Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:79466 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21605 of 2018 Petitioner :- Suhail Asgar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mrigraj Singh Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Ashish Kumar Nagwanshi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-Respondents. 2. Petitioners have claimed that they were appointed under due process as Assistant Teachers by the Selection Committee of Committee of Management of concerned school and they were given appointment letters on 18.7.1999. 3. It is further claimed that there was a dispute between rival Committee of Management. The institution came into grant in aid with effect from December 2006 and thereafter papers were forwarded for financial approval and when no decision was taken, petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing a Writ Petition No.4933 of 2018, which was disposed of vide order dated 6.2 2018. 4. In pursuance of aforesaid order, impugned order dated 13.7.2018 was passed. However, claim of the petitioners for financial approval was rejected and relevant part thereof is reproduced hereinafter: "ययाचचीगण कको ननिययनक्ति पत्र प्रबबंधनि दयारया पत्रयाबंक/ननिययनक्ति / ममेमको/99-2000 नदिनियाबंक 18.07.1999 दयारया ननिगरत नकयया गयया थया, जजिसकमे क्रम मम ययाचचीगण दयारया नदिनियाबंक 20.07.1999 कको कयायरभयार ग्रहण नकयया गयया। इस प्रकयार स्पष्ट हहै नक ननिययनक्ति पत्र ननिगरमनि एवबं कयायरभयार ग्रहण ननियमयानियसयार निहहीं नकयया गयया हहै। उपययरक्ति समे स्पष्ट हहै नक ययाचचीगण ककी कजथत ननिययनक्ति जजिस पदि कमे प्रनत ककी गयची हहै, वह सक्षम प्रयाजधकयारची दयारया ससृजजित निहहीं नकयया गयया हहै। जजिलया बमेजसक नशिक्षया अजधकयारची, जिजौनिपयर पदि ससृजिनि हमेतय अजधकसृ त निहहीं थमे। सयाथ हची ययाचचीगण ककी ननिययनक्ति मम उ०प्र० मयान्यतया प्रयाप्त बमेजसक स्कक ल (जिक०हया०स्कक ल) (अध्ययापककों ककी भतर्ती व समेवया ककी शितर ) ननियमयावलची - 1978 कया पयालनि निहहीं नकयया गयया हहै , जजिसकमे कयारण ययाचचीगण कको रयाजिककोष समे वमेतनि भयगतयानि नकयया जियानिया ननियमयानियसयार सम्भव निहहीं हहै। एतदिदयारया ररट ययानचकया सबंख्यया - 4933/2018 सयहमेल असगत खयाबं व अन्य बनियाम उ०प्र० सरकयार व अन्य मम मया० उच्च न्ययाययालय दयारया पयाररत आदिमेशि नदिनियाबंक 06.02.2018 कमे अनियपयालनि मम ययाचचीगण कया प्रत्ययावमेदिनि उपरकोक्तियानियसयार अस्वचीकयार करतमे हहए ननिस्तयाररत नकयया जियातया हहै।" 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners appointment are of year 1999 and it cannot be disputed at such a belated stage. The reasons assigned in the impugned order is that advertisement was not published in two newspapers as well as Basic Shiksha Adhikari was not empowered to create a post cannot be considered at this stage specifically when their appointment letters were approved by the District Basic Education Officer way back on 9.7.1999. 6. Per Contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has supported the impugned order that after the school was brought into grant-in-aid and in order to verify that appointment letters of petitioners were genuine or not State has looked into the procedure adopted for appointment and it was found that procedure was not correctly followed therefore, burden to pay salary to the petitioners from state exchequer cannot be imposed. 7. I have considered the above submissions and perused the records. 8. According to records, petitioners were appointed way back in the year 1999 that is about more than 26 years ago. However when the institution was brought into grant-in-aid it was the duty of the concerned state respondent to verify whether appointment of the petitioners/Assistant Teachers were correct or not i.e. due process was followed or not. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to deny that according to procedure, an advertisement has to be published in two newspapers, firstly having circulation at local level and, secondly at State Level. 10. According to records, advertisement was published in one newspaper namely Tarun Mitra which has a local circulation, therefore, procedure was not strictly followed. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also not been able to deny that concerned Basic Shiksha Adhikari has power to create a post since only State Government is empowered to do so and there is no document on record that it was created by the State Government, therefore appointment of petitioners was not against the sanctioned post. 12. In the aforesaid circumstances only argument for consideration is whether the illegal appointment of petitioners can be protected only on ground that they were appointed about two and a half decades ago. 13. In peculiar circumstances, such irregularity in appointments was protected by this Court as well as by Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam Yadav and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 10. 14. The court may ignore irregularity in publishing advertisement. However, Court cannot ignore that petitioners appointments were not against any sanctioned post and such illegal appointments cannot be protected since it has a financial implications and State Exchequer cannot be burdened to pay salaries to such illegal appointees. 15. It is also not the case of petitioners that they were paid salaries by Committee of Management of concerned School after the school was brought into grant-in-aid i.e. after 2006 therefore petitioners have in fact worked for few years i.e. 7 to 8 years. 16. The Committee of Management of concerned School has also not come forward that petitioners are required in the institution or not. It is also not on record as to whether presently there is any Authorized Controller or any Committee of Management taking care of the Institution, therefore, there is no reason to interfere with impugned order. 17. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 SB Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad