Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 661 (ALL)

Hemant Chaudhary v. State Of U. P.

2020-03-03

IRSHAD ALI

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. The rejoinder affidavit filed today may be taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri K.M. Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Dashrath Prasad, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4. 3. By means of present writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 11.11.2019 passed by the District Inspector of Schools (DIOS), Mathura -respondent No.3, whereby claim of the petitioners for grant of approval to the selection has been rejected. 4. Factual matrix of the case is that Jain Inter College, Chaurasi, Mathura is a recognized institution under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and is receiving grant in aid from the State Government. In view of that, the provisions of U.P. Act No.24 of 1971 is applicable to the said institution. The institution is a minority institution recognized under the provisions of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. The Committee of Management initiated a proceeding of selection in pursuance to an advertisement issued in two daily newspapers; one in Hindi and another in English as per provisions contained under Regulation 17 of the regulations framed under Chapter II of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (for short, "Act of 1921"). 5. In the advertisement, 11 posts of Lt. Grade teachers were advertised. The petitioners applied in pursuance to the advertisement issued on 24.08.2015 and the Selection Committee made recommendation for appointment to the Committee of Management. 6. In view of the provisions contained under Section 16-FF of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, before making appointment, prior approval of the DIOS is required for issuance of appointment letter. 7. Accordingly, the Committee of Management submitted papers to the DIOS for grant of approval on 21.07.2016. The DIOS, Mathura raised objection that in view of the provisions contained under Regulation 20 of Chapter II of the Act of 1921, approval cannot be granted as no sanction was obtained for revival of the posts. 8. The Manager of the institution forwarded all the papers to the Director of Education (Secondary) and a letter was also sent to the DIOS in this regard on 31.08.2016, whereupon order was passed by the Director of Education (Secondary) and the posts were revived as per norms provided under the government order for sanction of post. 8. The Manager of the institution forwarded all the papers to the Director of Education (Secondary) and a letter was also sent to the DIOS in this regard on 31.08.2016, whereupon order was passed by the Director of Education (Secondary) and the posts were revived as per norms provided under the government order for sanction of post. After passing the order by the Director of Education (Secondary), the Committee of Management requested to accord approval to the selection on 11 posts. 9. The DIOS passed an order on 19.04.2017 and 03.05.2017, whereby direction was issued to initiate fresh proceeding of selection in pursuance to the order passed by the Director of Education (Secondary) for revival of posts. 10. The petitioners preferred Writ-A No.26088/2018, which was decided vide judgment and order dated 11.12.2018, whereby direction was issued to the DIOS, Mathura to accord fresh consideration to the claim of the petitioners in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court taking into consideration the provisions contained under Section 16-FF of the Act of 1921. 11. In pursuance to the direction issued by this Court, an order was passed by the DIOS on 13.02.2019, whereby the selection of the petitioners was disapproved. The order of the disapproval dated 13.02.2019 was again challenged before this Court in Writ -A No.8069/2019 and the similar order passed by the DIOS was subject matter of challenge in Writ-A No.4791/2019; Smt. Shweta Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and others, which was allowed and the impugned order of the same date was quashed and the matter was remanded back to the DIOS, Mathura to pass fresh order. 12. The writ petition filed by the petitioners was also allowed vide judgment and order dated 20.05.2019, whereby the DIOS was directed to pass fresh order in the light of the observation made in the judgment. The DIOS taking the same view, disapproved the appointment of the petitioners. The same date order was under challenge before this Court in Writ-A No.18983/2019; Smt. Babita and others Vs. The DIOS taking the same view, disapproved the appointment of the petitioners. The same date order was under challenge before this Court in Writ-A No.18983/2019; Smt. Babita and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, wherein after noticing the entire facts of the case this Court passed the following order : "Be that as it may, this Court while rendering judgment in the case of petitioners in Writ Petition No.7856 of 2019 has already rejected the objection taken by the respondent no.3 regarding non-compliance of the procedure provided in the Government Order dated 12.03.2018 in making selection and the selection of the petitioners on the non-existent post, therefore, the said objection taken by the respondent no.3 is misconceived as judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.7856 of 2019 has become final between the parties. Further, this Court while deciding the issue in Writ Petition No.7856 of 2019 has granted liberty to the respondent no.3 to examine the documents in respect of election of committee of management and this Court finds that respondent no.3 while passing the impugned order has not adverted to any of the documents filed by the petitioners to verify the validity of the Committee of Management, who initiated the selection procedure. The respondent no.3 has placed reliance upon the letter dated 08.12.2017 of the then District Inspector of School in paragraph 9 of the order which nowhere mentions about the validity of committee of management, and thus, facts of the case clearly establishes that respondent no.3 has completely ignored the orders of this Court while passing the impugned order, and thus, has wilfully flouted the orders of this Court. In this view of the fact, this Court finds substance in the argument of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners. Thus, in view of above, let notice be issued to respondent no.3, District Inspector of Schools, District Mathura, to show cause as to why the matter should not be referred to the contempt Court for initiating contempt proceedings against him and why his personal responsibility in the matter be not fixed. He shall remain present personally on the next date alongwith his reply. Put up on 20.01.2020 in the additional cause list." 13. He shall remain present personally on the next date alongwith his reply. Put up on 20.01.2020 in the additional cause list." 13. In pursuance to the order, the DIOS appeared before this Court on the date fixed and assured that the order impugned of the writ petition of Writ-A No.18983/2019 shall be recalled, in case short time is granted to him. 14. Accordingly, the order of disapproval of the appointment of the petitioners of the aforesaid writ petition was recalled vide order dated 23.01.2020 and appointment of the petitioners of the above referred writ petition was accorded approval. The said order was placed before this Court in Writ-A No.18983/2019 and the petition has been dismissed as rendered infructuous. 15. The controversy involved in the present writ petition also pertains to the same selection and similar order of DIOS is under challenge. 16. Assailing the order impugned, submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioners is that the DIOS while passing the impugned order ignored the specific reasons assigned in the order dated 20.05.2019 passed in Writ-A No.8069/2019. 17. His next submission is that the DIOS while exercising the power under Section 16-FF of Act of 1921 is confined and restricted to the scope of inquiry and the said aspect of the matter was duly considered in Writ-A No.26088/2018 decided on 11.12.2018, whereby the writ petition was disposed of in terms of the judgment and order dated 28.11.2018 passed in Writ Petition No.25087/2018. 18. He further submitted that the DIOS has proceeded beyond the scope of inquiry and illegally disapproved the selection and appointment of the petitioners on erroneous consideration, thus, the order impugned cannot sustain in law. 19. In regard to the objection taken in the impugned order that the committee of management is not validly elected committee of management, submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioners is that the election of the committee of management was held on 16.06.2013 and the salary of the teachers and other employees of the institution have been disbursed under the signature of the signature of the manager of the institution, who made the selection, therefore, the objection in this regard is absolutely perverse and vitiated in law. 20. 20. He next submitted that the committee of management with Sri Munish Kumar Jain was elected in earlier election also and continued to discharge duties and functions without any dispute, who held the next election and no dispute of rival claim of election was raised at any stage. 21. His further submission is that the post against which the petitioners have been granted appointment are duly sanctioned posts and the selection has been made by following the procedure prescribed under Section 16-FF and Regulation 17 of Chapter 2 of the regulations framed under the Act of 1921, therefore, the order passed by the DIOS is illegal and legally not sustainable in the eyes of law. 22. His last submission is that in compliance of the judgment and order passed in Writ Petition No.18983/2019; Smt. Babita and others Vs State of U.P. and others and Writ Petition No.7856/2019 decided vide judgment and order dated 17.05.2019, the same date order dated 11.11.2019 was recalled and order of approval was granted to the selection made by the same committee of management, therefore, the petitioners are also entitled to get the same relief in the present writ petition. 