JUDGMENT : IRSHAD ALI, J. 1. Heard Sri S.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and to the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4. 2. Sri Surya Prakash Singh, learned Advocate has today filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.5 in the Court. The same may be taken on record. 3. This bunch of writ petitions is being decided by means of a common order treating Writ Petition No.33753 (SS) of 2018 to be leading writ petition. 4. Vide order dated 26.11.2018, the DIOS was directed to file his personal affidavit that once the Government Order dated 06.04.2018 and 04.09.2013 were finally adjudicated by this Court in the case of Committee of Management-Babu Baijal Das, then under what circumstances the impugned order has been passed. 5. Taking into consideration the amendment incorporated subsequent to the appointment of the petitioner, the DIOS filed his personal affidavit today in the Court in Writ Petitions No.33753 (SS) of 2018, 33754 (SS) of 2018, 33755 (SS) of 2018 and 33756 (SS) of 2018. The same may be taken on record. 6. The factual matrix of the case is that there is an institution in the name of Janta Intermediate College, Bharawan, District Hardoi, which is a recognized institution under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and is receiving aid from the State Government, therefore, the provisions of U.P. Act No.24 of 1971 in as much as the provisions of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 is applicable to the said institution. 7. There are 8 posts of Class IV employees lying vacant in the said institution, out of which, six posts belong to the General Category, one post to OBC Category and one post to SC Category. 8. The petitioner in the leading writ petition No.33753 (SS) of 2018 belongs to General Category. The Principal of the institution vide applications dated 07.03.2013, 02.09.2013 and 23.11.2013 requested to the District Inspector of Schools (DIOS) to grant prior permission to initiate selection proceeding for selection and appointment against the vacant posts. When no permission was accorded, the Principal of the institution issued advertisement in the daily newspapers Rashtriya Sahara and Gramin Sahara inviting applications from the open market from eligible and qualified candidates to appear in the selection and the Selection Committee selected the petitioner on Class IV post. When no permission was accorded, the Principal of the institution issued advertisement in the daily newspapers Rashtriya Sahara and Gramin Sahara inviting applications from the open market from eligible and qualified candidates to appear in the selection and the Selection Committee selected the petitioner on Class IV post. The petitioner was issued appointment letter on 11.01.2014 on the said post and in pursuance thereto, he joined duties in the institution on 13.01.2014 and since then, he is discharging his duties. Papers were submitted before the DIOS for grant of financial concurrence / approval to the selection and appointment of the petitioner. Reminder letters were also issued to the same effect. When no order was passed, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.1538 (SS) of 2014 before this Court, which was finally disposed of with a direction to the DIOS to take decision regarding approval of appointment of the petitioner. The DIOS passed an order on 14.03.2018, whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of approval has been rejected on the ground that there is a rider on appointment on Class IV post vide Government Order dated 06.01.2011 and amendment has been incorporated by issuing Government Order on 04.09.2013 in as much as further objection has been taken that Regulation 101 has been amended by issuing a notification on 26.04.2014, which is subject matter of challenge in Special Appeal No.266 of 2015. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner was rejected. 9. In this matter, under the judgment in the case of Dhruv Narayan Singh, the sanctioned strength of the institution was duly examined and thereafter, the order was passed by the DIOS on 01.12.2012 determining the sanctioned strength of Class IV employees of the petitioner’s institution and it was held that there are 17 duly sanctioned posts in the institution. The purpose of prior approval is to ensure the correctness of the strength of the sanctioned posts in the institution and to verify that whether the post is vacant or not. Once the material was placed before the DIOS in regard to sanctioned strength of the institution vide letter dated 01.12.2012, therefore, there was no dispute in regard to the sanctioned strength of Class IV employees in the institution. 10. Once the material was placed before the DIOS in regard to sanctioned strength of the institution vide letter dated 01.12.2012, therefore, there was no dispute in regard to the sanctioned strength of Class IV employees in the institution. 