JUDGMENT Vineet Saran, J.—Respondent No. 3 Kamal Singh was appointed as assistant teacher in Subhash Memorial Junior High School, Jahangirabad, District Bulandshahr on 5.7.1990 after approval had been accorded on 22.5.1990 for such appointment by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Bulandshahr, respondent No. 2. Subsequently on a complaint having been made before the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari that Kamal Singh, respondent No. 3, did not possess the requisite qualification as the Shiksha Shastri degree obtained from Varanasi Sanskrit University was not duly recognised, the matter of grant of approval was re-considered by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari and by its order dated 25/30.5.1994, the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari cancelled his earlier approval accorded in favour of respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 thereafter challenged the said order by filing a writ petition which was dismissed. Special Appeal No. 864 of 1995 filed against the judgment passed in the writ petition was also dismissed. A special leave petition was thereafter filed before the Apex Court. Since in the meantime the respondent No. 3 had in 1994 obtained a B.Ed. degree from Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut, the Apex Court, on 10.11.1995, while dismissing the special leave petition as withdrawn, had granted permission to the respondent No. 3 to move the appropriate authority for consideration of his case in the light of the qualification which he had acquired subsequently. The respondent No. 3 thus approached the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari by way of filing a representation on 17.1.1996 which had been decided by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Bulandshahr, respondent No. 2, by his order dated 22/27.6.1996 and after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, a direction was issued to the Committee of Management of the institution to permit the respondent No. 3 to join as assistant teacher. Aggrieved by the said order the Committee of Management of Subhash Memorial Junior High School, Jahangirabad, Bulandshahr has filed this writ petition. 2. When the petitioner-Committee of Management did not permit the respondent No. 3 to join duties as assistant teacher, the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari again on 30.7.1996 directed the Manager of the institution to allow the respondent No. 3 to join duties. 2. When the petitioner-Committee of Management did not permit the respondent No. 3 to join duties as assistant teacher, the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari again on 30.7.1996 directed the Manager of the institution to allow the respondent No. 3 to join duties. On the request of the petitioner-Committee of Management asking the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari to re-consider his order, the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari again on 26.8.1996 directed the Manager of the college to take the signature of the respondent on the college register and inform his office. The petitioner has thus challenged the subsequent orders dated 30.7.1996 and 26.8.1996 also in this writ petition. 3. I have heard Sri A. K. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri B. Dayal, learned counsel assisted by Sri Neeraj Agrawal, appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent No. 3 Kamal Singh. 4. From the record it appears that the University Grants Commission had, on 17.9.1993, declared that Varanasi Sanskrit University was not a recognised University. The finding recorded by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari in the impugned order dated 27.6.1996 is to the effect that the respondent No. 3 was not at fault in obtaining the degree granted from the said University which had been derecognised. It was also found that the respondent No. 3 did not have knowledge of the fact that Varanasi Sanskrit University was not a recognised University at the time when he had sought appointment. It was further held that in view of the fact that as the respondent No. 3 had subsequently in 1994 already obtained a valid B.Ed. degree from a recognised University, he could be treated in service from the date he joins as Assistant Teacher in the institution. A further direction was issued to the Manager of the institution to permit the respondent No. 3 to join his duties. 5. It is not disputed that the initial approval had been accorded by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari on 22.5.1990. It cannot be said that the respondent No. 3 was in any way responsible for concealing any material fact or committing any fraud while obtaining the approval. On the contrary, by the impugned order a finding has been recorded by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari that the respondent No. 3 was not at fault for the same. It cannot be said that the respondent No. 3 was in any way responsible for concealing any material fact or committing any fraud while obtaining the approval. On the contrary, by the impugned order a finding has been recorded by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari that the respondent No. 3 was not at fault for the same. As such in my view the impugned order has been passed in consonance with the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Dr. M. S. Mudhol v. S. D. Halegkar, 1993 (2) ESC 245. In the aforesaid case, where the Principal of a private aided school did not possess the requisite qualification and his appointment had been duly approved by the Director of Education, the Apex Court observed that “since we find that it was the default on the part of the 2nd respondent, Director of Education in illegally approving the appointment of the first respondent in 1981 although he did not have the requisite academic qualifications as a result of which the 1st respondent has continued to hold the said post for the last 12 years now, it would be inadvisable to disturb him from the said post at this late stage particularly when he was not at fault when his selection was made. There is nothing on record to show that he had at that time projected his qualifications other than what he possessed”. Thus, the Apex Court held that it would be inequitous to make him suffer for the same now as the illegally, if any, was committed by the Selection Committee, and the Director of Education alone could be blamed for the same. 6. In the present case also there is a clear finding of fact that the respondent No. 3 was not at fault nor he had in any manner misrepresented at the time of seeking appointment on the basis of which approval had been accorded in his favour. Further, an additional fact in this case would be that the respondent No. 3 has subsequently, in the year 1994, acquired the requisite qualification of B.Ed. from a duly recognised University and as such it cannot be said that the respondent No. 3 is now not qualified for such appointment. Further, an additional fact in this case would be that the respondent No. 3 has subsequently, in the year 1994, acquired the requisite qualification of B.Ed. from a duly recognised University and as such it cannot be said that the respondent No. 3 is now not qualified for such appointment. In the given circumstances, the direction given by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari that respondent No. 3 shall be treated in service and appointed from the date he joins his duty cannot be said to be wrong or inequitable. 7. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union Public Service Commission v. Alpana, JT 1994 (1) SC 94, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner would not be applicable in the present case. In that case the applicant was required to possess Law Degree as on 20.8.1988 and since the results of the law examination of the candidate had been declared in October, 1988, the said candidate was held to be disqualified for such appointment. Similarly, the decisions in two other cases, namely, Keshaeo Ram Dargan v. D.I.O.S., Haridwar, 1997 (2) ESC 892 (All) and Dr. Raman Kumar Pandey v. Sukhram Pal Singh Sehrawat and others, 1995 (1) ESC 74 (All), relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, would also not be applicable. The position of law that a candidate who did not possess the requisite qualification as on the date of his appointment could not be selected, cannot be disputed. However, the present case stands on a different footing. The respondent No. 3 was declared to be disqualified because of de-recognition of the University which had granted the degree to the respondent No. 3, on the basis of which he got appointment and the approval had been accorded for the same. Thus, the ratio of the aforesaid cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner would not apply to the facts of the present case. 8. Accordingly, in my view, the order passed by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari is in accordance with law and in the facts of the case, has been passed with a humanitarian approach which does not call for interference in this discretionary writ jurisdiction. It is, thus, directed that the petitioner shall permit the respondent No. 3 to join duties as assistant teacher. It is, thus, directed that the petitioner shall permit the respondent No. 3 to join duties as assistant teacher. The respondent No. 3 shall be given his seniority and other consequential benefits treating him to be in service only from the date of passing of the impugned order dated 27.6.1996 and not from his initial joining in the year 1990. 9. With the aforesaid direction this writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to cost.