MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA,J. - (1.) Heard counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for the State respondents. No one has appeared on behalf of respondents No. 3 and 4, even though the matter is taken up in the revised call.
(2.) The petitioners, who are three in number, claim that they appeared in a selection held for appointment on Class IV posts in Shri Saraswati Vidyalaya Inter College, Hapur, Ghaziabad, a recognised institution under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The provisions of U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 are also applicable to the institution. The District Inspector of Schools accorded approval to their selection by communication dated 27.7.1996. In the pursuance thereof, the petitioners were issued appointment letters dated 31.7.1996 where-under they were permitted to join the institution since 1.8.1996. After completion of probationary period of one year, their services were confirmed by orders dated 6.8.1997 issued by the Principal of the institution. The petitioners were paid salary from the State exchequer since the date of initial appointment and they continued to receive the same till April 1998 when abruptly the salary was stopped. On enquiry, the petitioners came to know that the salary was stopped in pursuance of some direction given by the District Inspector of Schools. The Accounts Officer attached to the office of the District Inspector of Schools made an endorsement on 16.5.1998 on the salary bills that payment of salary to the petitioners has been kept in abeyance by the order of the District Inspector of Schools. This compelled the petitioners to file the instant writ petition seeking quashing of the endorsement dated 16.5.1998 made by the Accounts Officer on the salary bills as well as for a mandamus commanding the respondents to pay salary to the petitioners from April, 1998 onwards.
(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the State respondents and in paragraphs 4, 8 and 17 thereof it is alleged that an audit objection was raised to the effect that at the relevant time, there were only two vacancies, but the Principal of the institution, instead of appointing two persons against two vacancies, proceeded to make three appointments. It is alleged that the prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools was for filling up two vacant posts only. It is further alleged that the District Inspector of Schools gave approval to the selection of all the three petitioners, without examining as to whether three vacancies were in existence at the relevant time or not. It is alleged that since one of the appointments was made against a future vacancy, without prior approval, hence salary of the petitioners was rightly stopped on the basis of audit objection.;