JUDGMENT B. Amit Sthalekar, J. The petitioners in the writ petition are seeking quashing of the order dated 11.2.1993 and 22.2.1993 and 22.2.1993 whereby the names of certain teachers have been approved for appointment. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case of the petitioners is that there is an Institution by the name of Kanhaiya Lal Babu Ram Vidyapith Junior High School, Sheoli, Kanpur Dehat. The Committee of Management of the Institution through its letter dated 15.11.1992 applied before the District Basic Education Officer, Kanpur Dehat-respondent no. 1 for approval to advertise three posts of Assistant Teachers and two posts of Peons. The permission was granted through letter dated 7.1.1993. On 10.1.1993 an advertisement is stated to have been published in the newspaper, namely, 'Dainik Karmyug Prakash' inviting applications up to 22.1.1993 followed by interview. The Management through its letter dated 21.1.1993 sent a letter to the District Basic Education Officer, Kanapur Dehat for appointing a Supervisor for the selection of two peons and three Teachers in the Institution. The interview of the candidates was held and thereafter a merit ist was prepared by the selection committee on 28.1.1993. Thereafter on 29.1.1993 a resolution was passed by the Committee of Management recommending the names of the petitioners for appointment as Peons. Appointment letters were issued in favour of the petitioners on 30.1.1993 and the petitioners also joined the post on 1.2.1993. Thereafter the papers were sent to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari for his approval for the purposes of payment of salary under the U.P. Junior High Schools (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978. However, by the impugned order dated 11.2.1993 the District Basic Education Officer declined to grant approval and has set aside the selection of Class IV and accordingly termination order was also issued on 22.2.1993, filed as Annexure-10 and 11 to the writ petition. 3. I have heard Shri K.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Mata Prasad, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1 and 2 and Shri D.B. Tripathi holding brief of Shri R.K. Verma for the respondents no. 3 and 4. 4. 3. I have heard Shri K.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Mata Prasad, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1 and 2 and Shri D.B. Tripathi holding brief of Shri R.K. Verma for the respondents no. 3 and 4. 4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners were duly selected and their appointment as Paricharak (Class IV) was also approved by the Committee of Management and thereafter the appointment letter dated 30.1.1993 was issued and they also joined service on 1.2.1993. It is also submitted that only a formal approval is required from the respondent no. 1. The contention further is that the observation in the impugned order dated 11.2.1993 that out of three class IV employees two have submitted their resignation and the posts itself came to an end and thereafter there was no vacancy against which the petitioners could have been appointed is without any basis. 5. The State respondents in their counter affidavit have stated that w.e.f. 14.9.1990 in aided and recognized Institutions only one post of class IV (Paricharak) was sanctioned. The case of the respondents further is that the Committee of Management passed its resolution on 29.1.1993 recommending the names of the petitioners for appointment and the Committee of Management issued the appointment letter on 30.1.1993 and the petitioners also joined on 1.2.1993 whereas the provisions of Section 10 of the U.P. Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 provides that after the selection process is over the Manager shall within one week from the date of receipt of the paper under clause 3 send a copy of the list to the District Basic Education Officer, the District Basic Education Officer if he is satisfied that the selection has been made as per Rules shall accord his approval to the recommendation made by the selection committee and communicate his decision to the management within two weeks from the date of receipt of the papers under clause 4 of Section 10 of the Act, 1978. Clause 5(iii) of Section 10 of the Act 1978 further provides that if the District Basic Education Officer does not communicate his decision within one month from the date of receipt of papers under clause 4 he shall be deemed to have accorded his approval to the recommendations made by the selection committee. 6. In the present case the selection committee through its resolution dated 21.9.1993 recommended the names of the petitioners for appointment and thereafter the appointment letters were issued on 30.1.1993 by the management and the petitioners also joined on 1.2.1993 without even waiting for the approval/disapproval of the District Basic Education Officer. The second ground taken by the respondents is that even if earlier there was more than one post of class IV but after the Government Order No. 2135/15-6-90-18(5) (7)/79 dated 14.9.1990 only one post of Class IV was sanctioned for Junior High Schools aided and recognized by the Government. Therefore in the institution in question where there were three posts of Class IV, two Class IV employees (Parichark) had resigned and thereafter those two posts lapsed and therefore there was only one post of Peon in the institution which was also not vacant and therefore the selection of the petitioners itself could not have been made. 7. No rejoinder affidavit has been filed denying the averments of the counter affidavit. However, in the course of arguments, the provisions of the Act, 1978 or the facts relating to the G.O. Dated 14.9.1990 were not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The only contention is that the petitioners have continued for long and the impugned orders were stayed, therefore, the petitioners would suffer irreparable loss. 8. The Court is of the considered opinion that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted and if the basic appointment of the petitioner has illegally been made against the post which did not exist on the date when the appointments were made the mere fact that the petitioners have continued under the interim orders of the Court would not validate an appointment otherwise illegally made.. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that the petitioners have been continuing in service under the interim order of this Court since long and therefore their case stands on a different footing. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that the petitioners have been continuing in service under the interim order of this Court since long and therefore their case stands on a different footing. The law in this regard is well settled by the Supreme Court that persons who have continued in service under the interim order will not derive any benefit therefrom and no sympathy can be shown to such persons if the petition otherwise stands to be dismissed on merit. 10. The Supreme Court in the case of Raghvendra Rao etc. V. State of Karnataka and others, JT 2009 (20) SC 520 has observed as under: "It is now a well-settled principle of law that merely because an employee had continued under cover of an order of Court, he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service.................." 11. In this view of the matter I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 11.2.1993 and the two orders both dated 22.2.1993. 12. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 13. Interim order stands vacated.