JUDGMENT : IRSHAD ALI, J. 1. Heard Sri H.G.S. Parihar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri S.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and to the learned Standing counsel on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and to Sri P.K. Singh Bisen, learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent No.3. 2. The nature of controversy involved in Writ Petition Nos.5118 (SS) of 2016, 9201 (SS) of 2016 and 29282 (SS) of 2016 pertains to selection and appointment on the post of Assistant Teachers. Therefore, the writ petitions are being decided by means of a common judgment treating Writ Petition No.5118 (SS) 2016 to be leading writ petition. 3. Factual matrix of the case is that Vijay Junior High School, Kali Muradapur, District Pratapgarh is run and managed by a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The institution is granted recognition under the provisions of U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972. The institution is receiving aid from the State Government, therefore, the provisions of The U.P. Junior High School (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978 inasmuch as provisions of U.P. Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment And Conditions Of Service Of Ministerial Staff And Group 'D' Employees) Rules, 1984 and U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Services of Teachers) Rules, 1978 are applicable to the aforesaid institution. 4. One Sri Mayank Bahadur Singh, Headmaster of the institution was going to retire on 30.6.2014. Sri Amrit Lal Vishwakarma, Sri Sankata Prasad Singh and Sri Jagdish Narain Mishra, Assistant Teachers were also going to retire on 30.6.2014. The Committee of Management realizing the pressure to impart education to the students, requested the District Basic Education Officer vide letter dated 31.5.2014 to grant permission to initiate selection proceeding as required under Rule 7 of the 1978 Rules. When no order was passed, a reminder letter was sent on 9.1.2015. 5. The District Basic Education Officer vide letter dated 15.4.2015, directed to the Manager of the Committee of Management to submit details of vacancies and post sanctioned in the institution. This letter was issued in pursuance to a directive issued by the Director, Basic Education U.P. at Allahabad. The Manager of the institution in response thereto, submitted details vide letter dated 22.4.2015 to the District Basic Education Officer. This letter was issued in pursuance to a directive issued by the Director, Basic Education U.P. at Allahabad. The Manager of the institution in response thereto, submitted details vide letter dated 22.4.2015 to the District Basic Education Officer. The Block Education Officer also sent a letter on the basis of inspection made in the institution on 29.4.2015. 6. During the pendency of grant of prior permission to initiate selection proceeding, another Teacher retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.6.2015. Another reminder letter was sent to the District Basic Education Officer on 2.6.2015 pointing out that there is no Headmaster nor Assistant Teachers in the institution to impart education to the students. 7. In spite of repeated letters and reminders, when no order was passed by the District Basic Education Officer, then the Committee of Management resolved to initiate selection proceeding by issuing an advertisement in newspapers. 8. On 06.06.2015, vacancies of 1 Headmaster, 3 Assistant Teachers and 1 Clerk were duly advertised in the daily newspapers Nyay Prahari (local level newspaper) and Lokmitra, having wide circulation in the State inviting applications from the eligible and qualified candidates. 9. In response to the advertisement issued on 06.06.2015, the petitioners applied for. As per the provisions contained under Rule 9, a selection committee is required to be constituted wherein nominee of the District Basic Education Officer is also one of the Member. Accordingly, vide letter dated 08.06.2015, the Manager of the institution requested to the District Basic Education Officer to send his nominee on the date of interview to complete the Quorum of the selection committee as required under Rule 9 of the 1978 Rules. 10. 21.06.2015 was the date fixed for making selection of the candidates on the aforesaid posts and on the said date, the nominee of the District Basic Education Officer was not present. By majority, the Selection Committee made selection and recommended for the appointment of the Headmaster, Assistant Teachers and Clerk, including the petitioners. 11. The Manager of the institution submitted entire papers of selection vide letter dated 24.06.2015 for the grant of approval as required under Rule 10 of the 1978 Rules. The District Basic Education Officer did not pass any order for a long time. In the meantime, the petitioners were issued appointment letters on 26.06.2015 and since then, they are discharging their duties. 12. The District Basic Education Officer did not pass any order for a long time. In the meantime, the petitioners were issued appointment letters on 26.06.2015 and since then, they are discharging their duties. 12. The District Basic Education Officer after expiry of almost 8 months, has passed the impugned order whereby the approval as required under the 1978 Rules has been denied on the ground that procedure prescribed under 1978 Rules has not been followed. 