Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. Shanti Niketan Uchhatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Kudrai, Etawah was included under the grants -in -aid list of the State of Uttar Pradesh in 1996 -97 for t payment of salary to the teachers and staff under the Act No. 24 of 1971. Before the said institution was taken under the grants -in -aid list 5 posts of class IV were sanctioned in the institution vide order dated 30.1.1997. Three out of five posts were lying vacant in the institution as the Management sent the names of two persons against class IV post. The letter of Regional Joint Director of Education dated 30.1.1997 clearly show that there were 5 posts against class IV against which only two names had been sent.
(2.) IT appears that at the relevant time there was no ban for filling up the reserved category post under class III and IV posts. The Principal of the institution vide his letter dated 30.1.2002 sought prior approval against class IV 3 posts which were lying vacant. He also represented the matter to the DIOS that if no sanction is received it would be deemed that approval has been granted to the institution for filling up the said posts. As no sanction was received from the DIOS either approving or disapproving permission sought by the Principal for filling the class IV posts were advertised in Daily Newspaper 'Dainik Savera' dated 2.6.2002. It is claimed that petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 were selected and appointment letters were issued to them. Relevant papers regarding their appointments were sent to the DIOS for payment of salary and for financial approval. However, by the impugned order dated 31.8.2002 approval to the appointment as well as financial approval had not been granted on the ground that prior approval was not taken from the Director of Education (Secondary), U.P. Allahabad, hence the appointment is not in accordance with law.
(3.) IT appears from Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13880 of 1997, Sri Ram Naresh and others v. D.I.O.S. Etawah that three employees who had earlier left the institution as stated above filed this writ petition. The Court vide judgment and order dated 27.10.2005 in the connected writ petition held that the posts are to be sanctioned after the institution was taken in grants -in -aid list and therefore, no direction for payment of salary in respect of three employees, who had left the institution can be made. Thus the salary can be claimed by the petitioner under Act No. 1971 if the post has been sanctioned and is filled up in accordance with law. In case of the petitioners the posts were not sanctioned after the institution was taken in grants -in -aid list, hence following the ratio laid down in the judgment dated 27.10.2005 in Sri Ram Naresh (supra), this writ petition is also dismissed. No order as to costs.;