JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Sudeep Seth, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Pradeep Tiwari the counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel. 2. The present has been filed by the petitioners claiming the salary and also claimed deemed approval to their appointment by virtue of Regulation 17(g) of Chapter II of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. 3. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent no.5 runs a college in the name of Rahat Janta Inter College and enjoy the minority status. It is claimed that the institution run by the said committee has been granted recognition up to the Secondary Education. It is also claimed that the institution in question is under grant-in-aid list of the State Government. It is claimed that in the institution in question, the posts have been sanctioned which include the post of Principal, six post of lecturer, fifteen post of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade, ten post of Assistant Teacher C.T. Grade, three clerks and twelve peons. 4. It is stated that certain posts fell vacant in the institution in question, the Committee of Management after determining the vacancies proposed to fill the same by means of direct recruitment and an advertisement was issued on 11.04.2017 through publication in the newspaper, all the details were specified and the interview was fixed on 05.05.2017. It is also on record that the committee of management inform the DIOS, the respondent no.4, and was invited to monitor the selection process to bring the transparency in the selection process. It is stated that the DIOS, despite the said request, did not participate in the selection process nor did he nominate any member to be a part of the selection process or to monitor the process of selection. However, on the said date fixed, selections were made by the Committee of Management and a proposal for appointment was forwarded by the Manager of the College vide letter dated 23.05.2017 seeking approval. It is stated that despite a comprehensive communication sent by the Committee of Management, no order was passed with regard to the grant of approval or its resolution as contemplated under section 16FF(3) of the Act in question. 5. It is stated that despite a comprehensive communication sent by the Committee of Management, no order was passed with regard to the grant of approval or its resolution as contemplated under section 16FF(3) of the Act in question. 5. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that once the papers are forwarded in terms of the mandate of Section 16FF read with Regulation 17 Chapter II of the Act and no approval is granted, there is a provision for deemed approval as provided under section 17(g) of Chapter II framed under the 1921 Act. In the light of the said provision, the submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the appointments made by the Committee of Management would be deemed to have been approved by virtue of legal fiction provided for under Regulation 17(g) of Chapter II framed under the 1921 Act. 6. It is argued that once there is a deemed approval, the necessary consequence of payment of salary has to flow by virtue of the U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971. It is argued that the respondent no.4 himself brought on record the entire process adopted by the Committee of Management for appointment and sought necessary guidance from the Director of Education through a letter dated 16.02.2022. 7. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the process adopted by the DIOS in seeking guidance from the Director of Education is neither contemplated under the Act nor under the Regulations and the power is conferred upon the Inspector to pass an order which has not been done by the DIOS. In support of the said proposition, the counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Madan Kumar and others vs. D. M. Auraiya; Writ A No.17325 of 1999 decided on 13.03.2013. It is thus, argued that once there is a deemed approval to the appointment of the petitioners, they ought to have been paid the salary which has not been paid and thus, the rights of the petitioners enshrined under Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India have been violated. It is thus, argued that once there is a deemed approval to the appointment of the petitioners, they ought to have been paid the salary which has not been paid and thus, the rights of the petitioners enshrined under Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India have been violated. He further argues that the action of the respondents in denying the benefits to the petitioners to which they are entitled in the manner in which it has been done violates the rights of the petitioners enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the light of the said submissions, Sri Seth argues that the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 8. The Standing Counsel has produced the instructions, which are taken on record wherein it has been stated that in terms of the proposed advertisement issued by the Committee of Management for appointment on 11.04.2017, a letter dated 05.05.2017 was issued restraining the Committee of Management from going ahead with the advertisement. Aggrieved against which, some of the candidates had preferred a Writ Petition Service Single No.17303 of 2017, which according to the respondents, is pending consideration before this court. It is further brought on record that the Committee of Management filed another Writ Petition Service Single No.29472 of 2017. It has been further stated that subsequently the Committee of Management has fixed 28.09.2021 for interview which has again been restrained through a fresh communication dated 07.10.2021. In the light of the said stand taken by the counsel for the respondents that the appointment made by the Committee of Management in the year 2017 were irregular and illegal, as such, there was no question of payment of salary to the said appointments made by the Committee of Management. 