JUDGMENT Honble H.L. Gokhale, CJ.—Heard Sri V.K. Singh, in support of this appeal and Mr. G.C. Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents. 2. The appeal seeks to challenge the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 27.11.2007 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants. 3. Since the controversy in this matter can be dealt with at the admission stage itself, we admit the appeal. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and with their consent, this appeal is being disposed of at this stage. The short facts leading to this appeal are as follows : 4. The second appellant-Committee of Management is running an Intermediate College at Mharpur in district Azamgarh. One of the subjects, which is being taught in this College is Education. The College was granted recognition to teach this subject in 1969 when it was upgraded to Intermediate College. The then Principal of the Institution himself was taking this subject. Hence when the Committee of Management applied for one post for this subject respondent No. 3-District Inspector of Schools wrote to the Institution on 5.3.1970 recording that since the Principal himself was taking this subject, hence when he will retire, the matter of appointment of another teacher and clearance of such a post will be considered. 5. It so happened that the Principal retired on 30.6.1991 and before retirement of the Principal, a request was made on 20.5.1991 for clearance of this post. It is the admitted case of the parties that recognition to teach ‘Education’ as a subject in the Institution continued to be retained. However, since despite reminders, the authorities did not grant permission to the Committee of Management to fill up the post of Lecturer in Education, the Committee of Management decided to fill up the vacancy and notified the same. In response, applications were received. After considering the merit of the appellant No. l, who was also fully qualified, being M.A. (Education) and B.Ed., the Committee of Management appointed the appellant No. 1 on such post on 8.12.1992. In response, the appellant No. 1 joined and continued to work as Lecturer in Education. The papers were thereafter forwarded by the Committee of Management to the District Inspector of Schools for approval. The District Inspector of Schools rejected the request for grant of financial sanction by his order dated 27.8.1993. In response, the appellant No. 1 joined and continued to work as Lecturer in Education. The papers were thereafter forwarded by the Committee of Management to the District Inspector of Schools for approval. The District Inspector of Schools rejected the request for grant of financial sanction by his order dated 27.8.1993. In that order, he recorded that since ten posts were sanctioned earlier and the Principal was taking one of those subjects, there was no question of sanctioning any more post. This order dated 27.8.1993 was challenged by the appellants herein by filing a writ petition. When the matter came up for admission before the learned Single Judge, an interim order was passed directing the opposite parties to pay the salary to the appellant No. 1, as ad-hoc Lecturer in Education each month. 6. When the writ petition reached for final hearing, the learned Single Judge referred to the judgment of Km. Radha Raizada v. District Inspector of Schools, 1994 (2) ESC 345 (All) (FB), that since the appointment was made without advertisement etc., it could not be cleared and, therefore, he dismissed the writ petition. 7. Now what is to be noted in this matter is that undoubtedly this subject of Education was approved, though the approval was given by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education. The District Inspector of Schools was aware of it and in 1970, when an additional post was sought for this subject, he said that that will be considered after retirement of the Principal, who was at that time teaching the said subject. When the Principal retired and when the Management sought the necessary post, the request was rejected in the year 1993 by taking a stand that only ten posts were sanctioned and no more post can be sanctioned. Now what is material to notice is that in view of the stay granted by the learned Single Judge, the appellant has continued to teach all throughout. 8. The said part of the story is that neither the Committee of Management nor the District Inspector of Schools or the authorities of the Government have placed it on record as to how many students were taking this subject of Education and whether, on fact, additional post was required or not. 8. The said part of the story is that neither the Committee of Management nor the District Inspector of Schools or the authorities of the Government have placed it on record as to how many students were taking this subject of Education and whether, on fact, additional post was required or not. There is no dispute that this subject of Education was approved by the Board and the Principal of Institution was taking this subject until he retired in the year 1991 9. (i) In view of the stay granted by the Court, the said subject continued to be taught and the first appellant also continued to teach the said subject. Complete facts have neither been placed by the Committee of Management nor by the educational authorities. The recognition of ‘Education’ as a subject for High School and Intermediate classes of the Institution in question is not disputed by the parties. While dealing with a case where initially the school was impartingeducation upto Class 10 and was duly recognised and receiving grant-in-aid from Chandigarh Administration and was upgraded to 10+1 and 10+2 classes for which the Director of Public Instructions, Union Territory, Chandigarh had granted permission to the Management for starting 11th and 12th classes with a condition that no grant-in-aid would be provided