JUDGMENT : Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J. 1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Krishna Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 5, i.e., Committee of Management. 2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed the following reliefs :- "a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order, dated 18.10.2023, contained in annexure no. 22, passed by the opposite party no. 3; (b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Government Order No. 2056/15-6-2001-28(51)/2000(TC), dated 24.7.2001, contained in annexure no. 23, passed by the opposite party no. 1; (c) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties no. 1 to 5 and specifically the opposite party no. 3 to accord the approval to the post and salary of the petitioner and to pay the petitioner her salary along with her arrears of salary till date along with all the admissible allowances and increments as and when they fall due for the post of Assistant Teacher, L.T. grade in the college of the opposite party no. 5 and to continue to pay the same to the petitioner in the form of her current salary as and when it falls due along with all admissible allowances." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that this is a second round of litigation for the petitioner inasmuch as she had filed one Writ-A No. 164 of 2005 challenging the order dated 29.12.2024, whereby, the appointment of the petitioner vide order dated 09.09.2004 was disapproved. In the aforesaid writ petition, this Court granted an interim order dated 10.01.2005 (Annexure No. 17), directing the DIOS to pay salary, including the arrears of the salary to the petitioner with effect from the date of her appointment, i.e., 14.09.2004 till a regularly selected candidate from the Board joints on the post in question. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the DIOS passed the order dated 18.06.2005 (Annexure No. 18), making payment of arrears of salary to the petitioner with effect from 14.09.2004. Since then the petitioner has been regularly discharging her duties. The aforesaid writ petition was decided finally vide judgement and order dated 30.05.2023, (Annexure No. 21). The order reads as under :- "1. Since then the petitioner has been regularly discharging her duties. The aforesaid writ petition was decided finally vide judgement and order dated 30.05.2023, (Annexure No. 21). The order reads as under :- "1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. By means of present writ petition the petitioner has assailed the order dated 29.12.2004 and further direction has been sought to the respondents to accord approval to the post and pay salary to the petitioner with effect from 14.09.2004 alongwith arrears of salary. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that a vacancy arose in the Chacha Nehru Smarak Inter College, Govind Nagar, Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter referred to as "the Institution"). It is stated that said institution is recognised Intermediate College by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad and is governed by the provisions of Uttar Pradesh INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION ACT , 1921 and the Regulations framed thereunder. On occurrence of the vacancy on the post of Assistant Teacher on 04.11.2003, intimation of the same was sent to the District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar and permission was sought to initiate recruitment process. Despite several letters having been written by the Committee of Management of the Institution to the District Inspector of Schools, he did not respond and the petitioner being fully eligible for being appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) having qualifications of M.A. and B.Ed. made an application for appointment. An interview was conducted on 30.08.2004 where the petitioner stood first in the order of merit and her name was recommended for appointment in the meeting of Committee of Management of the Institution held on 05.09.2004. The petitioner was issued appointment letter on 09.09.2004, in pursuance to which she joined on 14.09.2004. The petitioner fulfilled all the formalities as provided in Section 16(gg) of the INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION ACT , and entire proceedings of appointment of petitioner was sent to the District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar for necessary approval. 4. The petitioner was issued appointment letter on 09.09.2004, in pursuance to which she joined on 14.09.2004. The petitioner fulfilled all the formalities as provided in Section 16(gg) of the INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION ACT , and entire proceedings of appointment of petitioner was sent to the District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar for necessary approval. 4. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that appointment of petitioner was a short terms appointment as stop gap arrangement pending regular selections as provided under U.P. Secondary Education Service (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 and stated that appointment of the petitioner being duly made was deemed to have been approved as per provisions of Clause 2(3)(iii) of the Order, 1981. 5. It is next submitted that after long lapse of time the order of District Inspector of Schools was served upon the Institution where the District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar has declined to accord approval in the light of Government Order dated 24.07.2001. The petitioner has also assailed the validity of Government Order dated 24.07.2001, which provides that rules pertaining to service conditions of teachers are under preparation and accordingly during the said period it was provided that purely interim arrangement shall be made during formulation of rules and it was the intention of the Legislature that as soon as rules are framed and come into force, all the appointments and approvals would be made under the said rules. It is in pursuance to the Government Order dated 24.07.2001 that the impugned order dated 29.12.2004 was passed where the District Inspector of Schools had declined to grant approval in view of the said Government Order. