JUDGMENT : IRSHAD ALI, J. 1. Seen office report dated 21.01.2019. As per report dated 3.10.2007 notice issued to opposite party no.6 through speed post vide dispatch no.8179 dated 4.10.2007. As per dispatch register available in dispatch section, neither any undelivered/ unserved envelop has been found to be returned back as per records available in Section nor any power has been filed as per records shown in database of computer. In view of the aforesaid, notice upon opposite party no.6 is deemed sufficient. 2. Heard Shri G.C. Verma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Abhishek Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rajeev Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 5. 3. The present writ petition has been filed for the payment of salary with effect from 1.7.1999 of the post of Assistant Teacher in the institution being appointed against sanctioned post. 4. The petitioner by following due procedure of law was granted appointment on 25.6.1999. The petitioner joined services in pursuance to the appointment letter on 1.7.1999. Papers for the grant of approval were sent to the District Basic Education Officer on 7.4.20025 and on the papers submitted, no approval was granted and the matter was kept pending. Shri Pal Raj retired from the post of Headmaster of the institution and the petitioner being senior most teacher of the institution was given charge of the post of Headmaster of the institution on 1.7.2015. On 7.9.2015, signature of the petitioner was verified which is apparent on perusal of the rejoinder affidavit. Petitioner also verified signature of all the teachers and employees of the institution for disbursement of salary and in pursuance thereof, the salary was disbursed to the teachers and other employees of the institution. Government Order was issued on 2.12.2006 taking institutions of the petitioner in grant-in-aid list and a list of the institutions taking on grant-in-aid was published on 2.12.2006 and the name of the institution of the petitioner finds place at serial no.146. Despite taking institution in grant-in-aid, the salary of the petitioner has not been paid from the State Exchequer with effect from 1.12.2006. 5. Despite taking institution in grant-in-aid, the salary of the petitioner has not been paid from the State Exchequer with effect from 1.12.2006. 5. Submission of Shri G.C. Verma learned Senior Advocate is that the institution while taking on grant-in-aid list is considered at three stages viz.: (i) by District Level Committee (ii) Regional Level Committee as well as (iii) State Level Committee and on verifying the genuineness of the fact in regard to appointment of teacher in the institution, a list of institutions is being taken on grant-in-aid list. Therefore, submission of learned Senior Advocate is that once the institution of the petitioner has been taken on grant-in-aid list after verifying the genuineness of the teachers appointed in the institution and in the list of grant-in-aid, the name of the petitioner's institution is at serial no.146, there is no occasions not to pay salary from the State Exchequer. 6. Next submission of learned Senior Advocate is that provisions contained under U.P. Recognized Junior Highschools Recruitment on Conditions of Service Rules 1978 Rule 10 Clause (5) provides that from the date of submission of papers, in case no approval is granted within one month, it is deemed that approval has been granted. 7. Next submission of learned Senior Advocate is that the case of the petitioner came under the provisions of deemed approval. Once it is found that approval has been granted on subsequent date, the entitlement of the petitioner for disbursement of salary and his entitlement is valid. 8. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Pramod Kumar Pandey and others v. District Inspector of Schools and others reported in 2019 Vol.11 ADJ 127. 9. Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioner's institution was considered pursuant to the list dated 2.12.2006 for the grant-in-aid along with other eligible Junior Highschools of District Sitapur and since the petitioner's institution was not found to be fulfilling the requisite condition as provided in the Government Order dated 2.12.2006, due to this reason the said institution has not been taken on the grant-in-aid list. 10. 10. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel next submitted that since the petitioner's appointment as Assistant Teacher in the institution in question was not approved by the competent authority, it is due to this reason no financial approval has yet been accorded for payment of salary to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the institution as the Manager in his return has shown names of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the institution who were working in the institution irrespective of the fact that the services of some of them were not approved by the competent authority. 11. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel next submitted that before taking the institution in grant-in-aid list the Committee of Management was regularly paying salary to the petitioner from his own source. He also submitted that the institution was not granted financial aid, therefore the petitioner is not entitled to get salary from the State Exchequer. 12. Having heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the material on record as well as law-report cited by learned counsel for the petitioner. 13. To resolve the controversy involved in the present writ petition, Rule 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Services of Teachers) Rules, 1978 is extracted here-in-below: "10. Procedure for selection. - (1) The Selection Committee shall, after interviewing such candidates as appear before it on a date to be fixed by it in this behalf, of which due intimation shall be given to all the candidates, prepare a list containing as far as possible the names, in order of preference, of three candidates found to be suitable for appointment. (2) The list prepared under clause (1) shall also contain particulars regarding the date of birth, academic qualifications and teaching experience of the candidates and shall be signed by all the members of the Selection Committee. (3) The Selection Committee shall, as soon as possible, forward such list, together with the minutes of the proceedings of the Committee to the management. (4) The Manager shall within one week from the date of receipt of the papers under clause (3) send a copy of the list to the District Basic Education Officer. (3) The Selection Committee shall, as soon as possible, forward such list, together with the minutes of the proceedings of the Committee to the management. (4) The Manager shall within one week from the date of receipt of the papers under clause (3) send a copy of the list to the District Basic Education Officer. (5) (i) If the District Basic Education Officer is satisfied that - (a) the candidates recommended by the Selection Committee possess the minimum qualifications prescribed for the post; (b) the procedure laid down in these rules for the selection of Headmaster or Assistant Teacher, as the case may be, has been followed he shall accord approval to the recommendations made by the Selection Committee and shall communicate his decision to the Management within two weeks from the date of receipt of the papers under clause (4). (ii) If the District Basic Education Officer is not satisfied as aforesaid, he shall return the papers to the Management with the direction that the matter shall be reconsidered by the Selection Committee. (iii) If the District Basic Education Officer does not communicate his decision within one month from the date of receipt of the papers under clause (4), he shall be deemed to have accorded approval to the recommendations made by the Selection Committee." 14. On perusal of the above-extracted Rules, it is evident that no appointment letter shall be issued to the selected candidate without obtaining approval from the District Basic Education Officer and in case on submission of papers for grant of approval or to refuse to grant of approval, the District Basic Education Officer does not pass any order within thirty days from the date of receipt of the papers, it is deemed that the approval has been granted to the selection and thereafter, appointment letter can be issued by the Committee of Management to the selected candidates. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment in the case of Pramod Kumar Pandey (supra) , operative portion of which is extracted here-inbelow: "16. In the case of Lalit Mohan Misra and Another Vs. District Inspector of Schools, reported in 1979 ALJ 1025, it has been held that even if appointments have been made without approval of the DIOS, the same will be effective only from the date when the approval has been granted or deemed to have been granted. In the case of Lalit Mohan Misra and Another Vs. District Inspector of Schools, reported in 1979 ALJ 1025, it has been held that even if appointments have been made without approval of the DIOS, the same will be effective only from the date when the approval has been granted or deemed to have been granted. Another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Abhay Pal Singh Vs State of UP and others, reported in 2009 (4) ADJ 704 has also reiterated the aforesaid legal position and has upheld the same view. The relevant extract of the judgment is quoted below:- "23. It is true that paragraph 2 (3)(ii) of the Second Removal of Difficulties Order requires the Manager to forward the names and the particulars of the candidate selected to the DIOS for granting prior approval and the appointment can be granted to the selected candidate only after receipt of approval from the DIOS. In the present case the Committee of Management forwarded the papers to the DIOS after giving appointment to the appellant. In our opinion the appointment cannot be said to be illegal on this ground. The effect of this would be that the appointment will take effect from the date the DIOS grants approval or from the date it will be deemed to have been approved by the DIOS. This is what has been observed by a Division Bench of this Court in Ashika Prasad Shukla v. District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad and another , 1998 (3) ESC 2006 (All) : ''The next question that falls for consideration is whether the appointment of the petitioner-appellant could still stand invalidated on the ground that it was made without prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools. Sri Yatindra Singh placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in A.K. Pathshala v. Smt. M.D. Agnihotri, 1971 All LJ 983, wherein it was held, on construction of Section 16-F(1) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, that appointment without prior approval by the Competent Authority would, in the eye of law, be no appointment. The ratio of the said decision as held by a subsequent Division Bench in Lalit Mohan Misra v. District Inspector of Schools, 1979 All LJ 1025, is that a ''person gets the status of a teacher when requisite formality is completed''. The ratio of the said decision as held by a subsequent Division Bench in Lalit Mohan Misra v. District Inspector of Schools, 1979 All LJ 1025, is that a ''person gets the status of a teacher when requisite formality is completed''. The relevant observations are as under : ''Without approval the person does not get the status of a teacher even though the approval is to be followed by formal letter but in the absence of formal letter the person gets the status of a teacher after approval to the appointment is given by the District Inspector of Schools. The appointment of a person as a teacher becomes effective only from the date approval is given and even if a person is allowed to work before that the same has no recognition under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act.'' Paragraph 2(3)(iv) of the Second Removal of Difficulties Order is not phrased in a prohibitory language as was the language used in Section 16- F(1) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The words 'prior approval' have been used in sub-clause (ii) of paragraph 2(3) of the Second Removal of Difficulties Order and a conjoint reading of sub-clauses (ii), (iii) and (iv) of clause (3) of paragraph 2, no doubt, leads to an