ORDER : PRAMATH PATNAIK, J. 1. In the captioned writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing letter dated 15.09.2009 whereby respondent no. 3 cancelled the proposal submitted by respondent no. 4 regarding approval of appointment of the petitioner and further prayer has been made for direction upon the respondents to confirm the appointment of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Bhanu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, A.C to learned S.C. (L & C) for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that against the sanctioned and vacant post of Assistant Teacher permission was sought for by the Management of the School from the Education Department vide letter dated 06.02.2007 for issuance of advertisement and filling up the post of Assistant Teacher in the school; in response thereof permission was granted by the Education Department vide letter dated 20.09.2007. Accordingly, advertisement was published and after due intimation to Regional Education Officer interview was held on 24.01.2008 and 13.05.2008 but even after intimation no officer from the Education Department turned up, the interview was cancelled vide letter dated 12.05.2008 and a fresh appointment process was initiated and again request was made to Regional Education Officer to remain present on the date fixed for interview i.e. on 14.05.2008 but on that day also no representative of the Department came to attend the interview for the one pretext and the other. Left with no option, the management of the school proceeded with the appointment process and after following due process the petitioner was appointed as Matric Trained Teacher vide letter of appointment dated 25.09.2008 and since then he has been continuing on that post. Thereafter, respondent no. 4-the Secretary of the school sent a letter to the Department for approval of appointment of the petitioner but the respondent no. 3-D.S.E., East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur denied to give approval of appointment of the petitioner on the ground that the school management committee did not comply with the departmental letter dated 04.03.1993, which says in School Management committee the controlling authority i.e. Regional Education Officer/Block Education Extension Officer may be included as representative of the department. It has been submitted that from plain reading of letter dated 04.03.1993 it is amply clear that presence of Regional Education Officer/Block Education Extension Officer is obligatory in nature and is not of mandatory nature. It has been submitted that from plain reading of letter dated 04.03.1993 it is amply clear that presence of Regional Education Officer/Block Education Extension Officer is obligatory in nature and is not of mandatory nature. Even otherwise, the management of the school tried best to secure his presence but it is the representative of the department who for some reason or the other evaded their presence. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to letter dated 17.12.2007 which says that when in spite of intimation the departmental representative did not appear in the interview in the 2nd time, the Managing Committee of the minority school may proceed with the interview for selection of teacher and make appointment and such appointment shall not be considered to be irregular due to absence of departmental representative. On the ground of parity, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to Annexure 11 to the supplementary affidavit dated 26.11.2015 submitted that in the case of one Ms. Poonam Singh, where departmental representative did not appear and a different approach has been taken by the respondent and her appointment has been approved but the petitioner has been discriminated by denying the approval of appointment by respondents-authorities. 4. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that school in question is a Government aided minority (linguistic) school and while going through the process of selection the departmental letters dated 31.12.1982 and 04.03.1993 has to be followed. It has been submitted that from bare perusal of these two departmental letters it is clear that the selection of teacher has to be done by the school managing committee in which, the concerned Regional Education Officer/Block Education Extension Officer is considered as a member and he is supposed to guide the committee regarding the departmental rules and regulations for selection of teachers. In the case at hand, the same has been give a complete go by. Though, it has been submitted that communication was made by the management of the school for presence of the Range Education Officer in the interview but Range Education vide its letter dated 19.08.2009 communicated that on the date fixed for interview he would not be able to appear. Hence, the management of the school ought to have fixed another date. Though, it has been submitted that communication was made by the management of the school for presence of the Range Education Officer in the interview but Range Education vide its letter dated 19.08.2009 communicated that on the date fixed for interview he would not be able to appear. Hence, the management of the school ought to have fixed another date. But instead of fixing another date in utter violation of departmental letters/instruction, the petitioner was appointed; hence no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 5. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the pleadings available on record, it appears that approval of the proposal submitted by respondent no. 4 regarding appointment of the petitioner was denied by the respondents by issuance of impugned order mainly on the ground of non-compliance of departmental letter/instruction dated 04.03.1993, in particular, absence of representative of the education department, who was supposed to guide the committee regarding the departmental rules and regulations for selection of teachers. From plain reading of impugned order dated 15.09.2009, it appears that the respondents except this deviation, has not jotted down any other ground or showed any irregularity in appointment of petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed against sanctioned and vacant post through open public advertisement and was possessing all requisite qualification. Hence, the only issue which is to be decided is whether letter dated 17.12.2007 issued by respondents authority comes to rescue the petitioner for the alleged violation of departmental letter/instruction dated 04.03.1993. 6. From perusal of letter dated 17.12.2007, it is amply clear that the matter of non-appearance of departmental representative in the meeting of school management committee for appointment of teachers in Government aided minority schools came before the authority and they came to a concrete decision that if the departmental representative would not come for two times in the meeting held for appointment of teachers, the committee shall proceed with the process of appointment and it shall be deemed that departmental representative has given consent. In the case at hand, admittedly for consecutive two times, the departmental representative did not come as such this Court finds no irregularity in the process of appointment adopted by the management of the school in making appointment of the petitioner. 7. In the case at hand, admittedly for consecutive two times, the departmental representative did not come as such this Court finds no irregularity in the process of appointment adopted by the management of the school in making appointment of the petitioner. 7. For the reasons aforesaid letter dated 15.09.2009 is quashed and set aside and respondents are directed to pass appropriate order for confirmation of the appointment of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ application stands allowed.