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's case is fully governed by the provisions contained in the INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION ACT and all the procedure prescribed therein was followed and even due intimation was given to the concerned authority prior to making such selection. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that order dated 29.12.2004 as well as Government Order dated 24.07.2001 has been assailed in the present writ petition. 7. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that order dated 29.12.2004 as well as Government Order dated 24.07.2001 has been assailed in the present writ petition. 7. It has lastly been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that by means of interim order dated 10.01.2005, this Court had been pleased to direct the respondents to pay salary/arrears of salary to the petitioner with effect from the date of her appointment and it is on the strength of the interim order that petitioner is continuing till date. 8. This Court has further been informed through an affidavit filed by the petitioner that in the meantime promotions were held to the post of Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) and on occurrence of vacancy in the Institution and that the petitioner was receiving salary under the Payment of Salaries Act, her candidature has been considered and she has been promoted to the said post by means of order dated 03.08.2016 and since then she is continuing on the promoted post. 9. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition. He has relied upon the counter affidavit filed by the State where it is stated that approval of appointment of petitioner was declined by the District Inspector of Schools by means of impugned order dated 29.12.2004. It has been further submitted that prescribed procedure was not followed while appointing petitioner and neither was there any intimation given to the District Inspector of Schools and nor was selection committee constituted according to reservation rules and also submits that appointment made against substantive vacancy is also illegal and accordingly prays for dismissal of writ petition. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. It is noticed that on occurrence of vacancy during promotion of S.P. Shukla, Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade), the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary). It is submitted that petitioner was duly eligible and qualified for being appointed on the said post and the procedure as prescribed was also followed and after her appointment all the papers relating to her appointment were forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools for financial approval. It is submitted that petitioner was duly eligible and qualified for being appointed on the said post and the procedure as prescribed was also followed and after her appointment all the papers relating to her appointment were forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools for financial approval. The District Inspector of Schools by means of order dated 29.12.2004 denied payment of salary to the petitioner on the ground of provisions contained in Government Order dated 24.07.2001, where itself it is stated that decision has been taken by the State Government to formulate rules governing the service conditions of teachers and during the period of formulation of such rules no appointment shall be made. Appointment of petitioner is a temporary arrangement which has been made during the interregnum period till formulation of such rules. 12. It is noticed that subsequently, rules have come into effect and operation of Government Order itself has lapsed due to formulation of rules and lapse of time. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, there is no requirement to test the veracity of Government Order dated 24.07.2001. Considering the entire conspectus of the case, it is noticed that the District Inspector of Schools had declined to grant approval relying on the Government Order dated 24.07.2001. Subsequently the petitioner has been promoted. It is incumbent that necessary decision is taken by the District Inspector of Schools with regard to grant of approval to the petitioner which admittedly has not been considered or granted till date. It is statutory requirement that the appointments made by the Committee of Management are granted approval by the District Inspector of Schools. This Court is of the opinion that since petitioner is continuing and being paid salary on the strength of interim order of this Court dated 10.01.2005, still the District Inspector of Schools has to consider the case of the petitioner and grant approval. 13. In the light of above, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent no. 3 - District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar to proceed to consider the proposal sent by the Committee of Management of the Institution regarding approval to the appointment of petitioner and proceed to pass necessary orders in this regard without taking into account order dated 29.12.2004 in accordance with law. 3 - District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar to proceed to consider the proposal sent by the Committee of Management of the Institution regarding approval to the appointment of petitioner and proceed to pass necessary orders in this regard without taking into account order dated 29.12.2004 in accordance with law. Let aforesaid exercise be concluded expeditiously, say within two months from the date production of certified copy of this order before respondent no. 3. 14. It is further provided that interim protection granted to the petitioner by means of order dated 10.01.2005 will continue till necessary orders are passed by the District Inspector of Schools in the matter of petitioner." 