JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Om Prakash Mani Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Savitra Vardhan Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. 2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 07.07.2021 passed by the Director, Secondary Education, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow whereby the request of the petitioner's institution for granting approval to the selection made on Class-III post has been rejected as well as the order dated 07.10.2021 passed on similar grounds by the respondent no.2. 3. The averments in brief are that the petitioner Society is running an institution in the name of Sohan Lal Balika Inter College and is managing the affairs of the institution. On 31.07.2020, the regular clerk posted in the institution was retired, as a result whereof, a vacancy accrued on 01.08.2020. 4. As the institution was suffering on account of the vacancy, a request was made on 07.08.2020 to the Director, Secondary Education through the District Inspector of Schools informing that the clerk working in the institution has retired and one post of clerk sanctioned for the College is laying vacant since 01.08.2020, as such, permission may be granted to fill up the vacant post through direct recruitment. Thereafter, the District Inspector of Schools communicated the request of the petitioner to the Director, Secondary Education giving reference to the request made by the petitioner. The said letter is contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition. 5. It is stated that despite the request, no orders were being passed, as such, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition No.21223 (MS) of 2020 seeking a direction upon the respondents to decide the application of the petitioner for making the selection. The said writ petition was disposed off vide order dated 19.11.2020 directing the respondent no.2 therein to consider and decide the application of the petitioner by speaking order within six weeks. It is argued that despite the said directions, no decision was taken within six weeks, as such, the Managing Committee once again sent a reminder on 30.01.2021 with a request to take a decision. 6. As no decision was being taken despite the directions, the Committee of Management constituted a Committee for selection of a candidate to the post of Junior Clerk and issued an advertisement in the newspaper, namely Swatantra Chetna on 05.02.2021 (Annexure-7). 6. As no decision was being taken despite the directions, the Committee of Management constituted a Committee for selection of a candidate to the post of Junior Clerk and issued an advertisement in the newspaper, namely Swatantra Chetna on 05.02.2021 (Annexure-7). The Committee took interview of the eligible candidates and on the basis of the quality points selected one Mr. Vibhanshu Maurya for being appointed on the Class-III posts. A resolution to that effect was passed on 29.04.2021. The process of selection was intimated to the District Inspector of School-II, Lucknow on 27.05.2021, however, it is stated that he refused to accept the documents, as such, the same was sent through registered post which was received back with the remark "refused to receive". 7. As no action was being taken for approval of the selection made by the Committee, another writ petition was filed by the petitioner being Writ Petition No.13593 (MS) of 2021 which was disposed off vide order dated 06.07.2021 by this Court directing the respondents to take a decision within a period of one months. However, on the very next day, an order came to be passed which is contained as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, stating that the said order was being passed in compliance of the earlier directions given by this Court vide order dated 19.11.2020. By means of the said order which is impugned in the writ petition, the Director, Secondary Education proceeded to reject the request of the petitioner on various grounds. 8. A perusal of the order impugned (Annexure-1) reveals that the District Inspector of Schools found that two posts were vacant in Class-III category (The Counsel for the petitioner states that the same has been wrongly recorded and was rightly held to be one post in the subsequent order dated 07.10.2021 which is also impugned). The order further records that process of selection undertaken was contrary to the mandate of the High Court in its judgment dated 19.11.2020. It further records that the District Inspector of Schools, Lucknow in his report has stated that the selection of Vibhanshu Maurya has been done without any prior approval, as such, it is improper to approve the said selection. It further records that a ban has been imposed by the State Government on 30.10.2019 in respect of 26 colleges. It further records that the District Inspector of Schools, Lucknow in his report has stated that the selection of Vibhanshu Maurya has been done without any prior approval, as such, it is improper to approve the said selection. It further records that a ban has been imposed by the State Government on 30.10.2019 in respect of 26 colleges. It also places reliance on another Government Order dated 19.01.2021 which relates to the colleges except 26 colleges mentioned in the Government Order dated 30.10.2019 and thereafter concluded that for the reasons as disclosed, it would not be proper to grant approval as sought by the petitioner. Subsequently, another order came to be passed on 07.10.2021 (Annexure-15 added through an amendment) which was also challenged through an amendment application. In the order dated 07.10.2021, while deciding the representation of the petitioner as directed by this Court vide order dated 06.07.2021, it was observed that there was one post of Class-III was vacant in the petitioner's institution. It further records that although no procedure for filling the vacancy is specified, as such, any selection may result in nepotism in the process of selection. It also places reference to the Government Order dated 26.04.2014 and holds that any selection made without any prior approval, could not be entitled for salary from the State exchequer. The said two orders are under challenge. 