23. On the other hand, learned standing counsel submitted that the impugned order dated 11.11.2019 is just and valid and does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality but he does not dispute the fact that in compliance of the order passed by this court, the DIOS has recalled the order dated 11.11.2019 in regard to same selection proceeding and accorded approval to the selection of petitioners of Writ Petition Nos.18983/2019 and 7856/2019. He further invited attention of this court on certain paragraphs of the counter affidavit in regard to proceeding of selection and dispute in the committee of management. 24. I have considered the rival contentions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record and the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the parties. 25. On perusal of the material on record, it is evident that the petitioners filed Writ Petition No.26088/2018 challenging the order of DIOS dated 03.05.2017 and 19.04.2017, wherein after examining the material on record, the writ petition was finally disposed of vide judgment and order dated 11.12.2018 in terms of order dated 28.11.2018 passed in Writ Petition No.25087/2018. 25. On perusal of the material on record, it is evident that the petitioners filed Writ Petition No.26088/2018 challenging the order of DIOS dated 03.05.2017 and 19.04.2017, wherein after examining the material on record, the writ petition was finally disposed of vide judgment and order dated 11.12.2018 in terms of order dated 28.11.2018 passed in Writ Petition No.25087/2018. Relevant portion of the judgment is being quoted below: "One of the other similarly placed person, as the petitioners in this petition, had approached this Court against the same impugned order by filing Writ Petition No. 25087 of 2018, wherein following orders have been passed on 28.11.2018:- "Jain Inter College, Chaurasi Mathura is a recognized minority institution situated at Mathura. Provisions of Payment of Salaries Act, 1971 are also applicable upon the institution. It appears that a post of Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade had fallen vacant in the institution concerned, upon which the committee of management proceeded to appoint the petitioner and papers were transmitted to the District Inspector of Schools for according approval to it. The District Inspector of Schools vide its order dated 3.5.2017 has rejected the proposal on the ground that the post itself had lapsed by virtue of Regulation -20 of Chapter-II, framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The order records that since the post itself was not available and the revival of post has been allowed granted by the authorities after making of the appointment itself, the Committee of Management would have to initiate fresh process for appointment in the institution concerned. Learned counsel for the submits that the limited scope of scrutiny available with the Inspector in a minority institution would be as per Section 16-FF of the Act of 1921. Submission is that the petitioner has been duly appointed and he possess the requisite qualification and, therefore, the direction of the concerned authority for recruitment to be undertaken afresh would result in an exercise which would serve no purpose. It is also stated that a Division Bench of this Court in Tariq Maqbool and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2015(1) ADJ, 650 had taken a view that even in a minority institution the institution would not be competent to make an appointment once the post itself stood lapsed by virtue of Regulation-20. It is also stated that a Division Bench of this Court in Tariq Maqbool and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2015(1) ADJ, 650 had taken a view that even in a minority institution the institution would not be competent to make an appointment once the post itself stood lapsed by virtue of Regulation-20. This judgment was assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal No. 58715872 of 2015 in which the Special Leave to Appeal has been disposed of vide following orders:- "After haring the matter at length, learned counsel appearing for the parties agree that the matter may be resolved in the following way; The common respondent no. 5-College shall, in pursuance of the directions given by the High Court vide the impugned order dated11.12.2014 in Special Appeal Nos. 1359 of 2013, make an application to the competent maturity for fresh sanction of posts and to retify the posts according to the selection of the petitioners already made. The competent authority shall consider granting sanction for the vacant posts either retrospectively or with effect from the date the application is made. We find there is dispute that the petitioners are either unqualified or otherwise not suitable. We Ravindra Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, states that the petitioners would not claim any arrears of their salaries even if their appointment is ratified from the retrospective date. We order accordingly. The instant special leave petitions stand disposed of in the above terms. As a sequel to the above, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of." Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, herein, also undertakes to give up her claim for salary from the retrospective date and that the authority be directed to consider the petitioner's for appointment in accordance with law. Learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents, although disputes the submission, but does not dispute that the post has already been revived in the institution concerned and that the limited scope for examination to the Inspector would be confined to the parameters laid down in Section 16-FF of the Act of 1921. Learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents, although disputes the submission, but does not dispute that the post has already been revived in the institution concerned and that the limited scope for examination to the Inspector would be confined to the parameters laid down in Section 16-FF of the Act of 1921. Considering the facts and circumstances, noticed above, it would be appropriate to direct the District Inspector of Schools, Mathura to accord consideration to petitioner's claim in light of the orders passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, extracted above, within a period of three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to respondent no. 5.The Inspector shall be at liberty to examine the qualification of petitioner and his scope of inquiry would be confined to Section 16-FF of the Act of 1921. No useful purpose would be served in directing a fresh exercise to be undertaken inasmuch as the scope of inquiry by the Inspector, otherwise, would be restricted to Section 16-FF of the Act of 1921. The order impugned dated 3.5.2017 and 19.4.2017 shall remain subject to the fresh orders to be passed by the Inspector, as intimated above". Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute that same orders are challenged in the present writ petition also and the controversy raised is identical. In that view of the matter, this petition is also disposed of in terms of the order dated 28.11.2018 passed in Writ Petition No. 25087 of 2018." 26. The DIOS again passed an order on 13.02.2019, whereby the claim of the petitioners for payment of salary was rejected without considering the parameters of Section 16-FF of the Act of 1921 as directed by this court in earlier litigation came before this court. 27. The order dated 13.02.2019 was assailed by the petitioners in Writ-A No.8069/2019; Dr. Hemant Chaudhary and others Vs State of U.P. and others. The same date order was also challenged by Smt. Shweta Tiwari in Writ-A No.4791/2019, which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 11.04.2019 considering each and every aspect of the matter and the order dated 13.02.2019 was set aside with the direction to accord fresh consideration to the claim of petitioners for grant of approval to the selection vide judgment and order dated 11.04.2019. Relevant portion of the judgment is being quoted below: "In pursuance thereof, instructions have been furnished to learned standing counsel, which is taken on record. According to it, the term of the last validly elected Committee came to an end on 3.7.2009 and thereafter no valid election was held. It has also been stated that the selection made by the Committee whose term had expired would not be valid. When the said fact came to the knowledge of the District Inspector of Schools, he, by letter dated 23.12.2017, required the Management to hold elections within one month. Thereafter, fresh election was held on 21.1.2018 and which was recognised on 11.7.2018. It is also stated in paragraph 11 of the instructions furnished to learned standing counsel that out of eleven posts, only seven posts were revived. The first objection that only seven posts were revived by order dated 14.12.2017 does not appear to be correct. The petitioner has brought on record the order dated 16.3.2018 passed by Director of Education, Madhyamik, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, whereby four more posts of assistant teachers was revived. It is noteworthy that the validity of Regulation 20 of Chapter II, which provided that in case a post remains unadvertised for three months, it would lapse unless fresh approval for its revival is obtained, was subjected to challenge before the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal No.5871 -5872 of 2015 and which was disposed of by the Supreme Court by the following order:- "After hearing the matter at length, learned counsel appearing for the parties agree that the matter may be resolved in the following way: The common respondent no. 5-College shall, in pursuance of the directions given by the High Court vide the impugned order dated 11.12.2014 in Special Appeal Nos. 1359 and 1360 of 2013, make an application to the competent maturity for fresh sanction of posts and to ratify the posts according to the selection of the petitioners already made. The competent authority shall consider granting sanction for the vacant posts either retrospectively or with effect from the date the application is made. We find there is no dispute that the petitioners are either unqualified or otherwise not suitable. Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, states that the petitioners would not claim any arrears of their salaries even if their appointment is ratified from the retrospective date. We find there is no dispute that the petitioners are either unqualified or otherwise not suitable. Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, states that the petitioners would not claim any arrears of their salaries even if their appointment is ratified from the retrospective date. We order accordingly. The instant special leave petitions stand disposed of in the above terms. As a sequel to the above, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of." It has also not been disputed before this Court that when on a previous occasion the District Inspector of Schools declined to grant approval to the appointments in question, the petitioner alongwith other selected candidates filed Writ-A No.26403 of 2018 and Writ-A No.25087 of 2018. These writ petitions were disposed of by this Court with the following directions:- "Considering the facts and circumstances, noticed above, it would be appropriate to direct the District Inspector of Schools, Mathura to accord consideration to petitioner's claim in light of the orders passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, extracted above, within a period of three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to respondent no. 5.The Inspector shall be at liberty to examine the qualification of petitioner and his scope of inquiry would be confined to Section 16-FF of the Act of 1921. No useful purpose would be served in directing a fresh exercise to be undertaken inasmuch as the scope of inquiry by the Inspector, otherwise, would be restricted to Section 16-FF of the Act of 1921. The order impugned dated 3.5.2017 and 19.4.2017 shall remain subject to the fresh orders to be passed by the Inspector, as intimated above". It is also not disputed by learned standing counsel that the combined effect of the above orders would be that even if the selection was made prior to revival of the posts, but once the selection is approved having regard to the factors stipulated under Section 16-F, the selected candidates would become entitled for payment of salary atleast from the date of revial of the posts. The orders dated 13.12.2018 and 18.11.2018 in Writ-A No.26403 of 2018 and Writ-A No.25087 of 2018 directing the District Inspector of Schools to confine the scope of enquiry to Section 16FF has attained finality. The orders dated 13.12.2018 and 18.11.2018 in Writ-A No.26403 of 2018 and Writ-A No.25087 of 2018 directing the District Inspector of Schools to confine the scope of enquiry to Section 16FF has attained finality. In such view of the matter, the District Inspector of Schools was not justified in declining to grant approval to the selection of the petitioner on the same ground that the post came to be revived later on, a dispute which stood settled by the orders passed in earlier writ petitions. All that he could have done was to impose a condition that the salary would become payable from the date post was revived in case the appointment is otherwise found to be valid. In fact, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly conceded to the said legal position and has stated that the petitioner would not claim salary for the earlier period. Coming to the second objection regarding selection having been made by the Committee which is not duly recognised, it is noteworthy that in the instructions furnished, the District Inspector of Schools has not said a word as to how salary bills were being passed under signatures of Munish Kumar Jain, the Manager of the Committee of Management, which held the selection in question. This is despite a specific direction by this Court vide order dated 30.3.2019. The petitioner has come up with the case that the election was duly held on 16.6.2013 in which Munish Kumar Jain was re-elected. Although no document has been brought on record to show that the election was communicated to the educational authorities but the fact which remains undisputed is that the salary bills for the period in question were duly passed under signatures of Munish Kumar Jain. The District Inspector of Schools, while raising the objection in question, has not alluded to the said aspect, therefore, the objection taken in this regard requires re-consideration at his end, being a dispute of factual nature. The third objection that the procedure prescribed by Government Order dated 12.3.2018 has not been followed, does not survive in view of the discussion made above while dealing with the first objection. In consequence and as a result of discussion made above, the impugned order dated 13.2.2019 is quashed. The third objection that the procedure prescribed by Government Order dated 12.3.2018 has not been followed, does not survive in view of the discussion made above while dealing with the first objection. In consequence and as a result of discussion made above, the impugned order dated 13.2.2019 is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the District Inspector of Schools, the third respondent to accord fresh consideration to the claim of the petitioner for grant of approval to her selection having regard to the observations made above. It is desirable that before passing any fresh order, in case any additional representation or document is filed before the District Inspector of Schools by the petitioner or by Committee of Management of the institution, the same shall be duly considered. The decision in this regard shall be taken expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above." 28. The writ petition of the petitioners which was numbered as Writ Petition No.8069/2019 was also allowed and the order dated 13.02.2019 was quashed in the same terms as was decided in Writ-A No.4791/2019 vide judgment and order dated 11.04.2019. 29. Now, again the DIOS on the same set of facts and grounds has proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 11.11.2019. The said order was also assailed by the teachers of the same selection proceeding in Writ-A No.18983/2019, wherein this court after examining the material on record issued notice to the DIOS that why the order passed at earlier point of time by this court in writ petitions have not been followed and why the matter may not be placed before the contempt court in compliance of the order passed by this court. Thereafter, the DIOS recalled the order dated 11.11.2019 and accorded approval to the petitioners of Writ-A No.18983/2019. 30. To decide the merit of the selection of the petitioner, it is relevant to look into the provisions governing the initiation of selection proceeding in a recognized minority institution under the Act of 1921. Thereafter, the DIOS recalled the order dated 11.11.2019 and accorded approval to the petitioners of Writ-A No.18983/2019. 30. To decide the merit of the selection of the petitioner, it is relevant to look into the provisions governing the initiation of selection proceeding in a recognized minority institution under the Act of 1921. The provisions of Section 16-FF of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and Regulation 17 of Chapter-II of the Regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 are relevant provision to be taken into consideration in making selection and appointment on the post of Principal, Lecturer and Assistant Teacher in a recognized institution under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. 31. To resolve the controversy involved in the present writ petition, the provision of Regulation 17 of Chapter-II of the Regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 is quoted below: "17. The procedure for filling up the vacancy of the head of institution and teachers by direct recruitment in any recognised institution referred to in Section 16-FF, shall be as follows: (a) After the management has determined the number of vacancies to be filled up by direct recruitment, the posts shall be advertised by the manager of the institution in at least one Hindi and one English newspaper having adequate circulation in the State giving particulars as to the nature (i.e., whether temporary/permanent) and number of vacancies, descriptions of post (i.e., Principal or Headmaster, Lecturer or L.T., C.T. or J.T.C./B.T.C. grade teacher including the subject or subjects in which the lecturer or teacher is required), scale or pay and other allowances, experience required minimum qualification and age prescribed, if any, for the post and prescribing a date which should not ordinarily be less than two weeks from the date of advertisement) by which the applications shall be received by the Manager. A copy of the advertisement shall be simultaneously sent to the Inspector concerned. Notes-(1) All vacancies in the posts of teachers and the head of institution existing at the time of advertisement shall be advertised. (2) No new post shall be advertised unless sanction of the appropriate authority for the creation thereof has been received by the management. (b) All applications shall be made in the form prescribed by the management and shall contain all necessary particulars about qualifications, teaching experience and other activities and be accompanied by certified copies of all the necessary certificates and testimonials. (b) All applications shall be made in the form prescribed by the management and shall contain all necessary particulars about qualifications, teaching experience and other activities and be accompanied by certified copies of all the necessary