Dilip Gupta, J. - (1.) ALL these Appeals arise out of a common order dated 17.09.2008 passed in Writ Petition No.8056 of 1990. Special Appeal No. [97] of 2009 and Special Appeal No.[321] of 2009 are barred by limitation. In both the Appeals, applications have been filed for condoning the delay in filing the Appeals. We are satisfied that the cause shown is sufficient for condoning the delay in filing the Appeal. Delay is condoned. We have taken up all these Appeals on merit. Jagdhari Yadav - appellant in Special Appeal No.[97] of 2009 and Shri Prakash Yadav - petitioners no.1 and 2 in the writ petition were promoted as Lecturer in English and Sociology respectively. On account of vacancies caused by their promotions, Sri Suresh Chandra Yadav - appellant in Special Appeal No.720 of 2009 and Brinda Prasad Yadav - appellant in Special Appeal No.[321] of 2009 were appointed. However, for the purpose of payment of salary, those appointments have not been approved on the ground that the posts of Lecturer in English and Sociology were not sanctioned by competent authority. Such an order was passed by the District Inspector of Schools on 15.02.1990. Appellants challenged the aforesaid order, inter alia, contending that since the approval was granted for teaching English and Sociology, the posts of Lecturers shall be deemed to have been sanctioned. This submission did not find favour with the learned Single Judge relying on the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Gopal Dubey Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Maharajganj and another, reported in 1999 (1) UPLBEC 1. Relevant portion of the judgment and order of the Full Bench, as quoted in the order of learned Single Judge reads as follows : "22. In view of the above discussion the answer to the question formulated by us is that on recognition being granted by the Board in respect of a subject in an institution under section 7-A of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 it will not be presumed that the post of lecturer in such subject stands sanctioned by the Director of Education under Section 9 of the Payment of Salaries Act. 23. In the case in the hand indisputably no prior approval of the Director was obtained before appointment of the petitioner as lecturer in Sociology. Therefore, his claim for payment of salary by the State Government is unsustainable. The management of the Institution also is not entitled to reimbursement of the salary paid to the petitioner from the State Government in the absence of approval of the post. However, it will be open to the management to send a proposal to the Director for the grant of approval to the post held by the petitioner and if such proposal has already been received by the Director, he will consider the same in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the Rules and the law and pass appropriate orders expeditiously within three months." Mr. I.R. Singh appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that appointments and promotions of the appellants had taken place before the pronouncement of the judgment by the Full Bench in the case of Gopal Dubey (supra). As such, after long lapse of time, it ought not to have been held that the appellants shall not continue in service and be not entitled for salary. In support of this submission, reliance has been placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Baburam Vs. C.C. Jacob and others, reported in AIR 1999 SC 1845 and our attention has been drawn to paragraph no.5 thereof, which reads as follows : "5. The prospective declaration of law is a devise innovated by the apex court to avoid reopening of settled issues and to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. It is also a devise adopted to avoid uncertainty and avoidable litigation. By the very object of prospective declaration of law, it is deemed that all actions taken contrary to the declaration of law prior to its date of declaration are validated. This is done in the larger public interest. Therefore, the subordinate forums which are legally bound to apply the declaration of law made by this Court are also duty-bound to apply such dictum to cases which would arise in future only. In matters where decisions opposed to the said principle have been taken prior to such declaration of law cannot be interfered with on the basis of such declaration of law. In the instant case, both decisions of the DPC as well as the appointing authority being prior to the judgment in Sabharwal's case (1995 AIR SCW 1371), we are of the opinion that the tribunal was in error in applying his decision. For this reason, these appeals succeed and are hereby allowed; setting aside the orders and directions made by the Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 186/94, and 961/95." We do not find any substance in the submission and the decision relied on in no way supports his contention. Nothing has been pointed out from the judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Gopal Dubey (supra), which indicates that the said judgment is to operate prospectively. In that view of the matter, it is difficult for us to hold that the ratio of the case of Gopal Dubey (supra) shall operate prospectively. The precedent of this Court, which govern all the cases is not otherwise stated to be so. In view of the judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Gopal Dubey (supra), the claim of promotions of appellants Jagdhari Yadav and Sri Prakash Yadav, and appointments of appellants Suresh Chandra Yadav and Brinda Prasad Yadav and payment of salary is unsustainable. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the District Inspector of Schools did not err while passing the order dated 15.02.1990, disapproving their promotion and appointment for the purpose of payment of salary and the learned Single Judge did not err while declining to interfere with the said order. It is also submitted that Sri Prakash Yadav died later on 19.09.2005 and against that appellant Brinda Prasad Yadav having been appointed, there is no impediment in continuing him in service and for payment of salary. This argument has been noted only to be rejected. Bindra Prasad Yadav has not been appointed after the death of Prakash Yadav; he was appointed when Sri Prakash Yadav was promoted as a Lecturer. Subsequent death of Sri Prakash Yadav shall not validate the appointment of appellant Bindra Prasad Yadav. We do not find any merit in all these Appeals and they are dismissed accordingly.;