Abhinava Upadhya, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE claim of the petitioner is that he has been teaching in the institu tion from 8.10.1983 in intermediate classes but he was not being paid salary. THE Urdu subject was recognised in the intermediate classes by the Intermediate Education Board vide order dated 8.10.1983. THEreafter, the D.I.O.S. has also passed an order dated 7.12.1983 (Annexure-2 to the writ peti tion) for opening of section for Urdu language. THE petitioner has continued ever since on the said post. The dispute in the present case is regarding the validity of the ap pointment of the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that since Urdu subject has been recognised by the Board and the D.I.O.S. has also permit ted for opening of the section for the said purpose, therefore, since the peti tioner has been teaching in the institution since 1983, he has a right to receive salary, although the petitioner admits that there is no formal order for cre ation or approval of the post by the authority concerned i.e., the Director of Education. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand states that the said con troversy has already been settled by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Gopal Dubey v. D.I.O.S., Maharajganj and another, 1999 (35) ALR 191 wherein Full Bench held that without formal creation of post, merely by permission to open a section to teach of a particular subject will not mean that a post has been sanctioned. It is incumbent that the person claiming salary from public fund must be appointed on a validly created and sanctioned post.
(3.) IN the present case, as stated above, since the post has neither been sanctioned nor created as such no right of the petitioner accrues to receive salary from the public exchequer. The controversy in the present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of Full Bench and consequently this writ petition cannot be sustained and it is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed.;