Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:79218 Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 64440 of 2010 Petitioner :- Hesham Ahmad Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmendra Singh,Prashant Mishra,Rohan Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Ashok Khare,R. Gupta,Siddharth Khare Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. Both the respondents have initiated procedure for appointment for the post of Assistant Teacher in substantive vacancy. One Wasif Ali Siddiqui was working as an assistant teacher in the institution was retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2008. Consequent upon the said vacancy, the management has initiated procedure by making advertisement for filling up of the said post. After subject to the selection process, the petitioner was selected and accordingly, appointed vide order dated 30.10.2009 and joined his duties in the fourth respondent's institution and subsequently, the committee of management has sent proposals to the competent authority for approval on 1.9.2010. 3. With regard to said institution, one post vacant since 1982 and the management has not filled the said post in time and subsequently, one Udai Narayan Sahu was selected and appointed on the said vacancy in the year 2005. When his appointment was not approved and salaries have not been released, the said Udai Narayan Sahu has approached this Court by way of filing Writ A No. 6461 of 2011 and after taking the entire facts into consideration, the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 1.4.2016. 4. Admittedly, there are 12 sanctioned posts in the fourth respondent's institution and the fact remains only 12 teachers were appointed by the respondent's institution. Hence, the State respondents cannot take any objection, as the fourth respondent has appointed deviating the sanctioned strength. Even in the instant case, the petitioner was appointed in a clear vacancy after retirement of one Wasif Ali Siddiqui. As the institution was already admitted into grant in aid, he is entitled for salaries from the date of appointment. 5. Despite sending proposals to the respondents, the competent authority has not passed any order in the instant case. Hence, the present writ petition. 6. Respondents have filed their counter affidavit. In paragraphs 3, 8 and 9, they have taken objection by saying that one Udai Narayan Sahu was appointed and his appointment was approved in 2009 on vacant post consequent to retirement of Wasif Ali Siddiqui. The appointment of the petitioner was not on the sanctioned post, hence, he is not entitled for any salary. 7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it is admitted fact that as Udai Narayan Sahu was appointed in 2005 and when his salaries were not released/paid, he approached this Court by filing Writ A No. 6461 of 2011 and direction was issued in the said writ petition to release salaries to Udai Narayan Sahu from 2005 onwards. That itself clarifies that Udai Narayan Sahu has been appointed much prior to retirement of Wasif Ali Siddiqui. It is clear that appointment of the petitioner in a clear vacancy after retirement of Wasif Ali Siddiqui i.e subsequent to 30.06.2008. In such circumstances, objections raised by the respondents in the counter affidavit that Udai Narayan Sahu was appointed on the post fell vacant after retirement of Wasif Ali Siddiqui is contrary to records. 8. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for release of salaries from the date of his initial appointment and pass appropriate orders, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Noman (Donadi Ramesh, J.) Digitally signed by :- NOMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad