JUDGMENT Hon’ble Tarun AgarwaIa, J.—Heard Sri V.K. Singh, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. A Class-IV post became vacant in the institution upon the retirement of Sri Jawahar on 31.3.2006. The Principal, being the competent authority, issued an advertisement in a daily newspaper on 17.6.2006 inviting applications for filling up the said post. The Principal also wrote a letter to the District Inspector of Schools seeking permission to fill up the said post. The District Inspector of Schools, by an order dated 19.6.2006, granted permission to the institution to fill up the vacancy. Based on the aforesaid advertisement, the petitioner also applied and was selected by the competent authority and, an appointment letter dated 28.6.2006 was issued. The necessary papers were forwarded by the Principal to the District Inspector of Schools for financial approval. The District Inspector of Schools, by an order dated 19.9.2006, refused to accord financial sanction to the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that previous permission had not been obtained by the institution before advertising the post and that only 11 days’ time was given to the applicant to apply for the said post instead of 15 days. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition. 3. Regulation 101 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act provides as under : “101. Appointing Authority except with prior approval of Inspector shall not fill up any vacancy of non-teaching post of any recognized aided institution : Provided that filling of the vacancy on the post of Jamadar may be granted by the Inspector.” 4. The provision contemplates that prior approval of the Inspector is required before filling up any vacancy. The moot question which arises for consideration is, whether prior approval is required before advertising the said post or before issuing the appointment letter. A Division Bench of this Court in Jagdish Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2006(2) ADJ 710 , has held as under : “The observation of the learned Single Judge in Ram Dhani’s case (supra) that previous approval under Regulation 101 is required to be taken before issuing advertisement for filling up vacancy does not lay down correct law. A Division Bench of this Court in Jagdish Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2006(2) ADJ 710 , has held as under : “The observation of the learned Single Judge in Ram Dhani’s case (supra) that previous approval under Regulation 101 is required to be taken before issuing advertisement for filling up vacancy does not lay down correct law. We, however, make it clear that although prior approval is required from the District Inspector of Schools after completion of process of selection but there is no prohibition in the Principal/Management to seek permission of the District Inspector of Schools for filling up vacancy by direct recruitment. The permission may or may not be granted by the District Inspector of Schools but even if such permission to start the selection process or to issue advertisement is granted that is not akin to prior approval as contemplated under Regulation 101. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that prior approval contemplated under Regulation 101 is prior approval by the District Inspector of Schools after completion of process of selection and before issuance of appointment letter to the selected candidate.” 5. The Division Bench held that it is not necessary that permission is sought by the institution seeking permission to issue an advertisement for filling up the post and that it is mandatory that prior approval is obtained from the Inspector before issuing an appointment letter. In the present case, the advertisement was issued on 17.6.2006 and permission was granted by the Inspector on 19.6.2006. No doubt the advertisement was issued prior to seeking permission and in view of the Division Bench decision (supra), the issuance of the advertisement prior to seeking permission was not fatal to the selection process. Further, after the selection process, the Principal sought financial approval of the appointment of the petitioner which was in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 101 of the aforesaid Regulations. In view of the aforesaid, this Court holds that there is no defect in the procedure adopted by the Principal in advertising the post on 17.6.2006. 6. In so far as the time factor is concerned, this Court finds that no period is prescribed under Regulation 101 for giving a time factor to the prospective candidates to apply for the post in question. 6. In so far as the time factor is concerned, this Court finds that no period is prescribed under Regulation 101 for giving a time factor to the prospective candidates to apply for the post in question. Normally 15 days’ time is considered sufficient for a prospective candidate to apply for the post. In the present case, only 11 days’ time was granted but, by giving only 11 days’ time will not make the selection process illegal on the ground that sufficient time was not granted since there is no complaint from any prospective candidates in this regard. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that 11 days’ time given in the advertisement for applying for the post could at best be a mere irregularity and is not fatal to the selection process. It is however, made clear that in future all appointments made under Regulation 101, a minimum of 15 days’ time should be given in the advertisement for applying for the post for the proposed candidate. In this regard the State Government is directed to amend the Regulations. However, till such time the Regulations are not amended, the Secretary, Secondary Education will issue a circular to all the educational institutions in the State of U.P. bringing this fact to their knowledge so that in future a minimum of 15 days time is granted in the advertisement for the prospective candidate to apply for the post in question. 7. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. 8. The matter is remitted again to the District Inspector of Schools to pass fresh orders in accordance with the observations made aforesaid within six weeks from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order. 9. A certified copy of this order shall be made available to Sri Amit Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel to forward the same to the Secretary, Secondary Education for necessary action. ————