Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:118439 Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18898 of 2016 Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogesh Kumar Saxena Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. The petitioner has made an application pursuant to the advertisement issued by the fourth- respondent in two newspapers on 19.08.2015 and 22.08.2015 and based on the above said advertisements, seven candidates have applied along with petitioner and they were all subjected to selection process. As the petitioner found eligible and suitable candidate, the Selection Committee has selected the petitioner and proposals were sent to the third- respondent vide letter dated 23.09.2015. After sending the proposals to the third- respondent, the fourth- respondent has issued appointment letter to the petitioner on 11.09.2015, accordingly, the petitioner joined and discharging his duties to the satisfaction of the Management. Surprisingly, instead of considering and approving the appointment of the petitioner the third- respondent has rejected the approval vide impugned order dated 29.03.2016 assailing the said orders, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the impugned orders are contrary to the record. The rejection has been done only on the ground that the appointment of the petitioner is contrary to the Government Order dated 06.01.2011 and also Regulation 17(a) of Chapter II under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter to as the Act' 1921). 3. In fact the said two issues were already considered by this Court in different judgments and struck down, hence the rejection of the petitioner appointment is contrary to the law law down by this Court. 4. To support his contention the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that initially the post of Class- IV fell vacant on 31.12.2009 and accordingly, the fourth- respondent has made a request for filing up of the said post and permission was granted by the concerned authorities vide order dated 05.07.2010. Consequently, the fourth- respondent has initiated for process of filing up of the said post and advertisement in single newspaper and selections were made and the said selections were not approved by the competent authority on the ground that while filing up the post, the Management has not followed the mandatory condition of making an advertisement in two newspapers. Though, the said decision was challenged by this Court as unsuccessful. The fourth- respondent has issued present advertisement for filing up of the said post in two daily newspapers and after due selection process the petitioner was duly selected. In the said circumstances, as the process was initiated much prior to the Government Order dated 06.01.2011 and also the amendment made to the Regulation-101 of the Act of 1921. Learned counsel has relied on the observations made in the judgment in (Udai Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others) in Writ A No. 59654 of 2015, wherein the co-ordinate bench has considered the order passed by this Court in Committee of Management, Lal Babu Baijal Memorial Inter College, Lodipur, Ghaziabad and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, Writ-C No.11760 of 2011, wherein the Government Order dated 06.01.2011 has been struck down and the said judgment become final and no challenge has been made to that. In fact in the very same judgments the co-ordinate bench has also considered the order of the Apex Court in (State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. Principal, Abhay Nandan Inter College and Others), Civil Appeal No.865 of 2021 and finally held that where the process of recruitment has commenced before the change into the law governing recruitment i.e. the advertisement issued on or before 08.09.2010 to the Class-IV posts approval cannot be rejected on the ground of amendment. 5. Learned Counsel has submitted that even in the instant case the permission was granted for filing up of the said post was by the authorities on 05.07.2010 which is much prior to the cut-off date i.e. 08.09.2010, and further in (Sister Meera Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others) reported in 2013 (5) ESC 2548 (Allahabad) has considered the issue relating to the compliance of Regulation 17(a) of Chapter- II, of the Act, 1921 whether it is mandatory or directory and finally it is held that the first part of Regulation 17(a) is mandatory and second part of the said Regulation is only directory in the nature and for non-compliance of the said Clause, the authorities may not vitiate the procedure of selection. Considering the said submissions as the impugned order is contrary to the observations made by this Court in the above two referred judgments, accordingly the impugned order dated 29.03.2016 is set aside, remanding the matter to the authorities and directing the authorities concerned to consider afresh taking the initiation of proceedings from the date 05.07.2010, onwards, and take fresh decision within a period of two months. 6. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 21.7.2025 AdityaG (Donadi Ramesh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad