- (1.) VINEET Saran, J. The petitioner claims that he had been appointed on the post of Clerk by the respondent No. 3, the Committee of Management, Sri Saheb Singh Inter College Dariapur, district Aligarh on 1-7-1988 after following the requisite procedure. The Committee of Management thereafter on 4-7-1988 forwarded the papers to the District Inspector of Schools, respondent No. 1 for grant of financial approval. The District Inspector of Schools vide its order dated 23-5-1988 (filed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition) refused to grant financial approval to the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that the recognition of the institution upto Intermediate level was without financial aid and as such the payment of salary to the petitioner could not be made under the grant-in-aid scheme of the Government.
(2.) THE petitioner claims that he has been working in the High School section of the respondent- institution which is under the grant-in-aid scheme, and since on the basis of the strength of the students of the institution, as per the Government order dated 20-11-1976, the sanctioned strength of clerk in the institution ought to have been two and only one clerk is being paid salary, thus the payment of salary on the post on which the petitioner has been appointed ought to be taken as sanctioned post and the financial approval ought to have been granted. On the aforesaid facts the petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayers:- (i) To issue a writ order or direction the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the salary of the petitioner from 1-7-88 to onward and further he may be paid his salary month to month in accordance with law. (ii) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent to be treat the petitioner's services regular employee in accordance with law. (iii) Issue any such other writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iv) To award the costs of the writ petition. " It is pertinent to note that despite the fact that the petitioner was aware of the order dated 23-5- 1985 refusing to grant financial sanction, (which order has been filed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition) the petitioner has not prayed for quashing of the same. I have heard Sri S. N. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and have perused the record.
(3.) THE petitioner has not been able to show as to how he had been appointed on any sanctioned post. Admittedly, there is one sanctioned post of clerk upto High School level on which post one Surendra Pal Singh is already working and is being paid his salary for which financial approval has already been accorded by the District Inspector of Schools. Further, it is not disputed that the Intermediate section of the institution was recognized without grant of aid. Although the learned Standing Counsel has disputed the applicability of the Government order dated 20-11-1976 in the case of the petitioner but even assuming that the said Government Order was applicable, it was for the Committee of Management to have first approached the authority concerned for sanction of another post before the institution could have made any appointment. It is the specific case of the respondent District Inspector of Schools that no such intimation or permission had been sought by the Committee of Management before making the appointment in question on the post of clerk although it was so required under Regulation 101 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. It is also noteworthy that neither the petitioner nor the Committee of Management had ever approached the concerned authorities for sanctioning any further post of Clerk in the institution. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of The Nayagarh Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. and another v. Narayan Rath and another, AIR 1977 S. C. 112. I have perused the said judgment which relates to the appointment in a cooperative society. In my view the ratio of the said judgment would not be applicable to the facts of the present case.;