Hon’ble Shashi Kant, J.—Heard learned Senior Advocate, Sri Ashok Khare, assisted by learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Standing Counsel for State of U.P. and perused the material available on record.

2. This intra Court appeal has been filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court, 1952 (in short ‘1952’) against Judgment dated 18.2.2013 of learned Single Judge passed in writ petition No. 8525 of 2013 (Birendra Singh v. State of U.P. and others) whereby writ petition filed by petitioner-appellant has been dismissed.

3. According to the appellant, he was appointed as Additional Clerk in the Vadik Inter College, Somai, District Jalaun, which is a recognized and Government aided intermediate Institution. Salary of its teachers and other employees are paid under the provisions of U.P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971. The appellant was appointed with permission of District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 26.7.1987 on account of increased strength of students in the year 1987. After his appointment, the appellant was continuously working on the above post and getting salary. All of sudden vide order dated 4.12.2012, District Inspector of Schools, Jalaun issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner-appellant in regard to the alleged disputed status of his employment and vide order dated 17.1.2013 salary of appellant has been stopped by District Inspector of Schools, Jalaun, on the ground of non availability of sanctioned post in the institution, at the time of appointment of the appellant.

4. Against the said order, writ petition No. 8525 of 2013 was preferred and the same was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 18.2.2013 with the following observations:

“Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is correct that the action has been taken after 26 years but that action, in my opinion, was necessary in order to remove the perpetuation of an illegality and not a merely irregularity. Salary from State funds has to be paid against the sanctioned post. The petitioner was admittedly not appointed against any sanctioned post, as is required for Section 9 of U.P. Act, No. 24 of 1971. The petitioner was, therefore, appointed against a non-existent post and, as such, he was not entitled to payment of salary nor does he have any right to claim continuance on such a non-existent post. The question of necessity of sanction of post has already been dealt with by this Court in the case of Gopal Dubey v. District Inspector of Schools, Maharajganj, 1991 (1) UPLBEC 1(Full Bench).

This, therefore, does not violate Article 14 at all and the argument advanced does not advanced the cause of the petitioner any further.

The question of the post falling within the norms is entirely different inasmuch unless the post is sanctioned, as explained herein above, merely because it is within the norms would not entitled the petitioner to claim continuance or salary as a mater of right. Even otherwise if the petitioner is working within the sanctioned strength as on date, the same would not validate a patently illegal continuance on the post in question.

None of the pleas raised has any force. The writ petition lacks merit, accordingly, the same is dismissed.”

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that petitioner-appellant was granted appointment with permission accorded by District Inspector of Schools, Jalaun, in the institution on account of the existing strength in the institution during the academic sessions 1985-86 and 1986-87. The petitioner-appellant was selected and appointed vide order 11.9.87 after obtaining requisite approval from the District Inspector of Schools, Jalaun. It is further submitted that petitioner-appellant had continuously worked and paid salary regularly till passing of the order dated 17.1.2013, wherein it has been held that he is not entitled to receive salary from State exchequer, but on the date of passin