JUDGMENT Hon’ble Bharati Sapru, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The petitioners numbering 1 to 6 were candidates who applied for Class- lV posts in the institution known as Seth Anandram Jaipuriya Inter College, Anand Nagar, Maharajganj. The petitioners had applied against posts, which were advertised on 28.5.2002. It is the contention of the petitioners that they appeared in the process of selection, faced an interview and were declared successful and were issued letters of appointment on 12.6.2002 by the Principal of the institution. 3. It is the petitioner’s contention that the petitioners were issued letter of appointment by the Principal of the institution and they joined the institution on 14.6.2002, 15.6.2002 and 17.6.2002. The District Inspector of Schools issued a letter to the Principal of the institution on 25.7.2002 in which he mentioned that some objections were raised by the President of the Regional Committee. Thereafter, the D.I.O.S. issued a letter to the Principal on 1.1.2003 by which, the D.I.O.S. stated that the selections of the petitioners No. 1 to 6 have been made beyond the reservation quota and asked for a report to be sent with regard to the vacancies, which had occurred in the institution in question. Thereafter, letter dated 18.12.2003 had been issued by the Joint Director of Education by which, the appointment of the petitioners have not been approved, rather they have been rejected. 4. The case as set-up by the petitioner is that the D.I.O.S. Maharajganj had already granted prior approval on 30.4.2002. The letter of the D.I.O.S. dated 30.4.2002 is appended as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The petitioner has placed heavy reliance on this letter and has argued that in fact this letter amounted to grant of prior approval to the appointment of the petitioner. 5. Learned Standing Counsel has argued in reply that Regulation 101 Chapter III of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 contemplates prior approval to the appointment, which is to be made. The purpose is for the grant of financial sanction. It stands to reason that prior approval to appointment can only be sought before the issuance of the letter of appointment, which can only be issued after completing the process of selection. Learned Counsel for the State has argued that Regulation 101 does not contemplate the granting of prior approval to initiate the process of selection. 6. It stands to reason that prior approval to appointment can only be sought before the issuance of the letter of appointment, which can only be issued after completing the process of selection. Learned Counsel for the State has argued that Regulation 101 does not contemplate the granting of prior approval to initiate the process of selection. 6. Learned Standing Counsel has argued that the letter on which the petitioner relies dated 24.4.2002 is a letter which was issued much before even the selection process has started and, therefore, cannot be termed as a letter granting prior approval. According to the petitioner also, the process of selection was completed on 12.6.2003. There is no approval, which has been granted after 12.6.2003. 7. Learned Standing Counsel has placed in the counter-affidavit a document dated 1.1.2003 (Annexure-C.A.-2) from which, it is apparent that out of 17 posts of Class-IV employees in the institution, 11 posts are already filled-up and six posts are remaining vacant. Five posts out of the six posts, which are remaining vacant are of the general category and, therefore, the documents dated 1.1.2003 issued notice to the Principal of the institution to show cause as to how these posts which were in the general category were filled-up by the candidates belonging to the reserved category. 8. The Principal has also filed a counter-affidavit but the affidavit as filed by the Principal does not state anywhere that after making the selection on 12.6.2003, the Principal had obtained prior approval of the D.I.O.S. 9. Learned Standing Counsel has brought to notice of this Court the recent judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Jagdish Singh etc. v. State of U.P., 2006(3) ESC 2055 , in which, this Court has taken a view that the expression ‘prior approval’ as contemplated under Regulation 101 of Chapter-Ill of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 clearly means prior approval by the D.I.O.S. after the completion of the process of selection and before the issuance of appointment letter to the selected candidates. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by this decision. 10. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by this decision. 10. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the other side, I am of the opinion that in this particular case, no prior approval was granted in favour of the petitioners before the issuance of the letter of appointment and, therefore, the impugned order contains no error of law. The Principal of the institution has already been given a show cause notice by the D.I.O.S. to explain as to how he issued letters of appointment to candidates in the reserved category when the vacancies were of general category. 11. The matter certainly requires review and enquiry. Since the petitioners were selected by the Principal and if undertaken a process of selection, the matter which is being reviewed by the D.I.O.S./competent authority may also have six vacancies of the institution in question. The petitioners as stated above, who were the candidates selected by the Principal, may also be given an opportunity of hearing by the D.I.O.S. 12. They are allowed to submit their individual representations to the D.I.O.S. stating their claim; The D.I.O.S. will pass orders on the issue of these vacancies within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of. ————