for any additional staff and where the teachers of 11th and 12lh classes approached the High Court for payment of their salary, their writ petition had been allowed. In appeal the Supreme Court in the case of Chandigarh Administration and others v. Mrs. Rajni Vali and others, JT 2000 (1) SC 159 upheld the judgment of the High Court and observed that “the position has to be accepted as well-settled that imparting primary and secondary education to students is the bounden duty of the State Administration. It is a constitutional mandate that the State shall ensure proper education to the students on whom the future of the society depends. In line with this principle, the State has enacted Statutes and framed Rules and Regulations to control/regulate establishment and running of private schools at different levels. The State Government provides grant-in-aid to private schools with a view to ensure smooth running of the institution and to ensure that the standard of teaching does not suffer on account of paucity of funds. The State Government provides grant-in-aid to private schools with a view to ensure smooth running of the institution and to ensure that the standard of teaching does not suffer on account of paucity of funds. It needs no emphasis that appointment of qualified and efficient teachers is a sine qua non for maintaining high standard of teaching in an educational institution.” While dealing with the contention of the Chandigarh Administration regarding paucity of funds in making payment of salary of the teachers, the Supreme Court observed that “the State Administration cannot shirk its responsibility of ensuring proper education in schools and colleges on the plea of lack of resources. It is for the Authorities running the Administration to find out the ways and means of securing funds for the purpose.” (ii) In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court had approved the direction of the High Court for payment of salary to the teachers even when there was a specific condition imposed by the Director for Public Instructions, Chandigarh while granting permission to open new classes that there will be no grant-in-aid provided for any additional staff; whereas in the case in hand, the subject in question (Education) had been duly recognised by the concerned authority and while considering the sanctioning of post of the said subject, way back on 5.3.1970, the District Inspector of Schools had itself stated that since the Principal was teaching such subject, the question would be considered only after his retirement. The Principal retired on 30.6.1991. Request for sanctioning such post was made by the Committee of Management on 20.5.1991, even prior to his retirement. Why the same was not considered then, is not understood. 10. When the State is overseeing the education and clearing a post and making the payment look into it is not a mechanical exercise. It is the duty of the officers of the State also to look into apart from the Committee of Management, to find out as to whether particular subject is really being taught or not. If the subject is being taught from 1969 to 1993, prima facie it appears that there was a need of teacher and surely, thereafter the appellant No. 1 continued until writ petition was disposed of. 11. If the subject is being taught from 1969 to 1993, prima facie it appears that there was a need of teacher and surely, thereafter the appellant No. 1 continued until writ petition was disposed of. 11. In this scenario, it will be desirable that the District Inspector of Schools will go into this question as to whether the particular subject was being taught in this Institution and as to how many students had offered it in the High School and Intermediate Examinations ever since 1991 till date. Based on that, he will make a report as to whether the post was required or not. In the event, the report is in favour of the Committee of Management, we expect the Director of Education to pass appropriate orders clearing one post of Lecturer in Education. In almost similar situation coming to this Court in State of U.P. and others v. Om Prakash Verma, 2003 (1) ESC 263 (All.), a Division Bench of this Court in its judgment directed that if such posts are sanctioned, the petitioners who are working for a long period shall be absorbed. (See para 13 of the judgment). In the event, the report is against the appellants, then the appellants will be called and will be given a hearing and thereafter an appropriate order will be passed. The District Inspector of Schools will make a report within two months from the receipt of this order and the Director of Education will pass his order within two months thereafter after receiving the report from the District Inspector of Schools. The appellant No. 1 will be paid his salary until the final order is passed by the Director of Education. 12. We record the submission of Mr. G.C. Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel for the State based on the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in Gopal Dubey v. District Inspector of Schools, Maharajganj and another, 1999 (1) ESC 168 (All) (FB), that unless a post is sanctioned, salary cannot be given and the recognition of a subject does not mean approval of the post. In the present case, the learned Single Judge was only concerned with the rejection of the request way back in the year 1993, when the subject was being taught in the Institution for over 24 years prior thereto and it is in the facts of this case that we have made this order. In the present case, the learned Single Judge was only concerned with the rejection of the request way back in the year 1993, when the subject was being taught in the Institution for over 24 years prior thereto and it is in the facts of this case that we have made this order. 13. With the aforesaid observations/directions, this appeal stands disposed of. ————