10. Assailing the impugned order dated 14.03.2018, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the controversy of prior approval was taken into consideration in the case of Abhishek Tripathi decided vide judgment and order dated 20.03.2015 in Writ-A No.8834 of 2015, wherein this Court while examining the material on record had taken notice to the effect that in case the sanctioned strength has been determined in compliance of the judgment passed in the case of Dhruva Narayan Singh, there would be no further requirement for referring the matter again before the Director of Education (Secondary), as contemplated in Regulation 101, as it would be futile exercise and would further delay the appointment and would impede the daily functioning of the institution. 11. He further placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Preet Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and others; 2011 9 ADJ 591 on the point of prior approval and made submission that prior approval of the DIOS is not required to be granted prior to initiation of the process for making appointment. He further submitted that the Government Order dated 06.01.2011 and 04.09.2013 have been set aside by this Court in the case of Committee of Management of Babu Baijal Das. Therefore, the ground taken in the impugned order is not sustainable in law. He further submitted that the appointment of the petitioner has been made prior to the amendment made in Regulation 101 by issuing notification dated 26.04.2014. The process of appointment of the petitioner was initiated and ended on 11.01.2014, on which date the petitioner was issued appointment letter, therefore, the amended provision is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances the case. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no illegality in the order dated 14.03.2018 and the same is a just and valid order. They next submitted that the ratio of the judgment passed in the above referred cases are not disputed but the same is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. 13. Having heard the rival contentions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I perused the material on record. 14. They next submitted that the ratio of the judgment passed in the above referred cases are not disputed but the same is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. 13. Having heard the rival contentions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I perused the material on record. 14. On perusal, it is reflected that in the entire impugned order, there is no dispute that the selection proceeding was initiated by following the procedure prescribed under the law by inviting applications from eligible and qualified candidates by issuing advertisement in the newspapers having wide circulation in the area. It has also not been disputed that the Selection Committee constituted has selected the petitioner by following the procedure. The only objection in regard to the appointment of the petitioner has been raised that in view of the Government Order dated 06.01.2011, there was rider to make appointment on Class IV posts and by issuing Government Order dated 04.09.2013, Regulation 101 was amended by providing appointment through outsourcing. 15. The DIOS has failed to take into consideration that Government Orders dated 06.01.2011 and 04.09.2013 were subject matter of challenge in the case of Committee of Management-Babu Baijal Das. This Court after consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, held the aforesaid two government orders to be contrary to the act and rules applicable to the employees of an institution duly recognized under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and Payment of Salaries Act, 1971. 16. The DIOS has also failed to consider that the amendment was incorporated in the statute book vide notification issued on 26.04.2014 and prior to making amendment in Regulation 101, the petitioner was selected and was granted appointment in the institution. Therefore, the amended provision is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. 17. This Court in the above referred judgments held that in regard to the appointment on Class IV post, prior approval is not required in case there is sufficient material to establish that there is sanctioned strength in the institution and the vacancies are available to make selection. 18. On overall consideration of the material on record, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the order of the DIOS dated 14.03.2018 suffers from manifest error of law due to non consideration of the aforesaid aspect of the matter and therefore, cannot be sustained. 18. On overall consideration of the material on record, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the order of the DIOS dated 14.03.2018 suffers from manifest error of law due to non consideration of the aforesaid aspect of the matter and therefore, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 14.03.2018 is hereby set aside. 19. The Writ Petition No.33753 (SS) of 2018 succeeds and is allowed. 20. The DIOS, District Hardoi is directed to reconsider the matter and to afford opportunity of hearing to the Principal of the institution as well as to the petitioner and to pass a fresh appropriate reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 21. Similar controversy is involved in Writ Petition Nos.33754 (SS) of 2018, 33755 (SS) of 2018, 33756 (SS) of 2018 and 35532 (SS) of 2018. 22. Therefore, the aforesaid writ petitions are also succeed and allowed in terms of the judgment passed in Writ Petition No.33753 (SS) of 2018.