S. AMBWANI, J. ( 1 ) BY means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 7. 2. 2000 passed by the Joint Director of Education, IV region, Allahabad. The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to treat the petitioner as validly appointed ad hoc Assistant Teacher L. T. Grade in Kidwai memorial Girls Inter College, Allahabad and pay her salary w. e. f. 14. 2. 1999 and current salary regularly month to month with all consequential benefits. ( 2 ) THE petitioner alleged that a substantive vacancy was caused on the retirement of Smt. Noorjahan Abdi on 30. 6. 1998 as Assistant Teacher L. T. Grade in Kidwai Memorial Girls Inter college, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the institution ). The management of the institution intimated the aforesaid vacancy to the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad. The District inspector of Schools (II), Allahabad vide his letter dated 28. 9. 1998 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) granted permission to the Management to fill up the post. In pursuance of the permission, the Management advertised the vacancy, and after following the process of selection, the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in L. T. Grade. The District inspector of Schools, however, did not accord financial approval of the appointment. The petitioner filed a writ petition in which a direction was issued to the Regional Joint Director of education to decide the representation of the petitioner. The representation of the petitioner was decided by the Joint Director of Education vide his order dated 7. 2. 2000, by which he has accepted the contention of management that there are 23 sanctioned posts and that there was no vacancy, for appointing the petitioner and that there was a ban on the appointment vide government Orders dated 17th and 30th July, 1991. ( 3 ) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. ( 4 ) THE petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit annexing therewith a letter dated 1. 10. 1997 (Annexure-SA-1) written by the Deputy Director of Education to the Account Officer mentioning the sanctioned strength of the teachers in the college. It referred to a letter dated 5. 4. ( 3 ) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. ( 4 ) THE petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit annexing therewith a letter dated 1. 10. 1997 (Annexure-SA-1) written by the Deputy Director of Education to the Account Officer mentioning the sanctioned strength of the teachers in the college. It referred to a letter dated 5. 4. 1997 from the office of District Inspector of Schools mentioning that there were 13 sanctioned posts in lecturer grade, 8 in L. T. grade and 17 in C. T. grade. There were as such 25 sanctioned post in the combined cadre of L. T. and C. T. grades. In the counter- affidavit filed by the District Inspector of Schools (II), Allahabad, it has been stated that accoding to the financial survey report of 1988-89, there were 23 post in C. T. and L. T. grades and that there was no vacant post in the institution. However, the District Inspector of Schools has not annexed any order by which the financial approval was confined to the only 23 sanctiond posts. The latter dated 1. 10. 1997 of the Deputy Director of Education to the Finance and Accountant Officer, is the latest document by which the intimation regarding the sanctioned posts in the institution was given. From the statement of number of teachers working in the institution, I find that there were 25 approved L. T. Grade teachers in the institution who were getting salaries. Subsequently, it appears that without going through the record, the payment of salary of the petitioner has been stopped. Further, in this case, the appointment was made after seeking prior approval and after following a process of selection. ( 5 ) SO far as the ban on the appointment is concerned, it has been stated in para 17 of the writ petition that the Government Orders imposing the ban were applicable only upto 26. 9. 1991, and by subsequent Government Orders, the ban was lifted and it became open to the Management to fill up the vacancy. No specific repy has been given to this, in the counter-affidavit filed by the district Inspector of Schools. ( 6 ) IN view of above discussion, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 7. 2. 2000 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) is set aside. No specific repy has been given to this, in the counter-affidavit filed by the district Inspector of Schools. ( 6 ) IN view of above discussion, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 7. 2. 2000 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) is set aside. The respondents are directed to pay the petitioners her salary from the date she was appointed and assumed her duties in the institution, as well as, to continue to payment he salary regularly. ( 7 ) THERE will be no order as to costs. .