JUDGMENT : Rakesh Tiwari, J. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by Suresh Kumar Sharma and Anil Kumar challenging the validity and correctness of the order dated 17.6.1996, Annexure-13 to the writ petition. The aforesaid impugned order has been passed by the D.I.O.S., Muzaffarnagar, by which it has been held that the appointment of the Petitioners was illegal and in contravention of G.O. dated 21st June, 1993 and direction issued by means of a letter dated 18.6.1993 from the office of the District Inspector of Schools, Muzaffarnagar. 3. By order dated 18.5.1993, the college was informed that no appointments are to be made, but inspite of ban, the Manager of Janta Inter College, Sainpur Parasuli, district Muzaffarnagar had made illegal appointments of the Petitioners in contravention of the G.O. dated 21st June, 1993 and clear instructions in this regard. 4. Brief facts of the case are that Janta Inter College, Sainpur Parasuli, district Muzaffarnagar, is a recognised and aided Intermediate College. The provisions of Act No. 24 of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1971, are applicable to it. A vacancy was published in the newspaper for L.T. grade teachers in the institution on 17.6.1993. It is alleged that the Petitioners submitted applications along with relevant documents to Respondent No. 2 for their appointment. The concerned authorities considered applications and appointed the Petitioners as L.T. grade teachers vide appointment letters dated 28.6.1993. The Petitioners would be entitled to payment of salary only after the approval is granted by the competent authority. Both the appointment letters are in the same language. The appointment letter of Suresh Kumar Sharma is quoted below: Other language 5. A perusal of the appointment letter shows that the Petitioners had joined the services in the institution after accepting the conditions therein and had given their consent to it. 6. The Petitioners joined the college on 2.7.1993. After being appointed by the Committee of Management, the papers of the Petitioners were sent for approval to the D.I.O.S., but no order granting approval was passed within a period of 60 days. The Petitioners thereafter filed Writ Petition No. 32594 of 1993 along with two other persons, namely, Vinay Kumar Sharma and Ghanshyam Sharma. An ad interim order dated 10.9.1993 was passed restraining the Respondents from making any appointment in pursuance of the order dated 14.7.1992. The Petitioners thereafter filed Writ Petition No. 32594 of 1993 along with two other persons, namely, Vinay Kumar Sharma and Ghanshyam Sharma. An ad interim order dated 10.9.1993 was passed restraining the Respondents from making any appointment in pursuance of the order dated 14.7.1992. It was, however, provided that this order shall cease to have effect in case the validity of the amendment of Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Act by the Ordinance is upheld by this Court vide order dated 14.8.1995. The writ petition was thereafter dismissed as withdrawn on an application submitted by the Petitioners. 7. This writ petition has been filed with the allegations that the Writ Petition No. 32594 of 1993 was withdrawn on the verbal assurance of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, i.e., District Inspector of Schools and the Committee of Management and after withdrawal of the aforesaid writ petition, the Petitioners continued discharging their duties, but Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not stick to their verbal assurance. It is further alleged in this writ petition that the Manager of the institution became annoyed with the Petitioners and took resignation by undue force and duress from the Petitioners in writing. It is further stated that the Petitioners represented the D.I.O.S., but no action has been taken, hence the Petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 30349 of 1995, Suresh Kumar Sharma and Anr. v. D.I.O.S. and Ors. This writ petition was disposed of by judgment and order dated 30.10.1995 with the direction to the D.I.O.S. to consider the representation of the Petitioners and dispose of the same within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. The Petitioners alleged that after receipt of the order dated 30.10.1995, Respondent No. 1 passed the impugned order holding that action of the Respondents seems to be illegal and arbitrary. 8. This order has been assailed by the Petitioners on the ground that they have not been given full opportunity of hearing and that the Petitioners' resignations have been accepted by the Manager or not, has not been considered by the D.I.O.S., as he had not granted approval to their appointments. 9. 8. This order has been assailed by the Petitioners on the ground that they have not been given full opportunity of hearing and that the Petitioners' resignations have been accepted by the Manager or not, has not been considered by the D.I.O.S., as he had not granted approval to their appointments. 9. It is submitted by the counsel for the Petitioners that Intermediate Education Act applies to the institution, but the D.I.O.S. has not applied its mind and the action of the D.I.O.S. for refusing to cancel the alleged resignations, is arbitrary. 10. From the facts narrated above and the record of the writ petition, the following facts emerge: "(1) The vacancies were not adverted in two wide circulated newspapers and the Petitioners were given appointments by the Committee of Management after allegedly notifying vacancies on the notice board. (2) The appointments of the Petitioners made by the Committee of Management were collusive and illegal. (3) There is no mention in the writ petition as to the number of candidates, who appeared in the interview along with the Petitioners and who were members of the selection committee. (4) The appointments of the Petitioners were not approved by the D.I.O.S. and the financial sanction was not granted. (5) No illegality in the impugned order of the D.I.O.S. could be pointed out by the counsel for the Petitioners and it has no where been denied that the vacancies were not notified and published in two daily newspapers having wide circulation." 11. When this writ petition was filed by the Petitioners, no interim order was granted by the Court. The appointment of the Petitioners was void ab initio and in infraction of the rules and procedure. Their appointment was made by the Committee of Management by back door entry and cannot be legalized by this Court. Their appointment not having been approved by the D.I.O.S., no financial sanction was granted by him, as the Committee of Management had no right to make appointment. 12. From perusal of appointment letters, it appears that the Petitioners were appointed by the Committee of Management on the terms that their appointment is subject to approval by the D.I.O.S. and they shall be paid their salary only after their appointments are approved. The D.I.O.S. has considered the case of the Petitioners. 12. From perusal of appointment letters, it appears that the Petitioners were appointed by the Committee of Management on the terms that their appointment is subject to approval by the D.I.O.S. and they shall be paid their salary only after their appointments are approved. The D.I.O.S. has considered the case of the Petitioners. Since no illegality could be pointed out in the impugned order that the Committee of Management is responsible for the appointment of the Petitioners. The D.I.O.S. has nothing to do with the illegal appointment of the Petitioners and has decided the representation of the Petitioner under orders of this Court. 13. For all these reasons, it is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.