certificates and testimonials. The management may charge cost of the application form not exceeding the amount referred to in Clause (2) of Regulation 10. (c) An application by a person employed in an institution and applying for a post elsewhere or in the same institution shall not be withheld by his employer but shall be forwarded to the authority concerned immediately. (d) All applications received from the candidates shall be serially numbered and entered in a register and particulars of the candidates noted under appropriate columns. The candidates to be called for interview shall be seven for each post (the number of applicants, permitting). The Manager shall intimate by registered post all the members of the Selection Committee as well as all such candidates as are called for interview, the date, time and place of selection at least ten days before it is held. The Selection Committee will hold the selection accordingly. If on account of any unavoidable reason, the expert selected by the Committee of Management under Clause (a) of the proviso to subsection (1) of Section 16-FF is unable to attend the selection on the date fixed the meeting of the Selection Committee shall be postponed. (e) The provisions of Clauses (e) and (f) of Regulation 10 and those of Regulations 11, 12 and 16 shall mutatis mutandis apply to selections made under this regulation. (f) A panel of experts consisting of fifteen or more persons selected from category (a) referred to in Regulation 14 shall be drawn by the Director for each region and be sent to the Regional Deputy Director of Education concerned, The Regional Deputy Director of Education shall out of the said panel communicate the names of three experts in a sealed cover to the management through its Manager as soon as he receives any request for supply of names of experts from him. The regional panel of experts shall, however, remain valid until it is replaced by a new one. The regional panel of experts shall, however, remain valid until it is replaced by a new one. ¼th½ fdlh in fy, leLr vH;kfFkZ;ksa dk lk{kkRdkj dj fy, tkus ds i'pkr p;u lfefr dk lHkkifr fd;s x;s p;u dh dk;Zokfg;ksa ij nks Áfr;ksa esa ,d fVIi.kh rS;kj djk,xk ftlesa pqus x, vH;FkhZ dk uke rFkk Árh{kk lwph ds nks vU; vH;fFkZ;ksa ds uke mfYyf[kr fd;s tk;saxsA bl Ádkj rS;kj ds xbZ fVIi.kh ij p;u lfefr ds lHkkifr rFkk vU; lnL; gLrk{kj djsaxs vkSj viuk iw.kZ uke] in uke vkSj irk rFkk fnukad mfYyf[kr djsaxsA lHkkifr bl fVIi.kh dh ,d Áfr rFkk fofu;e 10 ds [kaM ¼p½ esa fufnZ"V fooj.k dh ,d Áfr /kkjk 16 pp ds v/khu ;Fkk visf{kr vuqeksnu ds fy,] ;FkkfLFkfr] laHkkxh; mi&f'k{kk funs'kd ;k fujh{kd dks rqjar vxzlfjr djsxkA lEcaf/kr vfHkys[kksa ds ÁkIr gksus ds fnukad ds ,d ekg ds Hkhrj ;FkkfLFkfr laHkkxh; mi&f'k{kk funs'kd ;k fujh{kd] mu ij viuk fu.kZ; ns nsaxs vkSj ,slk u djus ij vuqeksnu Ánku dj fn;k le>k tk;sxkA** 32. On perusal of the provisions contained under the aforesaid regulation, the existing vacancy is to be advertised in two newspapers one in Hindi and other in English. 33. In the present case, the vacancy was advertised in daily newspapers; one in hindi and other in english, which are widely circulated newspapers. 34. The candidates, eligible and qualified, including the petitioners, applied for and a selection committee constituted under the Act of 1921 on the basis of quality point marks, selected the petitioners and recommended for the appointment. Papers were duly submitted to the District Inspector of Schools for the grant of approval as required under Section 16-FF, which is being quoted below: ""16-FF. Papers were duly submitted to the District Inspector of Schools for the grant of approval as required under Section 16-FF, which is being quoted below: ""16-FF. Savings as to minority institutions.-(1) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (4) of Section 16-E, and Section 16-F, the Selection Committee for the appointment of a Head of Institution or a teacher of an institution established and administered by a minority referred to in Clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution shall consist of five members (including its Chairman) nominated by the Committee of Management : Provided that one of the members of the Selection Committee shall- (a) in the case of appointment of the Head of an institution, be an expert selected by the Committee of Management from a panel of experts prepared by the Director; (b) in the case of appointment of a teacher, be the Head of the Institution concerned. (2) The procedure to be followed by the Selection Committee referred to in sub-section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed. (3) No person selected under this section shall be appointed, unless- (a) in the case of the Head of Institution the proposal of appointment has been approved by the Regional Deputy Director of Education; and (b) in the case of a teacher such proposal has been approved by the Inspector. (4) The Regional Deputy Director of Education or the Inspector, as the case may be, shall not withhold approval for the selection made under this section where the person selected possesses the minimum qualification prescribed and is otherwise eligible. (5) Where the Regional Deputy Director of Education or the Inspector, as the case may be, does not approve of a candidate selected under this section the Committee of Management may, within three weeks from the date of receipt of such disapproval, make a representation to the Director in the case of the Head of Institution, and to the Regional Deputy Director of Education in the case of teacher. (6) Every order passed by the Director or the Regional Deputy Director of Education on a representation under sub-section (5) shall be final."" 