JUDGMENT :

Om Prakash Shukla, J.

1. Heard Shri H.J.S. Parihar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mrs. Meenakshi Singh Parihar for the petitioner. Shri Ashish Kumar Pathak, Mrs. Alka Verma, Shri Anand Dubey, Shri Anupam Shukla, Shri I.P. Singh, Shri R.D. Shahi, Shri S.S. Rajawat, Shri Bhanu Bajpai, Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh, Shri Firoz Ahmad Khan, Shri Chandrashekhar Singh, , Shri Alok Srivastava, Shri Prashant Kumar Singh, Shri S. Chandra, Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Shri Ravikant Mishra, Shri Ajay Kumar Singh, Shri P.K. Singh, Shri Pawan Kumar Pandey, Shri G.C. Verma, Shri Y.K. Mishra, Shri Ansuman Singh, Shri Ashutosh Shahi, Shri Ganesh Nath Mishra, Shri Sanjay Mishra, Shri Ramchandra Gupta, Shri Rajendra Pratap Singh, Shri Alok Pandey, Shri Udai bhan Pandey, Shri Shashank Singh, Shri Kshemenda Shukla, Shri Jitendra Kumar Pandey, Shri Vinod Kumar Srivastava, Shri Anupam Mehrotra, Shri Krishna Kumar Dubey are present for the petitioners. Shri Badrish Kumar Tripathi, learned Counsel Shri V.P. Nag & Shri Gopal Kumar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel are present for the opposite parties.

2. The Petitioners in this leading Writ Petition claim to be Teachers L.T Grade and as such have knocked the door of this Court, thereby seeking regular payment of salary, arrears of salary from their respective date of joining and non-interference by the respondents in regular functioning of these Writ Petitioners on the post of Assistant Teachers L.T. Grade in their respective institution.

3. Since common issue has been raised in this bunch of matter, they are being taken up together for disposal. In order to appreciate the controversy in these bunch of writ petition, it would be appropriate to curl the facts of any writ petition and for the limited purpose, the fact of leading Writ Petition bearing no. 1223 of 2006 (Sushil Kumar Dubey vs. State of U.P & Ors.), is being taken for consideration. The Petitioner in the said Writ Petition claims to be fully qualified for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher L.T Grade and having been appointed on a vacant post. The Petitioner claims pursuant to the arising of the said vacancy, the post was advertisement and he applied in view of the said advertisement. It is the case of the petitioner that he had been post on the post of Assistant Teacher L.T Grade pursuant to a resolution dated 15.07.2003 issued by the managing committee of the intermediate college, Newadhiya District Jaunpur. The Petitioner claims to have been issued appointment letter on 16.07.2003 and joined on the said post on 18.07.2003 and his name being sent to the office of the District Inspector of schools on 21.07.2003. In view of his said appointment, the petitioner claimed that although several request were made by him to the Manager and Principal of Institution for payment of salary however the same was not released and on his inquiry to the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur he was told that the Secretary of Secondary Education, Government of Uttar Pradesh has issued circular dated 10.05.2002 mentioning therein that no approval to the adhoc appointments be made as there was no provision for making adhoc appointment by the management.

4. Although, this court finds on fact that the petitioner ought to be bound by the circular as it was issued much prior to his appointment and was commensurate to the existing law relating to appointment under the U.P Education Act, however the petitioner claims that the Government has no power to make adhoc appointment under the rules or regulations framed under U. P Secondary Education Service Selection Board (U.P Act no. 5 of 1982) as well as U.P Intermediate Education Board Act as it is the Managing committee of an institution, which has been vested with the said power. Thus, it is the case of the petitioner that the state government has no power and authority to stop the management of its essential functions of appointment of Teachers and Principal in the name of grant in aid as his appointmen