HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 46583 of 2017 Court No. - 52 HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard Mr. Adarsh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents nos.1, 2 and 3. 2. The case of the petitioner is that after following due appointment procedure, the petitioner was appointed as clerk in Nehru Smarak Junior High School, Gangwar, District-Amroha and the said appointment was approved by order dated 30.7.2016. By the impugned order dated 18.08.2017, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Amroha had cancelled the approval order dated 30.7.2016 by placing reliance on a circular letter dated 1.8.2016 issued by the Director of Education (Basic) under the assumption that there had been a ban imposed on appointment of Class III employees. 3. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 18.08.2017 by placing reliance on a Government notification dated 30.12.2014 in which there is a recital in respect of a previous Government notification dated 15.9.2014 where by the earlier ban imposed on appointment was relaxed and appointments were permitted against sanctioned post in accordance with 1978 and 1984 Rules as applicable to appointment of Head Master/ Assistant Teacher and clerical cadre post of Basic Schools (Junior High School). 4. In view of the factual matrix revealed by the counter affidavit by the learned counsel for respondent no.3, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since admittedly there had been relaxation on the ban imposed by earlier Government order by the subsequent Government order dated 15.9.2014 and it is the admitted position that the Government order dated 15.9.2014 has not been rescinded and that there is a clerical cadre post vacant in the institution since before Government order dated 15.09.2014, the order dated 18.08.2017 cancelling the order of approval only on the ground that the order of approval could not have been passed in view of ban imposed on appointment, cannot be legally sustained. 5. I find substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. As it is the admitted position of the respondent that the ban imposed earlier against appointment Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Adarsh Singh, Indra Raj Singh, Prabhakar Awasthi, Surendra Prasad Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Daya Ram Shadab Ali .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) of teaching as well as non teaching posts was relaxed by Government order dated 15.9.2014, there was no good reason to pass the order impugned cancelling the earlier order of approval. 6. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 18.08.2017 passed by the Basic Education Officer, Amroha cancelling the earlier approval order dated 30.07.2016 is hereby quashed. It is directed that petitioner shall be paid his current salary. 7. Needless to say that for payment of arrears of salary the petitioner shall be at liberty to move an application before respondent no.3, District Basic Education Officer, Amroha, who shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law, subject to verification of the fact that as to whether the petitioner has worked in the Institution and has not worked anywhere else. September 16, 2025 Rahul. WRIA No. 46583 of 2017 2 (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad