D. P. MOHAPATRA, CJ.

( 1 ) FACED with two Division Bench cases of this Court giving conflicting decisions, the learned single Judge by an order dated 16. 10. 1996 referred the case for decision by a larger Bench so that the difference can be resolved and the question settled by an authoritative pronouncement of the Court.

( 2 ) IN Karunapati Misra v. District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur and others, 1986 UPLBEC 172, it has been held that the Board of High School and Intermediate Education. U. P. (hereinafter referred to as the Board) has granted recognition for a particular subject, it has to be assumed that the College can appoint a Lecturer in that subject. On the other hand, in Mahipal Singh pawar v. State of U. P. , (1992) 2 UPLBEC 1497, it has been held that it is the sole domain of the director of Education to sanction and create posts of teachers and other staff as provided under section 9 of the U. P. High Schools and intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act. 1971 (U. P. Act No. 24 of 1971) (hereinafter referred to as the payment of Salaries Act ).

( 3 ) ON perusal of the aforementioned decisions, the question that arises for determination may be formulated thus : whether on recognition being granted by the Board in respect of a subject in an Institution under Section 7a of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. 1921 (U. P. Act No. II of 1921) (hereinafter referred to as the Intermediate Education Act), it will 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? the answer to this question depends on interpretation of certain provisions of the Payment of salaries Act and its interaction with the relevant provisions of the Intermediate Education Act.

( 4 ) THE factual position of the case relevant for the present purposes may be stated thus : janta Intermediate College, Purandarpur, Maharajganj is a recognised Intermediate College. It was permitted by the Board to impart education in Intermediate classes in six subjects including sociology vide letter dated 24. 6. 1980 of the Education Secretary of the Board (Annexure-1 ). The institution is in receipt of grant-in-aid from the State Government. Feeling the necessity of a lecturer in Sociology, the Committee of Management of the Institution wrote to the District inspector of Schools, Maharajganj in 1980 to notify the post and to appoint a suitable person. Since the Inspector did not take the necessary steps in the matter, the Committee of Management took a decision to promote the petitioner Gopal Dubey, who was an Assistant Teacher L. T. grade in the Institution as Lecturer in Sociology by its resolution dated 30. 12. 1990. The requisite papers were sent to the Inspector to enable him to take necessary steps for payment of salary to the petitioner vide letter dated 15. 1. 1991 (Annexure-2 ). The Inspector did not take any step in the matter. The reminders sent by the Committee of Management and the representations submitted by the petitioner fell on deaf ears. As the petitioner has alleged in the writ petition, the inspector verbally informed him that since the post of Lecturer in Sociology has not been created in the manner prescribed, therefore, he would not sanction the salary of Lecturer to the petitioner. It is asserted in paragraph 17 of the writ petition that the Board has granted recognition for teaching 6 subjects including Sociology in the Institution as early as in the year 1990, therefore, it has to be assumed that it was open to the Committee of Management of the institution to appoint Lecturer in that subject. The petitioner contends that the post shall be deemed to have been created from the date of accord of recognition. He claims payment of salary of Lecturer right from 30th of December, 1990. Since the Inspector failed to carry out the statutory duty cast on him to pay his salary as envisaged under the Payment of Salar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document