution recognised under provisions of the U. P. Intermediate Educa tion Act and within the purview of the U. P. High School and Intermediate College (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971, the State cannot be deemed to be saddled with the liability in regard to the payment of salary etc. , in respect of a appointee envisaged under Regulation l0l of the Regulation unless prior approval in regard to the appointment has been obtained from the District In spector of Schools. This approval has to be granted after taking into consideration various factors ii order to ensure that a proper eligible and suitable qualified per son is appointed as against a vacancy in a sanctioned post after following the prescribed procedure and the appointment does not result in creating any uncalled for liability on the State in regard to the pay ment of salary etc. However, the question in regard to the granting or with-holding of approval contemplated under Regulation 101 of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act cannot be delayed unnecessarily as the delay is bound to affect not only the smooth running of the institution but also the public interest. 6. In the present case what I find is that there is nothing to indicate that the prior approval in regard to the appointment of the petitioner had been obtained from the District Inspector of Schools. The Petitioner claims that all the requisite papers in regard to the selection proceed ings and in regard to the appointment of the petitioner on the post in question had been sent to the District Inspector of Schools by the appointing authority seeking prior ap proval. The District Inspector of Schools, however, had not passed any order in that regard so far. 7. The District Inspector of Schools, however, had not passed any order in that regard so far. 7. In the circumstances this writ peti tion is disposed of finally requiring the Dis trict Inspector of Schools to reconsider the matter in regard to the grant of prior ap proval to the appointment of the petitioner in the light of the observations made herein-above and pass a fresh order within a period not later than two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the said authority. 8. It is further provided that in case the District Inspector of Schools comes to the conclusion that there was no procedural irregularity in the appointment of the petitioner and he was eligible and suitable for appointment and further there no eligible and suitable candidate was available from the next below cadre who could be considered for appointment as against the vacancy in question, while granting the ap proval it shall be ensured that the petitioner is paid his salary etc. as admissible under the law from the first date of the month succeed ing the date of the receipt of the relevant papers relating to his appointment by the District Inspector of Schools provided the petitioner had actually discharged the duties attached to the office during the relevant period. Order accordingly. .