Approval of appointment granted prior to government takeover of a school creates a valid liability for salary and terminal benefits.

Respondent No. 1 (the petitioner) was appointed as an Assistant Teacher at Bishnu Dipan Sanskrit Prathmik Sah Madhya Balak Vidyalaya, Buxar, on 14.12.1989 following an advertisement dated 01.09.1989

The State Government subsequently took over the school on 18.12.1989

The respondent sought payment of salary and retiral benefits, which the State refused, contending that the approval of his appointment was dispatched/received only on 29.12.1989 (after the takeover), rendering the appointment non est as against the State

A learned Single Judge ruled in favor of the respondent, directing payment of all consequential and retiral benefits

The State challenged this order via the present Letters Patent Appeal.

Whether the appointment of the respondent was validly approved prior to the Government takeover of the school, thereby making the State liable for salary and benefits.

Whether the delay in the ministerial act of dispatching an approval order affects the legal date of the appointment's validity.

The court applied the principle of administrative finality and the distinction between the "grant of approval" and the "communication of approval."

The court also implicitly applied the principle of parity and finality of unchallenged quasi-judicial orders, noting that the State failed to challenge the Special Director's findings from 2011

Factual findings recorded in the order of the Special Director, Education Department (Annexure-7), established that the approval of appointment by the competent authority constitutes a binding act from the date of the decision rather than the date of receipt

The Court examined the records, specifically Annexure-7 (an order by the Special Director, Education Department), which confirmed that the approval for the respondent’s appointment was actually granted on 14.12.1989, four days prior to the Government takeover on 18.12.1989

The Court reasoned that the respondent cannot be "victimized" for ministerial delays in dispatching the communication (dispatched 21.12.1989, received 29.12.1989) when the substantive legal act of approval occurred before the takeover

The State’s argument—that only one post existed and was filled by another individual (Rajnath Singh)—was rejected as it was unsupported by documentation and failed to explain the arbitrary choice between the two candidates

Since the 2011 order of the Special Director remained unchallenged by the State, it had attained finality

The Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal and upheld the Single Judge’s order, affirming that the respondent is entitled to salary from the date of appointment until superannuation, along with all consequential and retiral benefits

All interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly