JUDGMENT Honble Shishir Kumar, J.—Sri Vinai Singh, Advocate, who appears for the petitioner is permitted to delete the Committee of Management, respondent No. 2. 2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has approached this Court for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 13-5-2002 (Annexure 18 to the writ petition). Further issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioner regularly from month to month including arrears from 28.12.1992. 3. The facts arising out of the writ petition are that there is an institution known as Trigunanand Janta Inter College, Bankata Station, District Deoria is a recognized institution and in grant-in-aid list. All the teachers and employees are being paid salary through the State Government under the Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees Act, 1971. The institution is being run by the Committee of Management according to the approved scheme of administration. One Ram Tapasya Prasad, L.T. grade teacher retired on 30.6.1992, the senior most teacher in C.T. grade Sri Vashistha Narayan Tewari was promoted on ad-hoc basis who was working as C.T. grade teacher. On the basis of promotion of Sri Vashistha Narayan Tewari, a short-term vacancy has taken place in C.T. grade. The Committee of Management wanted to fill up the said short-term vacancy as such, an intimation to this effect was given to the District Inspector of Schools for the said purpose. When the District Inspector of Schools, respondent No. 1 has not intimated anything then an advertisement was made in the newspaper and the Selection Committee was constituted and as the petitioner was fully eligible, has been selected and appointed. An intimation to this effect was given to the District Inspector of Schools on 17.12.1992. A copy of the same has been filed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition. In spite of the repeated reminders, the respondent No. 1 has not passed any order then the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court as Writ Petition No. 3107 of 1995, which was finally disposed of by this Court vide its order dated 6.2.1995 with the direction to the respondent No. 1 to pass appropriate orders. A certified copy of the order and a reminder was sent then ultimately by order dated 26.4.2000, the District Inspector of Schools has rejected the claim of the petitioner. A certified copy of the order and a reminder was sent then ultimately by order dated 26.4.2000, the District Inspector of Schools has rejected the claim of the petitioner. A copy of the same has been filed as Annexure 10 to the writ petition. Petitioner aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondent No. 1 has again approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 33928 of 2000 which was finally allowed by this Court on 19.11.2001 and order dated 26/28.4.2000 was quashed and the District Inspector of Schools was directed to decide the matter within a period of three months after affording full opportunity to the petitioner. 4. Petitioner submits that he immediately filed a detailed representation as well as various documents annexing certified copy of the order passed by this Court before the respondent No. 1 but the respondent No. 1 again without considering the controversy involved in the case has rejected the claim of the petitioner vide its order dated 13.5.2002. A copy of the same has been filed as Annexure 18 to the writ petition. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has approached this Court. 5. Notices were issued and counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged, as such, the writ petition is being disposed of finally at this stage. 6. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is no dispute to this effect that the appointment of the petitioner was made on the basis of vacancy caused by promotion of Sri Vashisth Narayan Tewari. It is also not in dispute that for the purposes of approval for ad hoc promotion of Vashisth Narayan Tewari and relating to the appointment of the petitioner on the basis of the said vacancy in C.T. grade, for the purposes of approval of the appointment of the petitioner, a composite resolution was sent to the District Inspector of Schools but the District Inspector of Schools deliberately has not passed any order. It has further been submitted that from 1992 till 1995 the respondent No. 1 has not passed any order then the petitioner has approached this Court and this Court had directed the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. It has further been submitted that from 1992 till 1995 the respondent No. 1 has not passed any order then the petitioner has approached this Court and this Court had directed the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. The claim of the petitioner has only been rejected on the ground that as the promotion of Sri Vashisth Narayan Tewari has been approved by the competent authority on 31.12.1997, therefore, on the date when the petitioner was appointed there was no vacancy. The petitioner submits that the ground taken by the respondent No. 1 is not correct to this effect that it is clear from the record that appointment of the petitioner is of 1992 and the resolution of the Committee of Management was sent immediately after the appointment of the petitioner. If the appointment of Vashisth Narayan Tewari is approved from 31.12.1997 then the petitioner is entitled to approval of his appointment at least from 31.12.1997. The finding to this effect that when the petitioner was appointed there was no vacancy on 16.12.1992. This finding is based on no evidence. Admittedly a short-term vacancy has taken place. Immediately on the day when Sri Vasisth Narayan Tewari was promoted on ad-hoc basis on the post of L.T. grade teacher. The Court taken into all the issues was pleased to set aside the order and again directed the District Inspector of Schools to pass appropriate orders. Now by impugned order, the respondent No. 1 has recorded a contrary finding that no papers relating to the appointment of the petitioner was ever submitted. The respondent No. 1 has recorded two contradictory finding relating to receiving of the records and relating to appointment of the petitioner. In earlier order the respondent No. 1 has held that office of the District Inspector of Schools has received the record but in the impugned order it has been stated that in the year 1992, no record has been submitted and only to get the relief from the High Court some forged papers have been submitted. The finding to this effect that at the time of appointment was made there was no vacancy is also not correct. The petitioner is at least entitled to get the approval of his appointment from the date when the ad hoc appointment of Sri Vashisth Narayan Tewari has been approved. 7. The finding to this effect that at the time of appointment was made there was no vacancy is also not correct. The petitioner is at least entitled to get the approval of his appointment from the date when the ad hoc appointment of Sri Vashisth Narayan Tewari has been approved. 