JUDGMENT Hon’ble S. K. Singh, J.—Heard Sri S. K. Yadav, learned Advocate in support of this petition and Sri Alam, learned Standing Counsel in opposition thereof. 2. Prayer in this petition is for quashing the order dated 13.8.1998 (Annexure No. 5) passed by the respondent No. 2 by which the request for sanction of the additional posts in the college in question was rejected. There appears to be no dispute about certain facts and, therefore, they can be summarised thus. 3. There is an institution in the name of Kalyankari Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Bharana, district Bulandshahr which was recognized as a Junior High School which was included in the list of institution receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government within the purview of U.P. Junior High School (Payment of Salary to Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978. The institution is said to be granted recognition as High School in the year 1990 but the same is not receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government and is not within the purview of U. P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salary to Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971. It is claimed that there existed a Government Order issued by the State Government in the year 1988 under which even in case a recognized and aided Junior High School is upgraded as High School then grant-in-aid at the Junior High School level is to continue and payments till Junior High School level is to be made from the office of Basic Shiksha Adhikari. As a consequence thereof payment of salary to the entire staff of the institution till the Junior High School level continued to be made from the office of Basic Shiksha Adhikari. It is claimed that on 13.10.1995 an order was passed by the Director of Education (Basic) U.P. whereby sanction was accorded for one additional section for class Vlth and Vllth respectively (Annexure 2 to the writ petition). As a consequence of the aforesaid total number of sections for classes Vlth, Vllth and VIIIth stood increased to five sections. Subsequently by means of order dated 27.11.1995 passed by the Director of Education (Basic) U. P. one additional section was sanctioned for class VIIIth also (Annexure 3 to the writ petition). Despite the fact that permission has been accorded from the Directorate with regard to additional section, the claim is that Directorate has not sanctioned additional posts of teachers. Subsequently by means of order dated 27.11.1995 passed by the Director of Education (Basic) U. P. one additional section was sanctioned for class VIIIth also (Annexure 3 to the writ petition). Despite the fact that permission has been accorded from the Directorate with regard to additional section, the claim is that Directorate has not sanctioned additional posts of teachers. In view of the permission so accorded by the Directorate the management has made appointment of four additional teachers in the institution as stated in para 14 of the writ petition and all started functioning and teaching classes VIth, VIIth and VIIIth but payment of salary to the additionally appointed teachers was not made for the reason of non creation of additional posts by the Directorate. Inspite of repeated approach in this respect as nothing was done petitioner filed writ petition before this Court i.e. writ petition No. 8589 of 1997 which was decided by this Court on 16.10.1997 and respondent No. 2 was directed to decide the matter within two months upon which the impugned order dated 13.8.1998 came to be passed by which the claim for sanction of the additional post was rejected. 4. Submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that as permission was accorded by the Directorate to run additional sections in classes VIth. VIIth and VIIIth, the management was justified in appointing additional strength for the same and, therefore, it was arbitrary on the part of the State authorities to have not sanctioned additional posts also. Submission is that in similar situation in respect to another institution namely Amar Gandhi Pustakalaya Balika Vidyalaya Junior High School, Jalalpur, Ambedkar Nagar the matter was finally decided by this Court in writ petition No. 5849 of 1996 in which this Court allowed the writ petition and required direction was given upon which the respondent authorities sanctioned the additional number of posts required in Amar Gandhi Pustakalaya Balika Vidyalaya Junior High School, Jalalpur, Ambedkar Nagar. Submission is that merely on the ground that on account of sanction of the additional posts there will be financial burden, the claim as led by the petitioner cannot be rejected, keeping in mind the sanction about running of the additional sections in classes in respect to which there is no dispute. Submission is that merely on the ground that on account of sanction of the additional posts there will be financial burden, the claim as led by the petitioner cannot be rejected, keeping in mind the sanction about running of the additional sections in classes in respect to which there is no dispute. In support of the submission that consequent upon addition of sections in classes VIth, VIIth and VIIIth which were duly sanctioned by the authorities, the State authorites cannot be said to be justified in refusing grant of approval to additional posts of teachers reliance has been placed on a judgment given by the Apex Court in the case of Lal Bahadur Shastri S. Jr. High School and another v. State of U. P. and others, JT 2002 (5) SC 37. Thus the submission is that impugned order is liable to be quashed and direction is to be given to the State authorities to sanction the additional posts. 5. In response to the aforesaid Sri Alam, learned Standing Counsel submits that if the authorities have given reasons that there will be financial burden then this can be accepted a valid ground for rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Submission is that although there is no dispute about the fact that Directorate has granted approval to run additional sections of classes Vlth, Vllth and Vlllth but that do not entitle petitioner to get sanction of additional post. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the Court has examined the matter. On examination of the facts as has come on record there appears to be no dispute about the fact that Directorate granted permission/approval to run additional sections which is clear from the order dated 13.10.1995 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition). Pursuant to the grant of permission/approval to run additional sections, teachers were duly appointed. On examination of the facts as has come on record there appears to be no dispute about the fact that Directorate granted permission/approval to run additional sections which is clear from the order dated 13.10.1995 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition). Pursuant to the grant of permission/approval to run additional sections, teachers were duly appointed. On a reading of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Lal Bahadur Shastri (supra) as cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner it is clear that the Apex Court clearly observed that if the State authorities has accepted the request of the management and sanctioned additional sections in classes VIth and VIIIth and the Government Order dated 20.1.1986 provides the standard staffing pattern of the teaching staff in a recognized Junior High School then as and when additional classes or sections are permitted to be opened in the school, additional teachers has to be appointed so that teaching in the newly opened classes does not suffer. The Apex Court ruled that the State authorities did not consider in the proper prospective and no attempt was made to ascertain that there was need for additional teachers in the school. The ground of burden on financial sanction of the Government was under the consideration of the Apex Court but it as found to be not acceptable reason particularly after the additional sections in two classes were sanctioned by the educational authority himself. The Apex Court by making that observation remitted the matter for fresh consideration in that light. After noticing aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the claim of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision as has been given by the Apex Court in Lal Bahadur Shastri S. Jr. High School (supra). 7. In view of the aforesaid, this Court has no option but to quash the order dated 13.8.1998 (Annexure 5) passed by the respondent No. 2 with a further direction to the concerned competent authority to entertain the claim of the petitioner and to pass fresh orders keeping in mind the mandate of the Apex Court promptly within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 8. With the aforesaid observation writ petition is allowed. Petition Allowed. ———