35. On perusal of Section 16-FF, it is evident on the face of it that without approval of the District Inspector of Schools, no appointment on the post of Lecturer or Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade can be made in the institution recognized under the Act of 1921. On perusal of Section 16-FF, it is evident on the face of it that without approval of the District Inspector of Schools, no appointment on the post of Lecturer or Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade can be made in the institution recognized under the Act of 1921. It is further clarified that on submission of papers in case the District Inspector of Schools do not pass any order within a period of 1 month, then the selection is deemed to have been approved. " 36. Here, in the present case, this court issued direction to the DIOS to examine the selection of the petitioners in the light of the provisions contained under Section 16-FF of the Act of 1921. The objection raised in rejecting the claim of the petitioners for grant of approval was taken into consideration by this court in above referred judgment and direction was issued to reconsider the claim of the petitioners for grant of approval. The DIOS in utter disregard of the orders passed by this court has proceeded to pass the impugned order. 37. Once, this court upon examination of material on record issued direction to the DIOS to consider and pass appropriate order in the light of the observation made in the judgment and order referred herein above, it was incumbent upon the DIOS to take notice of the observation made by this court and to pass appropriate order. 38. On perusal of the judgment and order dated 11.12.2018 passed in Writ-A No.26088/2018, judgment and order dated 11.04.2019 passed in Writ-A No.4791/2019 as well as judgment and order dated 20.05.2019 passed in Writ-A No.8069/2019, it is evident that while passing the impugned order, the DIOS has not applied his mind and on wholly erroneous assumption has proceeded to pass the impugned order. 39. In the judgment and order dated 11.04.2019, the objection in regard to order passed by the Director of Education Secondary, U.P. at Lucknow dated 16.03.2018, this court found the post to be revived and the DIOS was confined to the scope of inquiry to Section 16-FF of the Act of 1921 and nothing beyond that. 40. Due to non consideration of aforesaid aspect of the matter, the DIOS has totally failed to decide the actual controversy involved in the matter. 41. 40. Due to non consideration of aforesaid aspect of the matter, the DIOS has totally failed to decide the actual controversy involved in the matter. 41. The objection raised by learned standing counsel was considered in earlier litigation, which came into existence before this court in regard to same selection proceeding and by recording finding on the point, the matter was re-delegated to the DIOS for reconsideration. 42. In regard to initiation of proceeding of selection by a committee of management, this court while examining the material has recorded finding by holding that once the salary of the teachers and other employees has been disbursed under the signature of Sri Manish Kumar Jain, therefore, the objection in this regard cannot be sustained. Therefore, the order taking the same ground in rejecting the claim of approval of DIOS cannot be sustained. 43. Moreover, in regard to similar selection, the DIOS has recalled his order dated 11.11.2019 and accorded approval to the selection of the teachers of the same selection, therefore, refusal to grant approval to the petitioners cannot be termed to be valid and justified. 44. In view of the above, I am of the view that the DIOS while passing the impugned order has travelled beyond his scope of consideration. The order impugned is in utter disregard of the judgment and order passed in earlier proceeding by this court and teachers of the same selection have been accorded approval by the DIOS, therefore, refusal vide impugned order is illegal and cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 11.11.2019 is hereby set aside. 45. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 46. However, the DIOS is directed to pass appropriate reasoned and speaking order of approval to the selection of the petitioners on the post of assistant teachers within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.