JUDGMENT Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.—Heard counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for first and second respondents and Sri Sanjay Kumar brief holder of Sri B.N. Yadav for the third respondent. With their consent, the petition is being disposed of finally at this stage itself. 2. The petitioner is the Committee of Management of Nehru Kissan Vidyalaya Junior High School, Saharanpur, a recognised institution under the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 17.11.2016 whereby the District Basic Education Officer, Saharanpur, the third respondent herein, refused to accord approval to the request of the institution for filling up the vacant posts of the Head Master and the Assistant Teacher. It has been observed that the Director of Education, Basic, U.P. in its circular letter dated 3 June 2016 has directed for selection and appointment process being completed by 31 July 2016. It has been inferred therefrom that after 31 July 2016, there is a ban for holding further proceedings relating to selection and appointment, consequently, the permission to advertise the posts has been declined. The other order under challenge is dated 2 August 2016, whereunder the District Basic Education Officer, Saharanpur in a like manner, revoked the approval dated 30.7.2016 granted earlier for filling up the vacant post of clerk. It has been observed that letter of the Director of Education (Basic) dated 3.6.2016 and Government Order dated 6.11.2015 permits filling up of teaching posts alone and not the post of clerk. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders are based on misinterpretation of the circular letter dated 3 June 2016 as well as the Government Order dated 6 November 2015. It is submitted that thereunder, no ban has been imposed on the appointment of the Assistant Teachers or class III employees against the vacant posts. On the contrary, the intent of the Government Order and the circular letter dated 3 June 2016 in fixing 31 July 2016 as the date by which the selection process was required to be completed was to expedite the process of recruitment on the vacant posts. On the contrary, the intent of the Government Order and the circular letter dated 3 June 2016 in fixing 31 July 2016 as the date by which the selection process was required to be completed was to expedite the process of recruitment on the vacant posts. It is further submitted that any other interpretation to the said stipulation in the circular would render it contrary to the Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 which governs the appointment on the vacant posts in the institution. 4. On the other hand, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents and Sri Sanjay Kumar, brief holder of Sri B.N. Yadav appearing on behalf of the third respondent submitted that by circular letter dated 3 June 2016, the Director of Education Basic, Allahabad while extending the time limit for completing the selection process upto 31 July 2017 has further directed for action being taken against the management and the concerned officials in case the vacant posts are not filed up within the prescribed time. It is thus, sought to be submitted that in case the selection process is not completed by 31 July 2016, no selection process could be initiated, nor vacancies filled up. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. It is borne out from the record that initially the third respondent granted permission to the institution to fill up the vacant posts of Head Master, Assistant Teacher and clerk by letter dated 30 July 2016. Thereafter, certain complaint was made to the District Basic Education Officer that the President of the Committee of Management had not signed the proposal on basis of which the Management had sought permission to fill up the vacant posts. Acting on the said complaint, the District Basic Education Officer, after coming to the conclusion that the permission was obtained on the basis of fraudulent resolution, revoked the permission granted in respect of the post of Head Master and one Assistant Teacher. By another order dated 2 August 2016, which is also impugned herein, the permission in respect of the post of clerk was also revoked relying on the circular letter dated 3 June 2016 and the Government Order dated 6 November 2015. 7. By another order dated 2 August 2016, which is also impugned herein, the permission in respect of the post of clerk was also revoked relying on the circular letter dated 3 June 2016 and the Government Order dated 6 November 2015. 7. According to the petitioner, fresh election took place on 13 October 2016 and in which the petitioner Committee was elected. The signature of the Manager of the petitioner Committee of Management was attested by the District Basic Education Officer on 24 October 2016. Thereafter, the petitioner Committee being a duly recognised Committee, by letter dated 7 November 2016, sought permission to fill up the vacant post of Head Master and Assistant Teacher in the institution. The resolution passed by the Committee of Management of the Institution in that regard dated 28 October 2016 was enclosed alongwith the application dated 7 November 2016. The District Basic Education Officer by impugned communication dated 17 November 2016 declined to accord approval. 8. The circular letter dated 3 June 2016 has been placed on record alongwith the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No. 3. In the aforesaid circular letter, which is addressed to the District Basic Education Officers of the State, it has been observed that by letter of the Directorate dated 6 November 2015, permission was granted to fill up the vacant posts within the sanctioned limit by 31 March 2016. It has come to the notice of the Directorate that in various institutions, on account of certain difficulties, selection process could not be completed by the prescribed time and consequently, the time of completing the selection process was extended upto 31 July 2016. The circular letter further states that in case the selection process is not completed in any district, by the prescribed date, the concerned District Basic Education Officer and the management of the institution shall be held responsible for the same. The circular letter further refers to the letter of the Directorate dated 6 November 2015 on basis of which the selection process was required to be completed. The Government Order dated 6 November 2015 states that the ban which was imposed by Government Order dated 15 March 2012 in respect of direct recruitment on the vacant posts in Government aided private junior high schools shall stand lifted. The Government Order dated 6 November 2015 states that the ban which was imposed by Government Order dated 15 March 2012 in respect of direct recruitment on the vacant posts in Government aided private junior high schools shall stand lifted. It further provides that the process for appointment against the vacant post within the prescribed sanctioned strength is to be completed forthwith. In continuation thereof, the Directorate, Basic Education issued circular letter of the even date. It also states that decision has been taken for granting permission to the Management of the aided private Junior High School to fill up the vacant posts of teaching staff within the prescribed sanctioned norms by 31 March 2016. 9. It is admitted to the parties that the ban which was imposed by Government order dated 15 March 2012 was on account of the reason that at the relevant time, the exercise for re-determination of the sanctioned strength of the institution was being undertaken. Since the said exercise had been completed, therefore, the ban on appointment was lifted with the issuance of the Government order dated 6 November 2015. Rule 3 (2) contemplates filling of the vacancies within two months of the date when the vacancy comes into existence. The same could not be adhered to because of the ban imposed by the State itself. The circular letter of the Directorate dated 6 November 2015 clearly indicates the anxiety of the Directorate to ensure filling up of the vacant posts by the Management of the institutions, without any further delay, as these posts had remained vacant for considerable time on account of the ban imposed by the State. The circular letter dated 3 June 2016 merely extends the time frame within which the selection process was required to be complete, failing which the letter contemplates action being taken against the concerned District Basic Education Officer and the management. The object of the circular letter dated 3 June 2016, in the opinion of the Court, was to ensure expeditious completion of the selection process. There is no indication in the circular letter dated 3 June 2016 that in case selection process is not completed by the prescribed date, then the management is not entitled to fill up vacant posts. The object of the circular letter dated 3 June 2016, in the opinion of the Court, was to ensure expeditious completion of the selection process. There is no indication in the circular letter dated 3 June 2016 that in case selection process is not completed by the prescribed date, then the management is not entitled to fill up vacant posts. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned communications issued by the District Basic Education Officer, in so far as it declines permission to the management to advertise the vacant posts is wholly unsustainable in law and it is accordingly quashed. The matter is remitted back to the third respondent for reconsideration of the request of the management for granting approval to fill up the vacant posts. The aforesaid exercise shall be conducted by the third respondent within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 10. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.