JUDGMENT : RAJAN ROY, J. 1. Heard. 2. By means of this petition the petitioner has challenged the order of District Inspector of Schools, Barabanki dated 19.12.2017 holding the selection and appointment of the Teachers by the petitioner-Committee of Management to be illegal seeking certain clarifications from it. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that selection was held for filling up three posts of Lecturers and one Assistant Teacher in the Petitioner- Institution which is a minority Institution about which there is no dispute in the counter affidavit. The proposal for approval for such selection and appointment was sent to the District Inspector of Schools concerned who vide order dated 30.05.2017 rejected it on account of certain alleged irregularities. The petitioner-Committee of Management filed an appeal/ representation before the Joint Director of Secondary Education, 9th Region, Faizabad Region, Faizabad on 06.06.2017 under Section 16 FF (5) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The matter was considered by the Joint Director who vide order dated 30.06.2017 set aside the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 30.05.2017. Copy of the order of Joint Direction is annexed as Annexure No. 11. This order was passed in compliance of the judgment and order dated 20.06.2017 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 13986 (MS) of 2017 wherein a direction had been issued to the appellate authority to decide the petitioner's appeal, expeditiously, say by 10th of July, 2017 keeping in view the provisions as contained in Section 16 FF (4) of the Act of 1921. 4. The Court has perused the order of the Joint Director dated 30.06.2017 and finds that a categorical finding has been recorded by him that the selected persons possess the requisite qualifications for the post for which they have been selected. Accordingly, in view of Section 16 FF (4) of the Act of 1921 there is no reason for not granting approval. Consequently, he has granted approval subject to the condition that if any concealment or falsehood is found in the matter, then the approval would automatically stand rescinded. He has further observed that the District Inspector of Schools, Barabanki shall be under an obligation to verify the educational testimonials and training documents of the selectees from the concerned Institution/University and pay the salary only thereafter. He has further observed that the District Inspector of Schools, Barabanki shall be under an obligation to verify the educational testimonials and training documents of the selectees from the concerned Institution/University and pay the salary only thereafter. Now, after this order, all that the District Inspector of Schools was required to do is to verify the educational testimonials and training documents of the selectees. Instead of doing so, by means of the impugned order, he has held that the Joint Director, in fact, had no jurisdiction and under Section 16 FF, it is Regional Deputy Director who had jurisdiction in the matter and thereafter he has pointed out various irregularities in the selection and has held that the selection appears to be irregular, accordingly he has sought information from the petitioner. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of the Court to the Government Order dated 19.12.1997 contained as Annexure No. 18 veracity of which has not been denied in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, according to which the tasks which were to be performed by the Deputy Director of Education under the Act of 1921 are to be performed by the concerned Joint Director, but it seems that the District Inspector of Schools, Barabanki was wholly oblivious of this fact. 6. Section 16 FF (4) of the Act of 1921 reads as under: “16 FF (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 qualifications prescribed and is otherwise eligible.” 7. The Court may refer to Section 2 (dd) of the Act of 1921 which defines “Regional Deputy Director Education” as under: “2 (dd) “Regional Deputy Director, Education” means the Deputy Director of Education in charge of a region and includes an officer authorised by the State Government to perform all or any of the duties of a Regional Deputy Director.” 8. In view of this definition State Government can authorise the Joint Director Education to perform all or any of the duties of a Regional Deputy Director and the Government Order dated 19.12.1997 is referable to it. 9. Everyday, we find that such decisions are being taken by the Joint Director of the concerned Region. 10. In view of this definition State Government can authorise the Joint Director Education to perform all or any of the duties of a Regional Deputy Director and the Government Order dated 19.12.1997 is referable to it. 9. Everyday, we find that such decisions are being taken by the Joint Director of the concerned Region. 10. Considering the provisions of Section 16 FF (4) of the Act of 1921, according to which the Regional Deputy Director of Education which now is Joint Director of Education in view of the aforesaid Government Order which is referable to Section 2 (dd) read with Section 16 FF of the Act of 1921 or the Inspector as the case may be shall not withhold the approval for selection made under this Section where the person selected possesses the minimum qualification prescribed and is otherwise eligible and also in view of the adjudication of the matter by the Joint Director of Education vide order dated 30.06.2017 passed in pursuance to the judgment of this Court dated 20.06.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 13986 (MS) of 2017 wherein he has held that the selected candidates possess the requisite qualification and has accordingly approved the selection and appointment, the order of the District Inspector of Schools impugned herein is clearly in the teeth of the law as also highly objectionable in the sense he has forgotten the hierarchy and control which is the hallmark of any administrative organization. It was not open for the District Inspector of Schools to reopen the issue after adjudication by the Joint Director of Secondary Education, Faizabad Region, Faizabad vide order dated 30.06.2017. All that he was required to do was to verify the educational testimonials and training documents for the purposes of payment of salary, instead he has embarked upon an unnecessary exercise pointing out certain irregularities in the selection which could not have been seen by him. The order of the Joint Director is referable to Section 16 FF (5) of the Act of 1921 as also the Government Order dated 19.12.1997, contained as Annexure No. 18 to the petition. Counter affidavit is silent as to how the Joint Director of Secondary Education, Faizabad Region, Faizabad did not have the jurisdiction in the matter in view of the Government Order dated 19.12.1997 veracity of which has not been challenged. 11. Counter affidavit is silent as to how the Joint Director of Secondary Education, Faizabad Region, Faizabad did not have the jurisdiction in the matter in view of the Government Order dated 19.12.1997 veracity of which has not been challenged. 11. Selected candidates are already working and being paid salary in pursuance to the interim order passed by this Court dated 07.02.2018. Obviously, the educational testimonials and training documents have been verified by the District Inspector of Schools before paying the salary in compliance of the interim order of this Court. 12. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 19.12.2017 is hereby quashed. Consequences shall accordingly follow as per law. 13. The petition is allowed.