JUDGMFNI RAKESH TIWARI, J.--Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed for commanding the respondents to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to make payment of salary to the petitioner from the month of March, 1988 onwards. 3. B.N.B. Inter College, Mariahu, District Jaunpur is a recognized institution under the D.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and is governed by U.P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971. 4. In brief the facts are that a vacancy of peon was caused due to the promotion of one Ram Nihor Tiwari as daftari in the year 1986. The petitioner was appointed on the post of peon in the vacancy caused by Ram Nihor Tiwari. The District Inspector of Schools also granted financial approval to the appointment of the petitioner. 5. The petitioner is aggrieved by notice dated 5.l0.1988, appended as Annexure-4 to this writ petition, which has been ismed by the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur. A perusal of the show-cause notice indicates that it is in a typed proforma in which the appointment of the petitioner is said to be illegal on ground Nos. 1, 2, 6 and 7. The petitioner is aggrieved by notice dated 5.l0.1988, appended as Annexure-4 to this writ petition, which has been ismed by the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur. A perusal of the show-cause notice indicates that it is in a typed proforma in which the appointment of the petitioner is said to be illegal on ground Nos. 1, 2, 6 and 7. The typed proforma of notice is as under :- 1- fu;qfDr@izksUufr fcuk fdlh Lohd`r in ds dh x;h gSA 2- fu;qfDr@izksUufr gsrq tks in n’kkZ;k x;k gS og vH;kfiZr gksus ds dkj.k e`r gks pqdk gS] vr,o mDr fu;qfDr@ek/;fed f’k{kk vf/kfu;e] 1921 ds varxZr fufiZRr fofu;eksa ds mi/;k; nks ds fofu;e 20 ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj vfu;fer] vukf/kd`r ,oa izHkkoghu gSA 3- in dk vf/k;kpu djus ds iwoZ gh fu;qfDr dj yh x;h gS] ftlds dkj.k og fu;qfDr ek/;fed f’k{kk lsok vk;ksx rFkk p;u cksMZ vf/kfu;e] 1982 ds v/;k; pkj dh /kkjk 18 ds izko/kkuksa ds izfrdwy gSA vr,o fu;qfDr@izksUufr vfu;fer gSA 4- vki }kjk p;fur@fu;qfDr vH;FkhZ fo|ky; iz/kkukpk;Z@izca/kd@izca/k lfefr ds lnL; ds fudV laca/kh gSA tks ek/;fed f’k{kk vf/kfu;e] 1921 ds varxZr fufeZr fofu;eksa ds v/;k; rhu ds fofu;e pkj ds izko/kkuksa ds izfrdwy gS vr,o fu;qfDr fu;fer gSA 5- ;g fjfDr ftl in ds mi;qZDr n’kkZ;h x;h gS vf/kLukrd osrudze dh ekSfyd fjfDr gS] vr,o fo|ky; izca/kra= dks bl in ij p;u djus dk vf/kdkj ugha gSA vf/kLukrd osrudze ds ekSfyd fjDr in ij p;u dfBukbZ fuokj.k vkns’k] 1981 dh /kkjk 5 ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd }kjk fd;k tkuk pkfg;sA izca/kra= }kjk fd;k tkuk p;u vuf/kd`r rFkk vfu;fer gSA 6- fu;qfDr@izksUufr esa vkj{k.k dksVs dk /;ku ugha j[kk x;k gSA 7- in dk foKkiu vi;kZIr ,oa fu;eksa ds izfrdwy gSA foKkiu esa O;kid izpkj ,oa izlkj ds fl)kar dh vogsyuk dh x;h gSA p;u ,oa vfu;fer gSA in ekud ls vf/kd gSA 8- p;u izfdz;k fu;ekuqlkj ugha viuk;h x;h gSA 9- vki }kjk p;fur@fu;qDr@izksUur vH;FkhZ Jh jk/ks’;ke in ds fy;s fu/kkZfjr ;ksX;rk ugha j[krs gSa buds ‘kSf{kd ;ksX;rk@izf’k{k.k laca/kh izek= i= QthZ izrhr gksrs gSa] ftldk fof/kor lR;kiu vki }kjk ugha djk;k x;k gS bl izdkj mi;qZDr fu;qfDr@izksUufr rF; xksiu ,oa tkylkth ij vk/kkfjr gSA 10- vki }kjk mi;qZDr fu;qfDr@izksUufr ds laca/k esa izsf”kr izLrko fnukad & esa mi;qZDr rF;ksa dk xksiu fd;k x;k gS rFkk rRdkyhu ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd ----------- }kjk ikfjr vuqeksnu vkns’k la[;k& fnukad rF; xksiu] rF;ksa dk xyr rkSj ij izLrqrhdj.k ,oa tkylkth djds izkIr fd;k x;k gSA vr% dkuwu dh n`f”V esa izHkkoghu gksus ds dkj.k fu% lDr gSA 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to 30th July, 1992 prior approval of appointment was not required and only after Government regulations framed in the year 1992 contained in Chapter III, Regulations 101 to 107 the necessity of prior approval was required for appointment of class IV employee and had not lapsed and that it has been filled up in accordance with law. Admittedly, the learned Standing Counsel does not dispute that the petitioner was appointed on 14.3.1986 i.e., about much prior to the Regulations 101 to 107 introduced by amendment in 1992 and therefore the procedure prescribed for filling up the post was not applicable. 7. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties. I am of the opinion that prior approval was not required for appointment of class IV employee on the post of peon at the relevant time and that regulation prescribing procedure of appointment on class IV posts in institutions including taking of prior approval have been framed at a later stage much after the appointments of the petitioner, they do not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. Hence the observations made by D.I.O.S. in Annexure-4 are incorrect. 8. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is already being paid in terms of interim mandamus issued by the Court in its order dated 7.3.1889 regarding payment of current salary to him. It is further directed that his appointment shall be treated as valid. No order as to costs. Petition Allowed.