RAKESH TIWARI, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. 2. Maharaja Agrasen Inter College, Deoria is receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government. It is a recognized institution under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the payment of salaries of teachers and other employees of the institution are made under the provisions of U. P. High School and Intermediate College (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971. 3. According to the averments made in the writ petition, there are eighteen sanctioned posts of Class-IV employees in the institution. Six posts out of them fell vacant due to retirement of four employees and two fell vacant due to promotion of the incumbent of Class-IV employees. It is not clear from the averments made from the writ petition or from Annexure-1 appended with it that these vacancies were advertised in the newspapers having wide circulation. It appears from the perusal of Annexure-1 to the writ petition that applications were invited for appointments on six vacancies of Class-IV employees by publication on notice board. 4. There is no date on the notice appended with the writ petition showing when it has been published on the notice board. 5. It is further alleged that the petitioner applied against the aforesaid six vacancies of Class-IV employees and they were selected by the Selection Committee constituted by the Principal of the institution. In pursuance of the recommendations of the Selection Committee, the petitioners were issued appointment letters appointing them on probation for a period of one year and they joined their services on 1-7-1992. The Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been continuously discharging their duties as Class-IV employees in the institution. In pursuance of the recommendations of the Selection Committee, the petitioners were issued appointment letters appointing them on probation for a period of one year and they joined their services on 1-7-1992. The Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been continuously discharging their duties as Class-IV employees in the institution. He further submits that the papers regarding appointments of the petitioners were also sent to the District Inspector of School, Deoria for granting financial approval to the appoints and when nothing was heard, reminder letters dated 13-3-1993 and 21-6-1993 were also sent thereafter, but there was no response from the D. I. O. S. Aggrieved by this situation, the petitioners filed the present writ petition praying for grant of following main reliefs: (i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the salary of the petitioners for the post of IVth Class employees in the institution, (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to make payment of arrears of salaries to the petitioners which is due against them, (iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the functioning of the petitioners as IV Class employee in the institution. 6. At the time of admission, this Court granted an ad-interim order directing the case to be listed for admission on 26-10-1993 and in the meanwhile it was directed that the petitioner shall be paid salary for the period they have worked. The Standing Counsel was also directed to file counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents within a period of one month, but inspite of repeated orders granted time to time no response was filed by the respondents. On 30-3-1994 the following order was passed by this Court: "sri Gyan Prakash has put in appearance on behalf of the Respondents No. 3 and 4. Time was granted to the Standing Counsel to file a counter affidavit but no counter affidavit has been filed. Standing Counsel is granted six weeks further time to file a counter affidavit. List thereafter. " 7. Time was granted to the Standing Counsel to file a counter affidavit but no counter affidavit has been filed. Standing Counsel is granted six weeks further time to file a counter affidavit. List thereafter. " 7. It is alleged in the writ petition that though the petitioners were appointed against substantive vacancies and no approval is required in the matter of appointments on Class-IV posts, yet the D. I. O. S. did not grant financial sanction nor made any communication refusing to grant financial sanction and the petitioners are continuously working in the institution since then. 8. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the appointments of the petitioners are said to have been made in pursuance of the publication on the notice board is not illegal and in accordance with Rules. He contends that FARZI appointments have been made by the Principal of the institution and has drawn the attention of this Court to the averments made in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit in which it has been stated in para 4 of the counter affidavit that the principal did not issue any advertisement for appointments of Class-IV employees and Annexure-1 appended with the writ petition is a fictitious document filed for obtaining orders from this Court. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that there are only fourteen vacancies of Class-IV employees and by making eighteen appointments unlawfully, the norms and sanction strength of Class-IV employees has been violated. It has been further stated in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit that when these appointments of the petitioners are said to have been made, Respondent No. 4 was never working as Principal in the institution. It is alleged that he took charge as Principal with effect from 1-5-1992, which shows that the appointments made on Class-IV posts are FARZI. It is further submitted that according to Annexure-8, Photostat copy of attendance register for the month of June, 1993 shows they were appointed in year 1993; whereas the contention of the petitioners is that they are continuously working since 26-6-1992. This also shows that the petitioners have filed the present writ petition annexing fictitious documents. It is also denied that no papers were forwarded by the Principal of the institution to the District Inspector of Schools for granting financial sanction and there was no communication regarding payment of salary to the petitioners. 9. This also shows that the petitioners have filed the present writ petition annexing fictitious documents. It is also denied that no papers were forwarded by the Principal of the institution to the District Inspector of Schools for granting financial sanction and there was no communication regarding payment of salary to the petitioners. 9. The averment made in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit to the effect that the power to grant financial sanction to the teachers and the other employees of the institution vests in the District Inspector of Schools, has not been denied in the rejoinder affidavit. A report has been filed as C. A-1 to the counter affidavit, which was pursuant to an enquiry made by the D. I. O. S. on receipt of the writ petition in respect of FARZI appointments made by the Principal in the institution. It is a detailed report running to ten pages based on information given by the Principal on the interrogatories. From the interrogatories the D. I. O. S. has come to the conclusion that the appointments of the petitioners are FARZI. 10. Counsel for the petitioner has first contended that the writ petition deserves to be allowed as they have been discharging their duties as Class-IV employees and non-payment of their salary is violative under Article 23 of the Constitution of India. It is further contended that the appointments of the petitioners are in accordance with law and the principal, who was appointing authority, has filed counter affidavit admitting the appointments of the petitioners. 11. The second contention of the petitioners is that the report which has been filed as Annexure-C. A-1 to the counter affidavit by the D. I. O. S. cannot be relied upon as it is an ex parte report as no point of time the petitioners were ever associated in the enquiry and as such their salary cannot be permitted to be withheld. 12. The third contention of the petitioner is that Sri Shitla Prasad Shahi was the Principal of the institution and his signatures were duly attested on 1-7-1992. It is submitted on this basis that Sri Shitla Prasad Shahi is not a principal on 1-7-1992, is not correct. 13. The first contention of the petitioner has no force. Admittedly according to the own submission of the petitioner, the signatures of Sri Shitla Prasad Shahi were duly attested on 1-7-1992 as principal. It is submitted on this basis that Sri Shitla Prasad Shahi is not a principal on 1-7-1992, is not correct. 13. The first contention of the petitioner has no force. Admittedly according to the own submission of the petitioner, the signatures of Sri Shitla Prasad Shahi were duly attested on 1-7-1992 as principal. This follows that he was not a principal of the institution prior to 1-7-1992. From the perusal of the records it is established that the said advertisement Annexure-1 to the writ petition said to have been published by S. P. Shahi as principal and in pursuance of which the petitioners are said to have applied against the substantive posts and were appointed, is prior to 1-7-1992. Further according to the petitioners, they appeared before the Selection Committee and were selected by the Selection Committee and joined their posts on 1-7-1992. This fact establishes beyond doubt that Sri Shitla Prasad Shahi could not have issued the advertisement following for invitation for appointments of Class-IV employees as Principal of the college prior to 1-7-1992. 14. Even it is assumed that the petitioners were appointed by the said Shitla Prasad Shahi, the alleged Principal of the institution, no financial sanction was ever granted by the D. I. O. S. and as such they are not entitled to get their salary under the provisions of U. P. High School and Intermediate College (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971. At the most they are entitled to get salary from the institution as their appointments are not in accordance with the Rules and no financial sanction has been granted by the D. I. O. S. If they have not been paid salary from the institution, they cannot make any grievance against the D. I. O. S. Any illegality in the appointments made by the institution against the rules, cannot be regularized. Granting illegal right in exercise of extra-ordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by directing the D. I. O. S. to grant financial sanction would not only set a bad precedent, but would also be setting of a wrong trend in educational institutions. 15. Granting illegal right in exercise of extra-ordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by directing the D. I. O. S. to grant financial sanction would not only set a bad precedent, but would also be setting of a wrong trend in educational institutions. 