13. Submission of Sri H.G.S. Parihar, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners in assailing the impugned orders is that under Rule 10, there is a provision in regard to deemed approval in case of non passing of order of submission of papers within a period of one month. It is deemed that the approval was accorded. He further submitted that although taking into consideration the requirement of Teachers in the institution, appointment letters were issued to the petitioners on 26.06.2015 prior to the expiry of the period of one month, it will not invalidate the appointment of the petitioners in view of the decision in the case of Ashika Prasad Shukla Vs. District Inspector of Schools reported in (1998) 3 UPLBEC 1722 . He further submitted that in the impugned order, there is no finding of the District Basic Education Officer that which provision of 1978 Rules was not followed while making selection on the post of Headmaster, Assistant Teachers and Clerk, therefore, the order being unreasoned, is not sustainable in law. 14. Sri H.G.S. Parihar, learned Senior Advocate next submitted that the provision in regard to grant of approval requires that whether the person, who has been selected, is qualified or not and whether the selection has been made by issuing advertisement inviting applications from the public in large or not. Thus, the submission is that there is no finding recorded in the impugned order in regard to the aforesaid aspect of the matter. 15. He further submitted that it is settled that in case the Selection Committee is constituted and there are Members and Chairman of the Selection Committee and in absence of one member decision taken by the Selection Committee by majority will not vitiate the selection proceeding in absence of nominee of the District Basic Education Officer. He placed reliance upon a judgment passed in Special Appeal (Defective) No.92 of 2016 (District Basic Shiksha Adhikari Ambedkar Nagar Vs. He placed reliance upon a judgment passed in Special Appeal (Defective) No.92 of 2016 (District Basic Shiksha Adhikari Ambedkar Nagar Vs. Chandra Prakash Tripathi and others), decided on 2.3.2016 and another judgment of the learned Single Judge in the case of Fateh Bahadur Singh Vs. The Regional Higher Education Officer, Lucknow & another reported in 2006 (24) LCD 440. 16. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders and the orders are just and valid. 17. Having heard the rival contentions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I perused the material on record as well as the law report relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners. 18. In regard to first submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that due to non passing of the order on papers submitted for grant of approval to the selection of the Principal, Assistant Teachers and Clerk within a period of one month, it is deemed that the approval has been accorded. In this regard, on the basis of material, it is well established that after making selection, the papers were submitted before the District Basic Education Officer vide letter dated 24.06.2015 for grant of approval, however, the District Basic Education Officer did not pass any order for a long spell of time. In this regard, Rule 10 of U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 is quoted below: “10. Procedure for selection. - (1) The Selection Committee shall, after interviewing such candidates as appear before it on a date to be fixed by it in this behalf, of which due intimation shall be given to all the candidates, prepare a list containing as far as possible the names, in order of preference, of three candidates found to be suitable for appointment. (2) The list prepared under clause (1) shall also contain particulars regarding the date of birth, academic qualifications and teaching experience of the candidates and shall be signed by all the members of the Selection Committee. (3) The Selection Committee shall, as soon as possible, forward such list, together with the minutes of the proceedings of the Committee to the management. (3) The Selection Committee shall, as soon as possible, forward such list, together with the minutes of the proceedings of the Committee to the management. (4) The Manager shall within one week from the date of receipt of the papers under clause (3) send a copy of the list to the District Basic Education Officer. (5) (i) If the District Basic Education Officer is satisfied that - (a) the candidates recommended by the Selection Committee possess the minimum qualifications prescribed for the post; (b) the procedure laid down in these rules for the selection of Headmaster or Assistant Teacher, as the case may be, has been followed he shall accord approval to the recommendations made by the Selection Committee and shall communicate his decision to the Management within two weeks from the date of receipt of the papers under clause (4). (ii) If the District Basic Education Officer is not satisfied as aforesaid, he shall return the papers to the Management with the direction that the matter shall be reconsidered by the Selection Committee. (iii) If the District Basic Education Officer does not communicate his decision within one month from the date of receipt of the papers under clause (4), he shall be deemed to have accorded approval to the recommendations made by the Selection Committee.” 19. On perusal of the aforesaid rule, it is evident on the face of it that in case the order of approval or refusal to grant approval is not passed within the period of one month from the date of submission of papers of selection proceeding, then it is deemed to be approved on expiry of one month. 20. In the present case, the papers were submitted on 24.06.2015 and for almost six months, the District Basic Education Officer kept mum. Therefore, in view of the provisions contained under Rule 10 of the 1978 Rules, due to non passing of the order within a period of one month, the selection of the petitioners were deemed to have been approved. In view of the above, due to non consideration of the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the impugned orders vitiate in law and are liable to be set aside. 21. In regard to second submission of learned Senior Advocate, this Court found that the order impugned is not very specific. In view of the above, due to non consideration of the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the impugned orders vitiate in law and are liable to be set aside. 