IMPORTANT POINT
Employees appointed before the establishment of regulations under the Act 2000 are entitled to salary from the State Exchequer, as their appointments were valid under the Act.

JUDGMENT :

Shree Prakash Singh, J.

1. Heard Sri Rohit Tripath, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Raj Kumar Singh, advocate, holding brief of Sri Abhay Raj Singh, counsel for opposite party No. 5, Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh, Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Vivek Shukla, learned additional chief standing counsel for the State.

2. Under challenge is the order dated 18.12.2019, whereby the claim of the petitioners for payment of salary from State exchequer, has been been rejected.

3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the institution was established in year 1978 as Sanskrit College Imparting Education from class-VI (Prathma) to Post-Graduate (Acharya) level and it was affiliated to Sampurnanad Sanskrit University, Varanasi and started receiving financial grant from the State Government and the integrated system from School to Post Graduate level continued for almost 20 years, but later on, for regulating the system of Sanskrit Education and to maintain the standards of such institution, the U.P. Board of Secondary Sanskrit Education Ordinance, 2000, subsequently Uttar Pradesh Board of Secondary Sanskrit Education Act, 2000 (hereinafter, referred to as 'Act 2000'), was promulgated wherein, five categories were classified as Prathmik, Purva Madhyamik, Uttar Madhyamik, Shashtri and Acharya.

4. After the aforesaid enactment, looking into the vacancies, the institution started the process of recruitment against the post of Teaching and Non-Teaching staff and thereafter, the petitioners applied for and were duly selected. The details of the petitioners with the description of their post and appointment are given herein-under:

5. After the recruitment, the petitioners joined and they are continuously working on their respective posts up till date. He submits that by means of option letter dated 17.7.2002, the classification of institution was resolved/decided to run the institution for two levels and the option indicated in the letter dated 17.7.2002, shows that the state Government approved/recognized two sections uptill Prathama to Uttar Madhyama section and this was segregated from Graduate and Post Graduate sections i.e. Shastri and Acharya and thereafter, the petitioners became employees of the intermediate section by virtue of operation of the Act, 2000, but once they sought payment of salary from the State Exchequer, their claims were rejected while giving the reasons that since they are not duly appointed, therefore, and their appointments are irregular.

6. Further contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that since Section 25 of the Act, 2000 itself speaks that 'Subject to provision of this Act, the head of the institution and teachers and other employees of an institution shall be appointed in accordance with the regulation'.

7. Referring the aforesaid provision, the counsel for the petitioners submits that since the regulation is admittedly came in to the existence on 15.1.2010 and the appointments which were done likewise appointments of the petitioners from the date of