ANJANI KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THE questions of fact and law raised in these two petitions are common, therefore, they are dealt with together. ( 2 ) FROM the prayer in the writ petition, it is abundantly clear that the question raised is covered by a decision of the Apex Court in T. G. Godavarman Thriwnulkpad v. Union of India and Ors. , 1997 (3) SCC 312 , which has been relied upon by the Division Bench of this Court and the division Bench has been pleased to issue direction which runs as under : "it may be noted that on the basis of the Supreme Court judgment, the State of Uttar pradesh amended the original rules and as such, the authority should have considered whether the application has been made on the basis of the said rules and the compliance of the rules have been made or not. That aspect of the matter has been overlooked by both the authorities. If the appellate authority finds that the application is as per the requirement of the rules and in accordance with the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of T. G. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India and Ors. (supra) the permission ought to have been granted. In that view of the matter, we direct the appellate authority to reconsider the question again and take a decision In accordance with law recording reasons. The writ petition stands disposed with the above observations. However, it is made clear that we have not adjudicated upon the merits of the case. " ( 3 ) THESE two writ petitions stand disposed of with the aforesaid direction. .