9. The Counsel for the petitioner argues that Regulation 101 in Chapter III of The Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 confers power of appointment subject to approval by the District Inspector of Schools. He argues that the scope of Regulations 101 to 104 came up for interpretation before this Court in the case of Jagdish Singh vs State of U.P. and others; (2006) 2 UPLBEC 1851 wherein the Division Bench of this Court was of the view that prior approval contemplated under Regulation 101 is required after the process of selection and before the issuance of the appointment letter to the selected candidate. He further places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Abhishek Tripathi vs State of U.P.; (2015) 2 UPLBEC 1272 wherein this Court following the earlier judgment rendered in the case of Preet Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P. and others; 2011 (9) ADJ 591 as well as Jagdish Singh (Supra) has held that necessity for prior approval would arise only subsequent to the selection and prior to issuance of the appointment letter. 10. In the light of the said two judgments, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that the orders impugned are bad in law, inasmuch as, it refused the approval for selection which is contrary and in the teeth of the aforesaid two judgments of this Court. He further argues that mention of the Government Order restraining the appointment in 26 colleges would not apply to the case of the petitioner, inasmuch as, the name of the petitioner's College does not find mention in the list of the said 26 colleges. He argues that the Director, Secondary Education ought to have applied his mind with regard to the manner in which the selection was made which does not exist in the said impugned order and thus, the same are bad in law. He further argues that as the selection has already been done and the person is working, a direction is liable to be issued for payment of salary. In support of that he places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Sunil Kumar vs State of U.P. and others (Service Single No.2341 of 2010) decided on 03.12.2018. 11. Sri Savitra Vardhan Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the State has tried to justify the orders impugned on the strength of judgment of this Court in the case of Deepak Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and others; MANU/UP/1820/2019. 12. A perusal of the said judgment makes it clear that this court while deciding the issue considered the earlier judgment of this court in the case of Jagdish Singh (Supra) and held that the member of the Committee of Management cannot issue an appointment letter or permit joining of a candidate without there being a prior approval. 13. 12. A perusal of the said judgment makes it clear that this court while deciding the issue considered the earlier judgment of this court in the case of Jagdish Singh (Supra) and held that the member of the Committee of Management cannot issue an appointment letter or permit joining of a candidate without there being a prior approval. 13. Considering the submissions made at the bar, in the present case, there is no dispute that one substantive vacancy existed in the institution in question, the Committee of Management has made selection without there being prior approval and after completing the selection process issued letter to the selected candidate and in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Jagdish Singh (Supra) followed in the cases of Preet Kumar Srivastava (Supra) and Abhishek Tripathi (Supra), it is clearly settled that no prior approval is required for initiating the selection process, however, prior approval is required before issuance of any appointment letter. 14. From the perusal of the orders impugned, it reflect that there is no application of mind in respect of the selection made by the petitioner. The respondents have proceeded to pass the order on the analogy that prior approval for the selection was not taken which stand is contrary to the judgments of this Court as referred above. The other ground that the action of the petitioner was contrary to the order of this court passed on 19.11.2020 also merits rejection, inasmuch as, this Court while passing the order dated 19.11.2020 had simply directed the respondents to take a decision in terms of the request made by the petitioner within six weeks, which the respondents did not do. The other reasoning mentioned in the impugned orders that in terms of the Government Order, there was a bar for making appointment in respect of the 26 colleges also does not find favour of this court in view of the fact that the petitioner Institution is not named in the list of the 26 colleges as referred to in the Government Order, thus for all the reasons recorded above and in the light of the judgments of this Court rendered in the case of Jagdish Singh (Supra) followed in the cases of Preet Kumar Srivastava (Supra) and Abhishek Tripathi (Supra), the orders impugned dated 07.07.2021 and 07.10.2021 are set aside. 15. 15. The matter is relegated to the Director, Secondary Education for passing a fresh order after considering the observations made hereinabove and the law laid down by this Court in the case of Jagdish Singh (Supra) followed in the cases of Preet Kumar Srivastava (Supra) and Abhishek Tripathi (Supra). 16. The Director, Secondary Education shall take decision with all expeditions preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 17. The Director shall take decision in terms of regulations and shall pass orders on the request of the petitioner to grant of approval for selection on the Class-III posts. 18. It is made clear that the question of the petitioner not taking prior approval before the selection process shall not be a ground for passing the orders as directed above. 19. So far as the prayer of the petitioner for granting approval with all consequential benefits cannot be accepted in terms of the orders passed by this Court, inasmuch as, the law is well settled that before issuance of appointment letter and permitting a person to join, prior approval is necessary. The entitlement of salary to the selected candidate shall be subject to the outcome of the fresh order to be passed by the Director as directed hereinabove. 20. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is disposed off.