JUDGMENT By the Court.—On a short term vacancy having occurred on the post of L.T. Grade Teacher in the Institution in question the appellant-petitioner was selected and appointed by the Committee of Management. When salary was not paid to the appellant-petitioner, a writ petition was filed whereafter the District Inspector of Schools rejected the claim of the appellant-petitioner. The appellant-petitioner then filed another writ petition challenging the order of the District Inspector of Schools, which was allowed with the direction to the District Inspector of Schools to decide the matter afresh. 2. The District Inspector of Schools, by order dated 5.1.2004 rejected the claim of the appellant-petitioner on the ground that the appointment of the appellant-petitioner was made in an illegal and arbitrary manner and thus approval to the same could not be granted. Challenging the said order of the District Inspector of Schools the appellant-petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1595 of 2004 which has been dismissed by the judgment and order dated 10.11.2004. Aggrieved by the same this appeal has been filed. 3. Heard Sri Shailendra, learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Devendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and have perused the record. It is not disputed that the appointment on the short term vacancy of L.T. Grade Teacher was to be made in terms of the Second Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981. The said Order of 1981 clearly provides that the selection shall be made on the basis of quality point marks specified in the appendix and that the compilation of the quality point marks shall be done under the personal supervision of the Head of the Institution. It is not disputed that besides the quality point marks, which were awarded to the candidates who had applied, an interview of the candidates was also conducted and the list, which was forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools, was of the quality point marks as well as the marks awarded to the candidates in the interview. 4. From the document which has been filed at page 69 of paper book it is clear that the appellant-petitioner was awarded the higher marks in the interview as against marks awarded to all other candidates. 4. From the document which has been filed at page 69 of paper book it is clear that the appellant-petitioner was awarded the higher marks in the interview as against marks awarded to all other candidates. As such, the selection process which was adopted by the Management was not strictly in terms of the Second Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 under which the selection and appointment was to be made only on the basis of quality point marks. 5. Sri Shailendra, learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner has vehemently argued that in terms of the Second Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 there would be deemed approval after seven days of submission of the record by the Management and the same would be equivalent to grant of approval by the District Inspector of Schools and there would be no question of review of the same. It was next contended that the District Inspector of Schools could not have given fresh grounds for disapproval and that the learned Single Judge passed the order on the basis of perusal of the original record when there was no ground or objection taken by any party in that regard. It was last contended that the procedure adopted by the Management (for taking interview) was the one required for regular selection and as such the same could not have been said to be unjustified as has been held by the learned Single Judge. 6. The order which has been passed by the learned Single Judge is after perusal of the original record, which clearly shows that besides awarding quality point marks for selection and appointment of a Teacher under the Second Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981, interviews were also held. 7. From the record, it is clear that the total marks awarded to the appellant-petitioner were 103 (which includes the quality point marks and interview marks). There were two candidates who secured 101 marks and another two candidates who secured 100 marks. The first two were awarded 35 marks each and the other two only 30 marks each in the interview, whereas the appellant-petitioner was awarded the highest marks in interview, which were 45. As such, on the basis of quality point marks alone, the appellant-petitioner would not have been selected. 8. Once a procedure is prescribed for selection, then the same has to be adopted and no new or additional procedure can be added. As such, on the basis of quality point marks alone, the appellant-petitioner would not have been selected. 8. Once a procedure is prescribed for selection, then the same has to be adopted and no new or additional procedure can be added. The purpose of filling up short term vacancies on the basis of quality point marks appears to be for eliminating any subjectivity in the selection, as quality point marks are awarded objectively on the basis of record whereas subjectivity comes in while including interview marks also. In the present case, merit has substantially changed because of awarding of marks in the interview, details of which have already been given above. 9. As such, the question for grant of deemed approval in seven days would arise only when the papers regarding selection and appointment of short term vacancy is forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools in terms of the process and procedure provided under the Second Removal of Difficulties Order 1981. Here what we find is that marks which were forwarded were not in terms of the Second Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 and as such the question of deemed approval would not arise. 10. As regards, passing of the order by the learned Single Judge on perusal of the original record is concerned, we do not find any irregularity with the same as the Writ Court can always examine the original record to find that the prescribed procedure was followed or not. The Court can always pass appropriate orders on the basis of perusal of the record. 11. It is relevant to point out that the appellant-petitioner does not dispute that the record which was perused by the Writ Court and relied upon was done so in an arbitrary manner or the same had been misread. Once on perusal of the original record it is found by the Writ Court that the procedure prescribed for selection and appointment on the post of L.T. Grade Teacher on short term vacancy had not been followed or had been incorrectly adopted by the Management, in equity it is necessary for the Writ Court to record a finding in that regard. As such, we do not find any infirmity with the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools or the Writ Court by refusing to grant approval to the selection and appointment of the appellant-petitioner. 12. As such, we do not find any infirmity with the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools or the Writ Court by refusing to grant approval to the selection and appointment of the appellant-petitioner. 12. The appeal is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ——————