RAM BHAJAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Neeraj Tiwari, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.K. Chand, the learned standing counsel for the respondents. In spite of service of the summons, the respondent No.4 is not present.

(2.) PRIOR permission from the District Inspector of Schools to fill up the post was granted, pursuant to which, an advertisement was issued and the petitioner was selected. The papers of the recommendation of the selection committee was forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools for consequential approval. In the meantime, the petitioner was issued an appointment letter, pursuant to which, he joined and started working. Since financial approval was not granted, the petitioner filed a writ petition which was disposed of by an order dated 25.4.05 directing the Regional Committee to decide the matter. The Regional Committee by its order dated 13th September 2005 held that the selection was made in accordance with the provision and that previous permission was taken by the institution and consequently accorded financial approval. The Joint Director of Education by an order dated 19.9.05, directed the District Inspector of Schools to pass a consequential order. Based on the aforesaid order, the District Inspector of Schools passed an order dated 30.9.05 granting financial approval from the date of joining.

(3.) THE learned standing counsel has also placed reliance upon a decision of the Division Bench in Jagdish Singh, etc. vs. State of U.P. and others, 2006 (3) ESC 2055, wherein it has been held that prior approval under Regulation 101 means prior approval by the District Inspector of Schools after completion of the process of the selection and before the issuance of the appointment letter to the selected candidate.