4. In the aforesaid order some relevant facts regarding the appointment of the petitioner have been considered. In the aforesaid writ petition, the validity of the Government Order dated 24.07.2001 was assailed. As per aforesaid Government Order which has been enclosed with the supplementary counter affidavit as Annexure No. SCA-1, the fresh appointment was banned. In the aforesaid judgement and order dated 30.05.2023, the relevant fact was considered that the present petitioner was appointed on a clear-cut vacancy occurred due to promotion of one Assistant Teacher, S.P. Shukla on the LT grade, so the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary). In the aforesaid judgement and order dated 30.05.2023 vide paragraph 12, this Court noticed the fact that after coming into force the relevant rules, the operation of the Government Order itself lapsed. Therefore, this Court was of the view that there is no requirement to test the veracity of the Government Order dated 24.07.2001. 5. Undisputedly, the judgement and order dated 03.05.2023 (supra) has not been assailed before the Division Bench or the Apex Court and that order has attained finality. Since, this Court directed the DIOS to consider the proposal sent by the committee of management of the institution regarding approval of the appointment of the petitioner and proceed to pass necessary order without taking into account the impugned order dated 29.12.2004, strictly in accordance with law, therefore, the DIOS passed the impugned order dated 18.10.2023 (Annexure No. 22). In the aforesaid order the DIOS has again reiterated the Government Order dated 24.07.2001, despite the fact that this fact had already been dealt by this Court vide the judgement and order dated 30.05.2023 (supra). In the aforesaid order the DIOS has again reiterated the Government Order dated 24.07.2001, despite the fact that this fact had already been dealt by this Court vide the judgement and order dated 30.05.2023 (supra). The DIOS has also considered one factually incorrect fact in the impugned order dated 18.10.2023 to the effect that when the petitioner appeared before the interview board on 30.08.2004, the Principal of the institution was close relative of the father of the petitioner and the father of the petitioner was a member of committee of management and he is still member of committee of management. 6. Learned counsel has stated that the father of the petitioner tendered his resignation from the position of member of committee of management on 28.01.2004 (Annexure No. 24) and that resignation has been accepted by the committee of management vide resolution dated 01.01.2004 (part of Annexure No. 24), therefore, recital to that effect being indicated by the DIOS in the impugned order dated 18.01.2023 is misconceived and unwarranted. So far as the fact that the Principal of the institution in question was close relative of the father of the petitioner and relation has been disclosed by the DIOS himself, i.e., the principal was 'fufa' of the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards (Annexure No. SCA-3), which is Chapter 3, under Section 16-GG, Clause 4 thereof discloses the relation and as per the aforesaid Clause, the prohibited relation appointing any person on the post of Assistant Teacher are pita, baba, sasur, chacha/mama, putra, potra, damad, bhai, putri, potri, patni, dadi, bhatiji, chachere/mamere bhai, sala, behnoi, pati, devar, jeth, nand, sali, putra-vadhu bahin, bhavaj, chachera bhai ki patni, maa, saas, chachi/mausi. 8. Notably, the relations have been described thoroughly therefore had fufa comes within a purview of such prohibited relation that would have been indicated in such clause, but fufa has not been indicated in such clause. Learned counsel has stated that the law is trite on the point that if specific things have been indicated in any provision of law, any more thing may not be added or subtracted. Therefore, if the Principle of the institution in question was real fufa of the petitioner that relation would not come within the purview of prohibited relation. Learned counsel has stated that the law is trite on the point that if specific things have been indicated in any provision of law, any more thing may not be added or subtracted. Therefore, if the Principle of the institution in question was real fufa of the petitioner that relation would not come within the purview of prohibited relation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention of this court towards Annexure No. SCA-7, which is a true photostate copy of the resolution dated 24.01.2016 and order dated 03.08.2016 passed by the DIOS Kanpur Nagar. As per the order dated 03.08.2016, the petitioner has been promoted on the post of Assistant Teacher LT grade against the clear-cut vacancy occurred on behalf of retirement of Smt Ved Prabha Tripathi on 31.03.2015. The petitioner has been discharging her duties on the post of LT grade with effect from 03.08.2016. Therefore, Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the impugned order dated 18.01.2023 (Anneuxre No. 22) and Government Order dated 24.07.2001 (Annexure No. 23) is liable to be set aside/quashed and the opposite party no. 3 maybe directed for approval to the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary). He is confining his prayer no. 'c' to that extent only. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated that the petitioner is not being paid salary with effect from the date, the impugned order has been passed on 18.01.2023. 9. Sri K.K. Singh, learned counsel for the committee of management has submitted that he is not disputing any of the aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner rather he supporting the case of the petitioner. Sri Singh has also submitted that the petitioner is still discharging her duties on the post of Assistant Teacher LT grade. 