Communication of disapproval after thirty-day statutory period results in deemed approval of ministerial staff appointments.

The petitioner, a recognized minority aided institution, conducted a selection process for the post of Clerk on 25.05.2017

The Management had sought a nominee from the District Basic Education Officer (BSA), and one Shri Jitendra Kumar Pandey participated as the representative

The selection papers were submitted to the BSA on 04.09.2017

The BSA issued an order dated 28.09.2017 disapproving the appointment, citing an improperly constituted selection committee (due to lack of official nomination), delay in submitting papers, and issues with the advertisement

This order was posted on 05.10.2017 and received by the institution on 07.10.2017

1. Whether the delay in communicating the BSA's decision beyond the 30-day statutory period resulted in "deemed approval" of the appointment under Rule 15(5)(iii) of the 1984 Rules

2. Whether the participation of a nominee not formally authorized by the BSA, or the delay in forwarding selection papers, vitiated the recruitment process

3. Whether the writ petition was maintainable at the behest of the Committee of Management

Rule 15(5)(iii) of the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Ministerial Staff and Group D Employees) Rules, 1984, which mandates that if the BSA does not communicate a decision within one month of receipt of papers, approval is deemed granted

Rule 14 regarding the constitution of the Selection Committee

The principle from State of U.P. v. Gunjan Singh that the management cannot be penalized for the BSA’s failure to formally nominate a representative

The principle that procedural timelines (Rules 15(3) and (4)) are directory unless the statute provides penal consequences

The court found that since the selection papers were received by the BSA office on 04.09.2017, the 30-day window for communication expired on 04.10.2017. Because the disapproval order was only communicated on 07.10.2017, "deemed approval" took effect by operation of law

Regarding the Selection Committee's constitution, the court reasoned that since a representative (Shri Pandey) actually participated and signed the proceedings, the lack of a formal nomination letter was a "hyper-technical" irregularity that did not invalidate the selection

The court further noted that the delay in forwarding papers was reasonably explained by a flood situation in Gorakhpur and, as Rule 15 is directory, such a post-selection procedural lapse did not justify disapproval

Finally, the court dismissed the challenge to maintainability, noting the petition had been pending since 2018 and the objection was a belated afterthought

The court quashed the impugned order dated 28.09.2017, allowed the writ petition, and directed that all consequential benefits, including salary payment, be provided to the selected candidate