JUDGMENT Hon’ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.—This petition has been preferred by the petitioner for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 21.9.1995 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Agra whereby, he has revoked the approval order. 2. Brief facts of the present matter are enumerated below; A.P. Inter College, Shamshabad, Agra, is a recognised institution. It receives financial aid out of State fund. The provisions of Intermediate Education Act 1921, the regulations framed thereunder, the U.P. High School and Intermediate College (Payment of Salaries of the Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 and the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982 are applicable to the affairs of the institution. The respondent No. 5, the Committee of Management administers the college having regard to the statutory provisions of the above mentioned Acts. 3. One Sri Hari Mohan Agarwal was a permanent lecturer in the College and Sri Bangali Mal was an assistant teacher in L.T.Grade. The Office of the Principal fell vacant on account of retirement of the regular Principal. The Committee of Management resolved to grant an ad hoc promotion of Sri Hari Mohan Agarwal as officiating Principal and the same was approved by the District Inspector of Schools on 17.6.1995. On account of ad hoc promotion of Sri Hari Mohan Agarwal, a short term vacancy arose against the post of lecturer. 4. It is stated that the said short term vacancy was filled by an ad hoc promotion of Sri Bangali Mal as lecturer. It was approved by the District Inspector of Schools on 17.6.1994. 5. The petitioner is stated to be appointed as an assistant teacher in L.T.Grade on the short term vacancy in place of Sri Bangali Mal after following the procedure in terms of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second Order) 1982. The ad hoc appointment of the petitioner was approved by the District Inspector of Schools by order dated 2.1.1995. 6. It is stated that by the impugned order, the District Inspector of Schools has revoked the approval order only on the basis of a circular issued on 9.6.1995, whereby, a ban was imposed in respect of recruitment in the aided college. 7. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 6. It is stated that by the impugned order, the District Inspector of Schools has revoked the approval order only on the basis of a circular issued on 9.6.1995, whereby, a ban was imposed in respect of recruitment in the aided college. 7. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The stand taken in the counter-affidavit is that inspite of the ban imposed by the State Government, the institution made an ad hoc appointment of the petitioner and as such the appointment made by the committee of management was illegal as it was in the teeth of the Government Order. 8. I have heard Sri Siddarth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reason mentioned in the impugned order is wholly unsustainable in view of the fact that the said ban was only in respect of the substantive vacancy and not for the short term vacancy. He has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 32742 of 1995 (Vinod Kumar and another v. District Inspector of Schools and another). In this case, the learned Single Judge has relied on the judgment of this Court in Mukesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, 1996 AWC 556. 10. Alternatively, Sri Khare learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the District Inspector of Schools has wrongly relied on the Circular dated 9.6.1995 which is prospective in nature as appointment of the petitioner was made prior to the issuance of the Government Order i.e. on 29.12.1994. In the counter-affidavit the aforesaid facts have not been denied. 11. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the Management appointed the petitoenr ignoring the Government Order imposing complete ban on appointment in aided institution, therefore, appointment of petitioner is nullity. 12. I have considered the rival submissions of the respective parties. It is not disputed that a short term vacancy occurred in the institution for Assistant Teacher in L.T.Grade on account of ad hoc promotion of Sri Bangali Mal as a lecturer in Maths. The committee of management appointed the petitioner against the aforesaid short term vacancy. Copy of the advertisement has been placed on the record. The petitioner has also placed on record the approval order of the District Inspector of School dated 17.6.1995 as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. The committee of management appointed the petitioner against the aforesaid short term vacancy. Copy of the advertisement has been placed on the record. The petitioner has also placed on record the approval order of the District Inspector of School dated 17.6.1995 as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. The District Inspector of Schools revoked the said approval only on the ground that the Director of Education issued a circular dated 9.6.1995 wherein a ban has been imposed in respect of recruitment of those teachers who are governed by the U.P.Secondary Education (Service Selection Board) Act, 1982. 13. The State Government had earlier issued various Government Orders putting ban on the recruitment in the Government department. The first Government Order was issued on 29.6.19991 vide a TELEX message, which was followed by the Government Order dated 17.7.1991. In both, the TELEX as well as in the Government Order, there was prohibition against the appointment in the Government Departments and there was no reference with regard to the appointment made in the private aided schools. By means of Government Order dated 30.7.1991 a communication was issued by the State Government which was addressed to the Chairman of the U.P.Secondary Education Service Commission placing restrictions against the recruitment which were governed by the provisions of the U.P.Secondary Education (Service Selection Board) Act, 1982. The said order was followed by another Circular dated 31st August, 1991 that no ad hoc appointment be made against any educational institution. However, on 26th September, 1991, the ban imposed by the Government Order dated 30 August, 1991, was withdrawn. This Court had occasion to consider those Government Orders in Writ Petition No. 35071 of 1991(Smt. Neelam Agarwal v. State of U.P. and others) and Writ Petition NIL of 1992 (Mahendra Pratap Singh v. District Inspector of Schools, Mau and others). 14. The circular dated 9.6.1995 on the basis of which the impugned order has been passed was considered by this Court in Writ Petition No. 32742 of 1995 (Vinod Kumar and another v. District Inspector of Schools and another). This Court took the view that the said Circular does not put any ban on short term vacancy as these vacancies were to be filled in accordance with the Removal of Difficulties Order and not by Board. This Court took the view that the said Circular does not put any ban on short term vacancy as these vacancies were to be filled in accordance with the Removal of Difficulties Order and not by Board. The relevant paragraph of the said order reads as under : “Submission advanced is that the impugned order is bad in law inasmuch as the appointments of the petitioners were against the short term vacancies created on account of ad hoc promotion of Shri Mahesh Chandra Palival and Shri Kailash Chandra Gupta L.T. Grade teachers to the posts of Lecturers in History and Civics. Further, the submission is that short term vacancies are to be filled up in accordance with the Removal of Difficulties Order and not by the Board. In support of the submission reliance has been placed upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Mukesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, 1996 AWC 556, wherein learned Single Judge of this Court relying upon the decision of Full Bench in the case of Radha Raizada v. Committee of Management, 1994 (3) UPLBEC 1551 , has held that the circular dated 9.6.1995, referred to above, cannot come in the way of making selection and appointment against the short term vacancy.” 15. In the present case, as already noted that the DIOS and the Account Officer of his office had earlier approved and granted financial sanction to the appointments of the petitioners by the letter dated 17.6.1995 (annexure 7 to the writ petition). Subsequently, pursuant to the circular dated 9.6.1995 the aforesaid approval and financial sanction was withdrawn by the letter dated 21.9.1995. 16. Regard being had to the fact that there is no allegation against the petitioner that the approval order was secured by misrepresentation or fraud. On agreed facts, the procedure for ad hoc appointment has been followed. 17. After careful consideration, I am of the view that District Inspector of Schools has misconstrued the above mentioned Government Order. It appears that the law laid down by the Court, while considering the same Government Order escaped his notice. On this ground alone, his order dated 21.9.1995 is vitiated and it needs to be set aside, it is accordingly set aside. 18. The writ petition is allowed. 19. No order as to cost. ——————