Approval cannot be withheld on unsustainable grounds for appointments to sanctioned posts in minority schools.

The petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers in Mathematics and English at Basudevpur Kanya Gurukul, a Government-aided minority school governed by special rules.

They had applied in response to an advertisement for sanctioned posts, stood first in the respective selection panels, and joined in February 2023.

The District Inspector of Schools (D.I.) twice refused approval, most recently by order dated 29 January 2025, citing, among other matters, deficiencies in post-sanction documents, selection procedure and Managing Committee constitution, and the alleged failure to invite Pass Graduate candidates.

The earlier refusal had been set aside and remitted for reconsideration after a hearing; following that hearing, the D.I. again declined approval.

The petitioners challenged the second refusal.

Whether the D.I. was justified in refusing approval on the grounds that the sanctioned posts, selection procedure, staff pattern and constitution of the Managing Committee were deficient.

Whether the 2016 recruitment notification and the objection concerning the vacant Sanskrit post applied so as to invalidate the appointments.

Whether, in the circumstances, the Court could direct approval rather than remit the matter for another administrative reconsideration.

The Special Rules framed by the notification dated 19 March 1973 govern the school as a minority institution; Rule 7 empowers the School Committee to appoint temporary and permanent employees.

The notification dated 6 June 2012 governs recruitment in Arya Samaj minority institutions: appointments must be against duly sanctioned vacancies, and clause 4 requires a Selection Committee constituted at least three months before the selection process, with prescribed particulars communicated to the authorities; clause 6 leaves the school authority to determine the post category in accordance with G.O. No. 670-SE(S) dated 4 September 1998.

The Court held that the 2016 notification, framed in the context of the School Service Commission regime, could not be presumed applicable to this school absent a provision extending it to institutions governed by the Special Rules.

Relying on *E.T. Sunup v. C.A.N.S.S. Employees Association*, (2004) 8 SCC 683, the Court stated that an authority should not use successive or different justifications to circumvent the effect of judicial directions.

The Court found that the records supported the existence of 15 sanctioned teaching posts and showed vacancies in English and Mathematics; it considered it unjustified to fault the school for not producing sanctioning records that should also have been held by the State authorities.

The materials showed that the school had notified the D.I. of the vacancies and selection arrangements, and that the Managing Committee was in office during the selection process.

The staff pattern did not disclose a contravention of the applicable qualification balance, and the English appointment was not shown to have been made against the still-vacant Sanskrit post.

The D.I.’s remaining objections did not justify refusal, particularly after the required hearing and reconsideration had already taken place.

A further remand would serve no useful purpose.

It directed the D.I. to approve the petitioners’ appointments against their respective sanctioned posts and take consequential steps, including release of salary and other service-related benefits, preferably within four weeks of communication of the order.

No order as to costs was made.