Headline: Appointment against unsanctioned posts or through unverified, non-statutory procedures confers no right to salary or service benefits.

The petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers in Dharmendra Kumar Janta Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Maharajganj, in July 1996

The institution was brought under government grant-in-aid in 1994

Petitioners received salaries until August 2000, after which payments were stopped pending an inquiry into the validity of the creation of their posts

An interim order was passed in 2001 to keep the salary stoppage in abeyance, but it was reportedly not complied with

A detailed inquiry report by the Director of Education (Basic) in 2018 revealed that the post-creation orders dated 1980 and 1988 were not verifiable in official dispatch registers and appeared forged

Consequently, the District Basic Education Officer (BSA) passed an order on 12.01.2023 rejecting the petitioners' claim for salary

1. Whether the appointments of the petitioners were made against validly sanctioned posts in accordance with the prescribed statutory procedure.

2. Whether the absence of entries in the official dispatch register regarding post creation and appointment approval is sufficient to invalidate the appointments after decades.

3. Whether the appointments were in violation of Section 9(2) of the U.P. Junior High Schools (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1978.

Section 9 of the U.P. Junior High Schools (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1978, which mandates prior approval for post creation and stipulates that approval is deemed withdrawn if no appointment is made within three months

Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978, regarding minimum qualifications and recruitment procedures

Precedent in Deepak Kumar v. State of U.P., holding that appointments without verifiable approval or requisite qualifications cannot entitle a teacher to salary from the State

Distinguished Subodh Kumar Prasad v. State of Bihar, noting that administrative lapses in records cannot sanctify a fundamentally forged or illegal appointment

The court found that the petitioners failed to meet the foundational burden of proving lawful appointments against sanctioned posts.

The inquiry revealed significant "suspicious circumstances," including the fact that permanent recognition, additional section approval, and post creation all purportedly occurred on the same day (05.05.1980), which contradicts regulatory logic

Furthermore, one post-creation letter was found to be addressed to a Postmaster rather than an education official, indicating forgery

The court noted that even if the posts were created in 1980/1988, the appointments in 1996 violated Section 9(2) of the 1978 Act because they were made years after the three-month validity period for post-approval had expired

The court rejected the plea of equity, holding that a brief four-year period of service (prior to the salary stoppage in 2000) does not constitute a "long-standing" appointment that warrants protection against statutory illegalities

The court ruled that salary from the public exchequer cannot be claimed based on forged or unverified records

The direct holding was that the findings of the inquiry report were not arbitrary and mandated no interference

However, the court granted liberty to the petitioners to apply for payment of salary strictly for the specific periods they can demonstrably prove through records that they actually worked