21. In regard to second submission of learned Senior Advocate, this Court found that the order impugned is not very specific. It does not record detailed reason that which of the provisions of the Act and Rules governing the selection proceeding on the post of Assistant Teacher up to the level of Junior High School has been vitiated in making the selection of the petitioners. 22. On perusal of the impugned order, the only reason has been assigned that in regard to appointment on the post of Clerk, one Saurabh Singh was recommended for appointment on the post of Clerk under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. The Committee of Management while making selection has not been considered that the candidate who belongs under Dying in Harness Rules against the post of Clerk, is entitled to get appointment. In this regard, on perusal of the record, it is found that the recommendation of Saurabh Singh on the post of Clerk was met prior to initiation of the selection proceeding or after the submission of papers regarding approval of selection. In absence of clear cut finding in this regard, the impugned order renders unsustainable in law. 23. The District Basic Education Officer, while rejecting to grant approval, had not recorded finding that which provisions of the Act and Rules have been violated while making selection on the post of Headmaster, Assistant Teacher and on clerk, thus the reason being not specific suffers from illegality. 24. On overall consideration of the respective arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it is crystal clear that the main issue in rejecting the approval is that the nominee of the District Basic Education Officer was not present in the Selection Committee and in his absence, the Selection Committee was permitted to conclude the selection proceeding. It is recorded that in case one Member of the Selection Committee is absent and the decision has been taken by majority of Members including the Chairman of the Selection Committee in making selection, the same does not vitiate the selection made in absence of nominee of the District Basic Education Officer. It is recorded that in case one Member of the Selection Committee is absent and the decision has been taken by majority of Members including the Chairman of the Selection Committee in making selection, the same does not vitiate the selection made in absence of nominee of the District Basic Education Officer. Upon bare perusal of the judgment relied upon and after examination of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ambedkar Nagar (supra) and Fateh Bahadur Singh (Supra), this Court holds that issue involved in the aforesaid judgments was in regard to the appointment on the post of Clerk, wherein in the selection proceedings nominee of the District Basic Education Officer did not participate. The learned Single Judge on the basis of material placed on record found that the District Basic Education Officer to send the nominee on the letter submitted by the Manager/ Principal of the Institution, did not respond and in consequence thereto, the Selection Committee comprising of Manager and Headmaster met and made recommendation for the appointment and thereafter, the selection was made in absence of nominee of the District Basic Education Officer. Thus, in the present case, in case the same has been disapproved on the ground of nonappearance of nominee of the District Basic Education Officer, the impugned order appears to be not justifiable in law. 25. The counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties denying the allegations made in the writ petitions and specifically stating therein that since the rules governing the service conditions of the petitioners prescribes that representative of the District Basic Education Officer shall participate in the selection, who was not present, therefore, the entire selection vitiates in law. 26. In the rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the petitioners, the allegations made in the counter affidavit have been denied. 27. The learned Single Judge held that it is the District Basic Education Officer, who himself failed to send the nominee to participate in the selection proceeding. Therefore, the selection cannot be faulted on the alleged ground. 26. In the rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the petitioners, the allegations made in the counter affidavit have been denied. 27. The learned Single Judge held that it is the District Basic Education Officer, who himself failed to send the nominee to participate in the selection proceeding. Therefore, the selection cannot be faulted on the alleged ground. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was assailed in the Special Appeal (D) No.92 of 2016 (Supra), wherein the Division Bench of this Court declined to interfere by holding as under: “We do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment particularly for the reason that the District Basic Education Officer had himself failed to send the nominee who otherwise would have participated in the selection proceedings. In our considered opinion, the selection can not be faulted on the alleged ground that the selection committee comprising of two members could not hold the selection, as such, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference.” 28. In the another judgment relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in the case of Fateh Bahadur Singh (Supra), the proceeding was initiated to make selection on the post of Clerk under the first statute of Kanpur University, Statute No.21-03(6)(b). On submission of papers, the proposal of the Selection Committee was disapproved on the ground that neither the District Inspector of Schools nor the District Employment Officer participated in the selection. