JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. By the impugned order dated 27 October 2016, the District Inspector of Schools has refused to accord financial approval to the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Clerk in Adarsh Intermediate College, Hathabazar, Gorakhpur, a recognised Institution under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and to which provisions of U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 are also applicable. The approval has not been given on the ground that by Government Order dated 18 April 2012, a ban was imposed on direct recruitment on the post of Assistant Clerks. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Government Order dated 18 April 2012 was issued in continuation of the previous Government Order dated 15 March 2012, by which such a ban was sought to be imposed for the first time. It is pointed out that by Government Order dated 18 April 2012, only relaxation has been given in regard to appointment of the dependants of the deceased employees. The Government Order dated 18 April 2012 reads as under : - %hnd1%Þegksn;] mijksDr fo"k;d lela[;d 'kklukns'k fnukWd 15 ekpZ] 2012 dk d`i;k lanHkZ xzg.k djsaA mDr 'kklukns'k }kjk lHkh izdkj dh HkfrZ;ksa dks ¼yksd lsok vk;ksx ds ek/;e ls dh tkus okyh HkrhZ rFkk ek0 U;k;ky; ds vkns'kksa ds vuqikyu esa dh tkus okys HkrhZ dks NksM+dj½ rkRdkfyd izHkko ls izfrcaf/kr fd;k x;k gSA 2- lE;d fopkjksijkUr e`r ljdkjh lsodksa ds vkfJrksa ds lsok;kstu dks Hkh izfrcU/k ls eqDr fd;s tkus dk 'kklu }kjk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSA HkrhZ ij yxk;s x;s 'ks"k izfrcU/k] tSlk fd mDr of.kZr 'kklukns'k fnukWd 15-03-2012 esa of.kZr gS] vfxze vkns'kksa rd ;Fkkor jgsaxs A 3- mijksDr ds dze esa eq>s ;g dgus dks funsZ'k gqvk gS fd izLrj&1 esa mfYyf[kr 'kklukns'k fnukWd 15 ekpZ] 2012 dks mDr lhek rd la'kksf/kr le>k tk;A d`i;k fy;s x;s fu.kZ; dk vuqikyu lqfuf'pr djrs gq;s] vius v/khuLFk leLr fu;qfDr izkf/kdkfj;ksa dks Hkh rnuqlkj funsZf'kr djus dk d"V djsaAß%hnd2% The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that this Court while considering the Government Order dated 15 March 2012, by which the ban was initially imposed, has held that stipulation in the Government Order placing ban on appointment on Class III post would not be applicable to Intermediate Colleges. The relevant observation made in this regard in the judgment dated 1 May 2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 24401 of 2013 is as under: - "The question, therefore, is can the Government Order dated 15.3.2012 be read as a Government Order under Section 9 (4) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 9 are extracted hereunder: - "(4) Whenever, in the opinion of the State Government, it is necessary or expedient to take immediate action, it may, without making any reference to the Board under the foregoing provisions, pass such order or to take such other action consistent with the provisions of this Act as it deems necessary, and in particular, may, by such order modify or rescind or make any regulation in respect of any matter and shall forthwith inform the Board accordingly." A perusal of the aforesaid power as conferred on the State Government clearly indicates that such a power can be exercised provided the action is consistent with the provisions of the Act. The Regulations framed under Chapter III of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act makes a provision for appointment of class-III and IV employees. There is no amendment in the 1921 Act or the Regulations framed thereunder of banning any such appointments. In the absence of any such specific provision being made, the Government Order dated 15.3.2012 would not survive the test of the ingredients of Section 9 (4) of the 1921 Act. The said Government Order nowhere discusses as to why and why not is it necessary, to proceed, not to make appointments against class-III posts in Intermediate and High Schools governed by the 1921 Act. It is to be noted as an illustration that most of the aided Institutions have only one post of Clerk and in such circumstances, a total ban would really amount to abrogating the provision under the 1921 Act which makes a provision for a class-III post. It is further to be noted that a clerk is required in the College for preparing salary bills and all other clerical jobs including the communication with the education department with a further assistance to the office of the Principal in maintaining accounts and records like the scholar register, fee-register etc. It is further to be noted that a clerk is required in the College for preparing salary bills and all other clerical jobs including the communication with the education department with a further assistance to the office of the Principal in maintaining accounts and records like the scholar register, fee-register etc. Thus, an institution cannot be envisaged or imagined without a clerk keeping in view the nature of duties and the function which is required to be performed by such an employee. The office of the Manager and the Principal is a secretarial set up for the processing of the administrative transaction of the institution. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Government Order dated 15.3.2012 cannot be read as a ban in relation to class-III post as well in Intermediate Colleges. It is for this reason that when the matter of outsourcing came to be challenged before this Court, it was held that such a ban or restrain on aided Intermediate Colleges cannot be countenanced keeping in view the observations that have been made. Consequently, the Government Order dated 15.3.2012 cannot amount to a ban in relation to appointment against class-III posts in an aided Inter College governed by the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921." He, therefore, submitted that the impugned decision is wholly against the legal position settled by the Court in the above referred judgment. Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the State respondents is not in a position to dispute the law laid down by this Court in Writ Petition No. 24401 of 2013 - The Committee of Management and another Versus The State of U.P. and others. He very fairly stated that the District Inspector of Schools will re-examine the issue relating to grant of financial approval to the petitioner. In view of the above, the impugned order is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the first respondent for reconsidering the issue relating to grant of financial approval to the appointment of the petitioner on Class III post in the Institution. The aforesaid exercise be carried out by the said respondent within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.