JUDGMENT M. Katju, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing of the impugned order dated 13.7.98 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) and for a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the working of the petitioner as peon in the institution in question and to pay him salary regularly.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In this case counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 4 but no counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 although one month's time for filing counter-affidavit was granted by this Court on 27.7.98. It is alleged in paragraph 2 of the petition that two substantive vacancies on Class IV post, in the institution in question came into existence on the retirement of two permanent Class IV employees. The Principal of the College advertised the post, and the petitioner was selected and appointed by the authorities and he Joined on 19.6.98 as stated in paragraph 8 of the petition. Thereafter the College authorities repeatedly wrote to the District Inspector of Schools. Kushinagar for according financial approval for the petitioner's appointment but by letter dated 13.7.98, the District Inspector of Schools said that appointment cannot be given as there was a ban on appointment. Aggrieved, this petition has been filed in this Court.
3. In the counter-affidavit of the respondent No. 4, it has been stated in paragraph 6 that the petitioner was found most suitable amongst all the candidates and he Joined on 19.6.98 and since then is regularly discharging his duties. In paragraph 10, it is stated that the view taken by the District Inspector of Schools while refusing financial approval on the ground of ban on appointment is untenable because at the time of appointment there was no ban. It has been further stated in paragraph 18 of the counter-affidavit that the petitioner's appointment has been made in accordance with law.
4. In this case, despite time been granted on 27.7.98 to the learned standing counsel to file counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, no counter-
affidavit has been filed. Hence I have to accept the averments made in the writ petition. Moreover as stated in paragraph 10 of the counter-affidavit of the Principal, there was no ban at the time of the appointment.
5. I have not been shown any order banning such appointment and hence the writ petition has to be allowed. The impugned order dated 13.7.98 is quashed and respondents are directed to pay salary to the petitioner regularly. Arrears of the salary from the date of appointment will be made within three months.
6. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed.