JUDGMENT Hon’ble B. Amit Sthalekar, J.—Rejoinder-affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 10.6.2003, whereby, approval to the appointment of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that there is no vacancy in the Class-III post. 3. Briefly stated the facts are that a post in Class-III of Clerk fell vacant in the Public Inter College, Bidhuna, Auraiya, on the retirement of one Sri Om Prakash Srivastava on 31.1.1998. The Committee of Management vide its resolution dated 22.8.1998 Annexure-2 to the writ petition appointed the petitioner on the post of Assistant Clerk for a period of one year and sent the resolution alongwith the other papers to the D.I.O.S. seeking approval for the purpose of payment of salary. It is on this that the impugned order dated 10.6.2003 has been passed. 4. I have heard Sri Yogish Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents 1, 2 and 3. Notices have been issued to the respondent No. 4 and steps were also taken by the petitioner but as per office report neither acknowledgment nor unserved notice has been received back. Therefore service upon respondent No. 4 shall be deemed to be sufficient. 5. From a perusal of the documents on record, it will be seen that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Clerk and the Committee of Management through its Resolution dated 22.2.1998 forwarded the same to the D.I.O.S. seeking approval to the said appointment ofýÿ Brajendra Pratap Singh in the Public Inter, Bidhuna, Auraiya (hereinafter referred to as the College). This resolution has however not been approved by the D.I.O.S. and has been rejected by the impugned order dated 10.6.2003. The reason given in the impugned order is that there was no vacant post in the College. In the counter-affidavit the stand taken by the respondents is that the appointment of the petitioner appears to have been made on paper and in fact the post was neither advertised nor prior permission sought by the College from the D.I.O.S. for filling up the post of Clerk. 6. In the counter-affidavit the stand taken by the respondents is that the appointment of the petitioner appears to have been made on paper and in fact the post was neither advertised nor prior permission sought by the College from the D.I.O.S. for filling up the post of Clerk. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Jagdish Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2006(2) ADJ 710 , wherein, this Court has interpreted the provisions of Regulation 101 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the U.P Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and has held that prior approval as contemplated in Regulation 101 is required by the District Inspector of Schools after completion of process of selection and before issuance of appointment letter to the selected candidate. Para 21 and 22 of the said judgment read as follows: “21. 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. 22. 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.” 7. In the present case, it is seen that the only reason given in the impugned order is that there was no vacancy in the College and therefore, approval has been rejected by the D.I.O.S. However, the same impugned order also mentions that the petitioner was appointed against the post which fell vacant on account of one Om Prakash Srivastava attaining the age of superannuation on 31.1.1998. No other reason has been given in the impugned order as to whether there was any advertisement or not. The stand taken by the respondents in the counter-affidavit is not the reason given in the impugned order. The law is well-settled that the shortcomings in the impugned order cannot be filled up by averments in the counter-affidavit and the impugned order must itself be a self-speaking order containing all the reasons which are otherwise stated in the counter-affidavit. In this view of the matter, the impugned order dated 10.6.2003 is quashed. 8. The writ petition is allowed. 9. The matter is remitted to the respondent No. 3 to reconsider the case of the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 shall pass a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is received by him. The petitioner shall also be given full opportunity to represent his case before the respondent No. 3. ——————