inescapable conclusion that the appointment would be issued under the signature of the Manager only on the approval having been communicated by the District Inspector of Schools within seven days of the receipt of the papers or where the approval is deemed to have been accorded as visualised by sub-clause (iii) of clause (3) of paragraph 2 of the Second Removal of Difficulties Order. However, appointment if made prior to approval or deemed approval, would become effective from the date of approval or deemed approval is held by the Division Bench of this Court in Lalit Mohan Misra. There is nothing on the record to connote that pre-requisite conditions attracting deemed approval were not satisfied in the instant case.'' (emphasis supplied)" 24. However, appointment if made prior to approval or deemed approval, would become effective from the date of approval or deemed approval is held by the Division Bench of this Court in Lalit Mohan Misra. There is nothing on the record to connote that pre-requisite conditions attracting deemed approval were not satisfied in the instant case.'' (emphasis supplied)" 24. It was the specific case of the petitioner-appellant before the DIOS that the short-term vacancy had been intimated to the DIOS on 22nd June, 1995 and after granting appointment to the appellant on 25th August, 1996 as an Assistant Teacher against the short-term vacancy, the names and the particulars of the candidate selected and other relevant information was sent by the Committee of Management to the DIOS for approval which communication was received in the office of the DIOS on 28th August, 1996. The impugned order does not mention that the aforesaid communication sent by the Committee of Management was not received in the office of the DIOS on 28th August, 1996. The petitioner-appellant has also categorically stated this fact in paragraph-7 of the writ petition and in reply to this paragraph all that has been stated by the DIOS is that approval could not be granted by the DIOS as short-term vacancy did not exist on the post of Assistant Teacher in the College when the appellant was appointed. 25. We have, therefore, to proceed on the footing that the relevant papers regarding selection and appointment of the appellant had been received in the office of the DIOS on 28th August, 1996. In accordance with paragraph 2(3)(iii) of the Second Removal of Difficulties Order, the DIOS shall be deemed to have given his approval since he did not communicate his decision within seven days of the receipt of the particulars. The inevitable conclusion that follows is that the appointment of the appellant as an Assistant Teacher in the College stood approved on 5th September, 1996 and in terms of the decision of this Court in Ashika Prasad Shukla (supra) he shall be entitled to his salary from the said date." 17. In the present case, it is admitted fact that the papers relating to selection and appointments of the appellant-petitioners were sent to DIOS by the Management on 17.10.1997 for his grant of approval after having issued letters of appointment to the appellant-petitioners. In the present case, it is admitted fact that the papers relating to selection and appointments of the appellant-petitioners were sent to DIOS by the Management on 17.10.1997 for his grant of approval after having issued letters of appointment to the appellant-petitioners. It is also not in dispute that the DIOS did not bestow his consideration on these papers within statutory specified period of seven days. As such the appointment of appellant-petitioners stood approved by deemed fiction of law and in view of the law settled by this court in above authoritative pronouncements (Lalit Mohan Misra and Another (supra), and Abhay Pal Singh (supra)]. 18. Thus, on this count learned Single Bench was not justified in holding that the appointment of the appellant-petitioners were illegal and, therefore, not entitled for regularization. 19. In view of the law laid down by Division Bench in Lalit Mohan Misra and Another (supra) and Abhay Pal Singh (supra), the order passed by learned Single Bench dated 15.3.2019, cannot be sustained. It is accordingly set aside." 16. Perusal of the above extracted judgment shows that in a case where prior approval for appointment is required, the incumbent gets the status of Teacher only when approval is granted or deemed to have been granted. Admittedly, papers relating to selection and appointments of appellants were sent to DIOS for approval, but DIOS failed to bestow his considered on these papers within statutory specified period of seven days. As such, appointment of the appellants stood approved by deemed fiction of law. 17. Perusal of the records shows that papers in regard to appointment of the petitioner was submitted on 7.4.2005 for according approval before the District Basic Education Officer and thereafter he get mum and no order was passed for the grant of approval on the papers so submitted before him. This fact has not been disputed in the counter affidavit and in view of the provisions contained under Rules 10 Sub-clause (5), the appointment of the petitioner has been deemed approved and the District Basic Education Officer deemed to have granted approval after expiry of one month. The same observation was made by Division Bench of this Court in this case of Ashika Prasad Shukla v. District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad and another reported in 1998(3) ESC 2006 (All). 18. The same observation was made by Division Bench of this Court in this case of Ashika Prasad Shukla v. District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad and another reported in 1998(3) ESC 2006 (All). 18. In view of the provisions contained under Rule 10(5), the appointment of the petitioner was deemed approved by operation of law, therefore, he is entitled for payment of salary with effect from 1.12.2006 after taking institution on grant-in-aid list in pursuance to Government Order issued on 2.12.2006. 19. Considering in totalities of facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to ensure payment of salary to the petitioner regularly each and every month with effect from 1.12.2006 on the post of Assistant Teacher.