15. Neither any rule, law or regulation nor any administrative order has been placed before this Court on the basis of which the petitioners could claim the right for payment of salary under the provisions of U. P. High School and Intermediate College (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 when the financial sanction has not been granted by the D. I. O. S. In these circumstances I do not find any force in this contention. 16. The second contention of the petitioners that Annexure-C. A-1 is an exparte report as no point of time the petitioners were ever associated in the enquiry and as such the salary of the petitioners cannot be withheld, is also misconceived. It is admitted to the petitioners that their appointments were made by the Principal of the institution and according to the them, he had forwarded the papers to the D. I. O. S. , Deoria for grant of financial sanction for payment of their salary. The District Inspector of Schools, Deoria, Respondent No. 1 has categorically denied that no such papers had ever been received in his office for granting financial sanction. On the contrary it has been stated that these appointments are FARZI and the State is not liable to pay salary to the petitioners. In so far as the enquiry is concerned, D. I. O. S. has rightly based his conclusion on the papers submitted to the interrogatories by the principal. It has nothing to do with the petitioners, it cannot be said that the report of the D. I. O. S. is an exparte without hearing the necessary parties, and even otherwise also whatever the petitioners could have shown, they have stated in the rejoinder affidavit, which has been examined by this Court. 17. As regards the third contention of the petitioners, it is apparent from the records of this case as well as from the contention of the parties that the appointments of the petitioners were not as per Rules. 17. As regards the third contention of the petitioners, it is apparent from the records of this case as well as from the contention of the parties that the appointments of the petitioners were not as per Rules. There were only fourteen sanctioned posts of Class-IV employees and the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria was not at all applied to grant financial sanction for four additional posts, which has been made against the rules. The contention of the petitioners that their appointments have been made on the posts in accordance with law by the Principal of the institution, is not correct. 18. Apart from the above, under Regulation 101 it is mandate upon the appointing authority not to pay the non-teaching staff except without prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools. The use of word shall in the Regulation 101 makes it obligatory upon the appointing authority to obtain prior approval from the D. I. O. S. before filling any vacancy of non-teaching post in the institution. Further use of word except with prior approval of the D. I. O. S. do not give discretionary power to the appointing authority, Regulation 101 is as under: " (101) The appointing authority shall not fill any vacancy in the non-teaching staff of a recognized aided institution except with the prior approval of the Inspector. " 19. In Amit Kumar v. D. I. O. S. , Jaunpur, 2001 (2) LBESR 248 (All) ; 2001 UPLBEC 702, it has been held by a Single Judge of this Court that the Regulation 101 cannot be treated to be directory and this interpretation would result in giving power to the appointing authority for making appointment and thereafter obtain financial sanction. This Court held: "if Regulation 101 is treated to be directory then the appointing authority could make appointment on non-teaching post even without prior approval of the DIOS. It would result in giving power to the appointing authority to make appointment first and thereafter obtain financial approval. This was not the intention of legislature or the Rule making authority. And it clearly intended that before making any appointment the appointing authority must obtain prior approval of the DIOS. The legislative intent has to be given effect to while interpreting regulatory provisions of Regulation 101. Regulations 103 to 106 to Regulations further make it clear that the Regulation 101 cannot be construed as permissive or directory. And it clearly intended that before making any appointment the appointing authority must obtain prior approval of the DIOS. The legislative intent has to be given effect to while interpreting regulatory provisions of Regulation 101. Regulations 103 to 106 to Regulations further make it clear that the Regulation 101 cannot be construed as permissive or directory. Further the procedural safeguard contained in Regulation 101, making it obligatory for the appointing authority in matter of making appointment on non-teaching post, not to fill the vacancy except with the prior approval of the DIOS, has an element of public interest. " 20. Since the petitioners have contended that they are still working since the date of their appointment by the Principal of the institution, they may raise their prayer of salary before the Principal of the institution. This Court will not regularize their appointments by directing the D. I. O. S. to grant financial sanction to the appointments of the petitioners in these aforesaid circumstances. 21. In view of the facts stated above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .