A.P. Sahi, J. - (1.) The petitioners claim to have been appointed as class IV employees, after having been selected, pursuant to the advertisement dated 6.2.2004. It is stated in paragraph 4 of the writ petition, that the said advertisement was issued after obtaining permission from the Distt. Inspector of Schools, an endorsement whereof is said to have been made on the request made by the Principal on 20.1.2004. To support the contention, the petitioners have filed the said letter of the Principal bearing the endorsement of the Distt. Inspector of Schools as Annexure I to the writ petition.
(2.) The claim of the payment of salary of the petitioner was placed before the respondents and the Distt. Inspector of Schools vide letter dated 27.10.2004 has sent the entire record) the Regional Level Committee headed by the Joint Director of Education of the Region concerned for direction on the question of payment of salary to the petitioners.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the appointment of the petitioners is valid and since they are discharging their duties as such they are entitled to their salary, which has been denied to them without there being any lawful excuse for the same. It has been urged that the Institution in question is governed by the Payment of Salary Act i.e. namely U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 and since the petitioners have been appointed against created and sanctioned posts they are entitled to the payment of their salary, through the Distt. Inspector of Schools, who is an authority under the Statue and is obliged to disburse the same. On the aforesaid basis, it is alleged that U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 does not envisage the approval or sanction of any authority other than the Distt. Inspector of Schools, therefore, sending of the file to the regional Level Committee was absolutely unnecessary.;