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are quoted below: “9. It transpires from the record that the selection had been disapproved only on the ground that the DIOS himself had not participated and the District Employment Officer nor his representative had participated in the selection. The said ground is not available to the Regional Higher Education Officer for disapproving the selection for the reason that the DIOS had written by means of letter dated 11.6.1991 that whenever he is out of Head Quarter his functions are to be discharged by the Finance and Accounts Officer. So as a practice, since on the date of selection the DIOS was out of Head Quarter, therefore, he authorized the Finance and Accounts officer to participate in the selection. So as a practice, since on the date of selection the DIOS was out of Head Quarter, therefore, he authorized the Finance and Accounts officer to participate in the selection. The non-participation of the DIOS under some compelling circumstances or under some misconception will not vitiate the selection when there was representation, in the capacity of DIOS, of District Finance and Accounts Officer, in his absence in the Head Quarter as practice prevalent in the DIOS office. The District Employment Officer was firmly of the view that since the intimation of the vacancy was not made 15 days prior to the selection to him, therefore, he will not participate in the selection. This reasoning of the District Employment Officer does not appeal to reason and the District Employment Officer could have participated in the selection putting his dissent in the selection, but instead of doing so, he opted to remain away from the selection with the understanding that he was only member of the Selection Committee. 10. The validity of the selection proceedings, if at all were vitiated for want of quorum, although not provided by the rules, regulations or by the Statutes would be valid or not, has not been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it has been held that if no quorum has been provided then merely because one of the representatives of the members has not participated in the selection, could not vitiate the selection proceedings. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of Hon’ble the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1972 SC page 1812, Ishwar Chandra v. Stayanarain Sinha and others, in which it has been held that if majority of the members are present in the selection and any quorum has not been provided then the selection would be valid and cannot be vitiated on this count. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is being quoted below: “If for one reason or the other one of them could not attend, that does not make the meeting of others illegal. In such circumstances, where there is no rule or regulation or any other provision for fixing the quorum, the presence of the majority of the members would constitute it a valid meeting and matters considered thereat cannot be held to be invalid.” 12. In such circumstances, where there is no rule or regulation or any other provision for fixing the quorum, the presence of the majority of the members would constitute it a valid meeting and matters considered thereat cannot be held to be invalid.” 12. In the wake of the observation made in the case of Ishwar Chandra (supra), the disapproval order cannot be sustained. The reasoning given by the Regional Higher Education Officer is not valid in the eye of law, as the selection cannot be vitiated on account of the fact that the District Employment Officer refused to participate in the selection. The petitioner is already in employment and is also working and once the appointment was being made on the basis of open advertisement, the reasoning of the District Employment Officer was not valid for intimating the vacancy. The intimation of vacancy is not contemplated under the Kanpur University Statutes and as such the requirement of giving intimation to the District Employment Officer was not valid and legal in the eye of law. The petitioner is already in employment and is working and she shall continue to work.” 29. In view of the law report relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, there is no hesitation to hold that the decision taken by the majority in the Selection Committee, the selections of the petitioners do not vitiate in law. 30. In view of the above legal position, this Court is of the opinion that impugned orders dated 02.02.2016 and 24.02.2016, contained as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition are illegal and are liable to be set aside. 31. In the result, the writ petitions succeed and are allowed. 32. Accordingly, a writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned orders dated 02.02.2016 and 24.02.2016 contained as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. 33. The respondents are directed to pass a fresh order in the light of observations made above and law reports relied upon within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 34. 33. The respondents are directed to pass a fresh order in the light of observations made above and law reports relied upon within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 34. The similar orders have been challenged in the connected writ petitions i.e. Writ Petition No.9201 (SS) of 2016 titled 'Ravi Kiran Singh v. State of U.P. and others’ and Writ Petition No.29282 (SS) of 2016 titled 'Shiv Prakash v. State of U.P. and others and the same grounds and facts have been mentioned in the writ petitions pertaining to the selection of Assistant Teacher in the same Institution, thus the impugned order dated 02.02.2016 and 24.02.2016 as contained in Annexure no.1 is set aside and the writ petitions are allowed in the same terms with the same direction. 35. In Writ Petition No.7832 (SS) of 2016 titled 'Jaideep Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and others', the matter pertains to the selection on the post of Headmaster, wherein the same date orders have been challenged by the petitioner on same facts and on same grounds. 36. In view of the above, the order in regard to the post of Headmaster passed on the same date i.e. 2.2.2016 is not sustainable in law and the same is set aside. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed in the same terms with the same directions.