10. Learned Standing Counsel has tried to defend the impugned order dated 18.10.2023 (Annexure No. 22) and Government Order dated 24.07.2001 (Annexure No. 23), but could not defend properly inasmuch as no document could be shown from any of the affidavit of the State to the effect that the father of the petitioner was member of committee of management at the time of her appointment. Even the resignation of the father of the petitioner dated 28.01.2004 and acceptance thereof vide resolution dated 01.01.2004 could not be disputed by the learned Standing Counsel. Even the resignation of the father of the petitioner dated 28.01.2004 and acceptance thereof vide resolution dated 01.01.2004 could not be disputed by the learned Standing Counsel. Therefore, this fact is very much clear that the DIOS indicated the aforesaid fact without application of mind, without having any document to that effect, and it appears that he tried to cause prejudice to the petitioner without any cogent reasons to that effect. Learned Standing Counsel has also been confronted on the point as to why the recital of Government Order dated 24.07.2001 has been indicated in the impugned order when that aspect had already been considered and dealt by this court vide the judgement and order dated 30.05.2023 (supra) and that judgement has not been assailed by filing an appeal or SLP before the superior court, the learner standing counsel could not explain the reason thereof. Lastly, the learned Standing Counsel was confronted on the point as to how the relation of the petitioner with the Principal of the institution in question who was serving at that point of time would come within the purview of prohibited relation in terms of Section 16-GG under Chapter 3 vide provision no. 4, wherein, the relation of fufa has not been indicated, the learner Standing Counsel has stated that since the petitioner was relative of the Principal, therefore this fact has been indicated in the impugned order, though he admitted that the relation of fufa has not been indicated in such provision of law. 11. Having considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, I find that the impugned order dated 18.10.2023 passed by the DIOS is misconceived, arbitrary, unwarranted, and has been passed without application of mind and without perusing the relevant material, which was obviously before him. 11. Having considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, I find that the impugned order dated 18.10.2023 passed by the DIOS is misconceived, arbitrary, unwarranted, and has been passed without application of mind and without perusing the relevant material, which was obviously before him. Since, the specific and clear-cut finding has already been returned by this Court by the judgement and order dated 30.05.2023, in respect of the Government Order dated 24.07.2001 holding that the aforesaid government order has lost its efficacy after coming into force the relevant rules, then if the DIOS was willing to press that Government Order dated 24.07.2001, he could have filed any modification/review application seeking review of the order dated 30.05.2023 or could have challenged that order by filing a special appeal or SLP, but without doing the aforesaid exercises, the Government Order dated 24.07.2001 could have not been referred against the petitioner. A notice can be issued to the DIOS who has passed the order dated 18.10.2023 to the effect as to why he has indicated that the father of the petitioner was member of the committee of management at particular time the selection of the petitioner took place whereof this fact is factually incorrect, but avoiding such notice, a note of caution is issued to such DIOS to remain careful in future while adverting to any fact which is factually incorrect. 12. Notably, the relation of fufa does not come within a prohibited category in terms of section 16-GG under Chapter 3 vide provision no. 4, so the approval of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) may not be rejected. Since in compliance of the interim order dated 10.01.2005, the DIOS has passed the order dated 18.06.2005 making payment of arrears of salary and regular salary to the petitioner, therefore, no direction may be issued on that point. 13. The petitioner has been promoted on the post of Assistant Teacher LT grade with effect from 03.08.2016, therefore, it is clear that the service of the petitioner is very much required in the institution in question. 14. In view of what has been considered and discussed above, I hereby set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 18.10.2023 passed by the opposite party no. 3. 14. In view of what has been considered and discussed above, I hereby set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 18.10.2023 passed by the opposite party no. 3. Since the effect of the Government Order dated 24.07.2001 has been declared ineffective by this Court vide the judgement and order dated 03.05.2023, which has attained finality as the same has not been assailed, therefore, the government order dated 24.07.2001 would not affect the petitioner in any manner whatsoever. 15. The opposite party no. 3 is directed to accord the approval for the appointment of petitioner to the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) with effect from 09.09.2004. The petitioner shall be entitled for consensual service benefit. 16. The petitioner shall be paid the arrears of salary with effect from the date of the impugned order dated 18.10.2023 within a period of one month from the receipt of certified copy of the order of this Court and she shall be paid her regular salary as and when the same falls due. 17. It is made clear that if the petitioner is not paid her arrears of salary in terms of this order within time so stipulated, she shall be entitled for the interest @ 8% w.e.f. 18.10.2023 till its actual payment. 18. It is needless to say that since the petitioner has been promoted on the post of Assistant Teacher LT grade, therefore, she shall be paid the salary admissible for the post of Assistant Teacher LT grade with effect from her date of promotion. 19. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. 20. No order as to cost.