9. In response to the arguments raised by the Standing Counsel, the counsel for the petitioners argues that against the order dated 05.05.2017 restraining the Committee of Management from making the appointments, two writ petitions were filed, first one by some of the candidate being Writ Petition No.17303 (SS) of 2017 and the other petition was filed by the Committee of Management being Writ Petition No.29472 of 2017. The said Writ Petition No.29472 of 2017 was allowed on 19.02.2018 and the order dated 05.05.2017 was quashed. The said Writ Petition No.29472 of 2017 was allowed on 19.02.2018 and the order dated 05.05.2017 was quashed. He further argues that subsequent to the decision dated 19.02.2018 passed in Writ Petition Service Single No.29472 of 2017, respondents themselves recall the order dated 05.05.2017 vide order dated 27.05.2018, as such, the defense taken by the Standing Counsel has no legs to stand. He further argues that the defense pertaining to the appointments through the interview fixed on 28.09.2021 have no relevance to the selection of the petitioners as the process of selection was initiated and culminated in the year 2017 itself. In the light of the said, he argues that the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 10. Considering the submissions made at the bar, the issue raised in the present writ petition has to be decided in the light of the statutory framework and the benefits given to the minority institutions and contained in Section 16FF of the Intermediate Education Act read with Regulation 17(g) of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and the same are reproduced herein below : "16FF-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 an 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. (3) No person selected under this section shall be appointed, unless, - (a) in the case of the Head of an 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 qualifications 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 a 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." Regulation 17(g) : (g) Chairman of the Selection Committee conducting interview of all the candidates for any post will get a note prepared in two copies on the proceedings of the selection which will mention the names of the selected candidates and names of two more candidates of waiting list. Chairman and other members of Selection Committee will sign on notes, so prepared, and mention their full name, designation arid address. Chairman would immediately forward a copy of this note and a copy of statement referred to in Clause (f) of Regulation 10 to the Regional Dy. Director of the Inspector, as the case may be, for approval as required under Section 16FF Regional Dy. Director or Inspector, as the case may be, within one month of the date of receipt of concerned records will give his decision thereon and, failing to do so, it will be deemed to be approved." 11. Section 16FF of the Act confers the power upon the selection committee so prescribed to make the selections; the power to grant approval as specified under section 16FF(4) is mainly circumcised and is confined to the perusal of the possession of minimum qualifications that is prescribed. Section 16FF of the Act confers the power upon the selection committee so prescribed to make the selections; the power to grant approval as specified under section 16FF(4) is mainly circumcised and is confined to the perusal of the possession of minimum qualifications that is prescribed. To the said extent, the minority institutions under the Act are granted a privilege, which is not available to the other institutions. The said privilege is in consonance with the mandate of Article 30 of the Constitution of India. Regulation 17 provides for a procedure and Regulation 17(g) provides for a 'deeming provision' and effect of it as soon as the time prescribed under section 17(g) comes to an end. Thus, the import of Section 16FF read with Regulation 17(g) is that as soon as the period of one month comes to an end, the vested right of appointment accrues in favour of the person who is appointed. The only exception to the said appointment can be if the person appointed does not possess the minimum prescribed qualification or any errors are pointed with regard to the constitution of the selection committee as prescribed under Section 16FF of the Act. 12. In the present case, as per the instructions and even from the order referring the matter to the Director of Education, there is no allegation or averment that the persons so selected including the petitioners did not possess the requisite qualification or that there was an error in the constitution of the selection committee as envisaged under Section 16FF of the Act. Thus, on the expiry of one month from the date when the papers were forwarded i.e. 23.05.2017, a vested right accrued in favour of the petitioners by virtue of the provision of deemed approval. 13. Thus, the inescapable conclusion from the averments made in the writ petition and the stand taken by the State in the instructions, there is a deemed approval of the appointment of the petitioners made by the Selection Committee under Section 16FF of the Act and therefore, they are entitled to payment of their salary since the date of appointment. 14. The arrears of the salary shall be computed and paid to the petitioners within a period of four months and the petitioner shall continue to get their salary as and when the same falls due in terms of the mandate of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. 14. The arrears of the salary shall be computed and paid to the petitioners within a period of four months and the petitioner shall continue to get their salary as and when the same falls due in terms of the mandate of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. 15. The writ petition is allowed in terms of the said order.