7. As regards, the functioning of the petitioner, the petitioner has placed reliance upon Annexure 19 dated 31.1.2000 in which the principal of the institution has given a certificate that the petitioner is teaching in the institution from 30.12.1992 as the appointment of the petitioner was made under the Removal of Difficulties order and the Committee of Management was fully competent to filled the short-term vacancy and to make ad hoc appointments. The intimation was sent to the District Inspector of Schools but no reply was given as such, after following the procedure the Committee of Management has filled the short-term vacancy and papers relating to appointment of petitioner were send to District Inspector of Schools. 8. The further submission of Sri V.K. Singh, Senior Advocate is that in view of the Removal of Difficulties (Second) Order, 1981, Rule 2, sub-clause IV clearly states that if for the purpose of approval the papers to the District Inspector of Schools have been sent and on his failure to communicate the decision within seven days of the receipt of papers by him, the management shall appoint the selected candidates and an order shall be issued under the signature of the Management. It has further been submitted by Sri Singh that this Court has interpreted that if the communication has been made and in case of failure by the District Inspector of Schools it will be deemed approved if no reply has been given by the respondent No. 1, District Inspector of Schools within seven days and has placed reliance upon a judgment reported in 1991 ACJ 125, Sehsar Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and Sukhnandan v. District Inspector of Schools, 1990 ACJ 125. 9. The further reliance has been placed by the petitioner upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 1998(3) ESC 2006 (All), Ashika Prasad Shukla v. District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad. 9. The further reliance has been placed by the petitioner upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 1998(3) ESC 2006 (All), Ashika Prasad Shukla v. District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad. In support of this contention Sri V.K. Singh learned Senior Advocate has submitted that the contention of the respondent No. 1 cannot be accepted as the Radha Raizada’s case has been decided in 1994 and the guidelines and the criteria laid down in the said Full Bench judgment is not applicable in the case of the petitioner as admittedly, the appointment of the petitioner was prior to the decision of Radha Raizada’s case and further submitted that prior to that date short-term vacancy without advertisement in two newspapers of wide circulation cannot be held invalid only on that ground as there was no criteria prior to that date. In the present case, the advertisement was made and the appointment of the petitioner was made according to rules, as such, the District Inspector of Schools was obliged to accord an approval of the appointment of the petitioner. 10. A counter-affidavit has been filed. The learned Standing Counsel wanted to support the order of the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria on the ground that as the approval of Sri Vashisth Narayan Tewari was of 1997, therefore, on the day when the petitioner was appointed there was no vacancy and the post can only be filled in 1997 and without vacancy the appointment of the petitioner has been made. There was no record before the respondent No. 1, as such, the respondent No. 1 has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner. 11. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel and have perused the record. 12. From the record, it is clear that Vashisth Narayan Tiwari was promoted on the post of L.T. grade teacher on 16.12.1992 and the papers were sent for approval but the same has been approved by the District Inspector of Schools on 31.12.1997 reasons best known to him. 12. From the record, it is clear that Vashisth Narayan Tiwari was promoted on the post of L.T. grade teacher on 16.12.1992 and the papers were sent for approval but the same has been approved by the District Inspector of Schools on 31.12.1997 reasons best known to him. It is also clear from the record that immediately after promotion of Vashisth Narayan Tewari, a short-term vacancy has taken place and an intimation to that effect has been given to the District Inspector of Schools and when the District Inspector of Schools has not responded then an advertisement was published in ‘Simarekha’ for the purposes of appointment in C.T. grade and immediately after consideration for appointment of the petitioner, the Committee of Management has sent all the relevant papers on 17.12.1992 to the District Inspector of Schools but the District Inspector of Schools kept mum and when the petitioner approached this Court and a direction was issued by this Court to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner vide its order dated 6.2.1995, then the respondent No. 1 had passed an order, rejecting the claim vide its order dated 26.4.2000, holding therein that as the promotion of Vashisth Narayan Tewari was approved on 31.12.1997, as such, on 16.12.1992 there was no vacancy. 13. The said order passed by the District Inspector of Schools was quashed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 33928 of 2000 and the District Inspector of Schools was directed to decide the same within a period of three months, then, again the District Inspector of Schools taking same view has rejected the claim of the petitioner. There are contradiction in two orders passed by the respondent No. 1. In the earlier order, he said that the papers were received but in the impugned order it has been held that no papers have been sent in the year 1992 and the same view has been taken that as the promotion of Sri Vashisth Narayan Tewari was approved in 1997, therefore, prior to that there was no vacancy. 14. In my opinion, the finding recorded by respondent No. 1 is contradictory as he has taken a different stand in two orders. In the earlier order he said that the papers were received but in the subsequent order he said that no papers have been sent. 14. In my opinion, the finding recorded by respondent No. 1 is contradictory as he has taken a different stand in two orders. In the earlier order he said that the papers were received but in the subsequent order he said that no papers have been sent. This Court fails to understand that what stand the respondent No. 1 wanted to take. As regards, the short-term vacancy in 1992, the contention of the respondent No. 1 cannot be accepted. As admittedly, a composite resolution of promotion and appointment has been sent. If subsequently the same authority has approved the ad hoc promotion of Sri Vashisth Narayan Tewari may be from later date, he cannot hold that there was no vacancy on the date when he was promoted. The petitioner is at least entitle to approval of his appointment from 1997, the date when the ad hoc promotion of Sri Vashisth Narayan Tewari was approved by the respondent No. 1. In view of the aforesaid fact, I am of the opinion, that the order passed by the respondent No. 1 dated 13.5.2002 (Annexure 18 to the writ petition) cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. 15. The writ petition is allowed and the orders passed by the respondent No. 1 dated 13.5.2002 is hereby quashed and the respondent No. 1 is directed to accord financial approval relating to appointment of the petitioner for the purposes of payment of salary within a period of two months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order. 16. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition Allowed. ————