JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the University, learned counsel for the Board and learned counsel for the State. 2. Petitioner in this writ application has prayed for quashing of Annexure-11 dated 28.11.2000, by which University has refused the claim of petitioner for payment of salary of the period 1.4.1980 to 31.3.1981 on the ground that petitioner was working on a post which was beyond the sanctioned strength of the school and approval of services of the petitioner is of the Board and not of the University. Petitioner has also sought for. a direction to the Board for release of his salary of the period 1.4.1981 to 31.3.1990 and to the University for the aforesaid period after quashing of Annexure-11. 3. By I.A. No. 2415 of 2005, petitioner has brought on record an order of the Board dated 16.7.2003 as Annexure-16, by which, after filing of the writ application, the claim of the petitioner for payment of his salary of the period 1.4.1981 to 31.3.1990 has been rejected on the ground of non-availability of post and his working on an unsanctioned post. In the I.A. petitioner has prayed for amendment in the writ application with liberty to him to challenge the said order of the Board also. 4. The said I.A. is allowed and the petitioner is given liberty to challenge the said order of the Board as contained in Annexure-16. 5. As per the case of petitioner, he was appointed, pursuant to a decision of the Managing Committee, by letter dated 30.5.1977, in Udyan Sanskrit High School, Karian in the District of Samastipur. Accordingly, he joined in" the school on 7.7.1977 and since then he is in continuous service in the school. At that time, the school was affiliated to the Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University and, therefore, services of the petitioner was required to be approved by the University. After promulgation of the 1981 Act, the school came under control of the respondent Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board). 6. It appears that subsequently two other teachers were appointed in the school, namely, one Madhavendra Jha and one Hirakant Mishra. A dispute arose with regard to approval of services of the three incumbents. After promulgation of the 1981 Act, the school came under control of the respondent Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board). 6. It appears that subsequently two other teachers were appointed in the school, namely, one Madhavendra Jha and one Hirakant Mishra. A dispute arose with regard to approval of services of the three incumbents. Therefore, petitioner filed a writ application before this Court, namely C.W.J.C. No. 397 of 1982, for a direction to the respondents to accord approval of his services. The said writ application was disposed of by order dated 21.9.1987 (vide Annexure-2) by which the matter was remitted back to the respondent Board to consider the cases of said appointees and pass appropriate orders in respect of their services. 7. While the writ application was pending, petitioner came to know that some enquiry was going onin respect of his appointment and, therefore, he filed another writ application, namely C.W.J.C. No. 1015 of 1986. In the said writ application this Court found that no adverse order had yet been passed against the petitioner. Accordingly, by order dated 4.3.1986, as contained in Annexure-3, the said writ application was dismissed as withdrawn finding it premature. 8. As per the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ application of the petitioner, the matter of approval of services of three teachers was considered by the Chairman of the Board who, by his order dated 16.5.1988, as contained in Annexure-4, decided the same against the petitioner, finding that the Managing Committee had not produced any document in his favour and, therefore, his case was not found established. Petitioner moved before the. Special Director in appeal against the said order of the Chairman, who, vide his memo dated 30.11.1990, annexed as Annexure-5, allowed the appeal of the petitioner and set aside the order of the Chairman. The Special Director found that Madhavendra Jha, with whom petitioner was in dispute in respect of appointment against the lone available vacant sanctioned post, had the qualification of l.A. only. As there was no provision for appointment of a teacher with l.A. qualification, the appointment of said Madhavendra Jha was not found in accordance with law by the Special Director. Against the said order of Special Director, said Madhavendra Jha moved this Court through C.W.J.C. No. 2373 of 1991. As there was no provision for appointment of a teacher with l.A. qualification, the appointment of said Madhavendra Jha was not found in accordance with law by the Special Director. Against the said order of Special Director, said Madhavendra Jha moved this Court through C.W.J.C. No. 2373 of 1991. The said writ application was considered by a Division Bench of this Court which did not find any merit in the same and dismissed it by order dated 30.9.1991, as contained in Annexure-6. Said Madhavendra Jha, thereafter, moved the Apex Court which also dismissed his S.L.P. by order dated 6.12.1991 as contained in Annexure-7. Thus, the fate of said Madhavendra Jha got sealed finally. 9. After the rejection of the claim of said Madhavendra Jha up to the Apex Court, the Board issued an office order as contained in Memo No. 61 dated 25.1.1995 (Annexure-8) by which taking notice of the three orders, of the Special Director, this Court and the Apex Court, as abovementioned, and taking notice of appointment of petitioner by the Managing Committee by its resolution no. 11 dated 30.5.1977, the services of petitioner was approved. However, in spite of such approval of his services, petitioner was not paid his arrears of salary and, therefore, he moved this Court again through C.W.J.C. No. 1711 of 1999 which was disposed of by order dated 4.5.2000, as contained in Annexure-9, directing the respondents to decide the claim of the petitioner. A typographical error in the said order was corrected by a subsequent order dated. 22.6.2000 as contained in Annexure-10. 10. In view of the orders of this Court, the claim of petitioner was considered by the Vice-Chancellor of the respondent University for payment of arrears of his salary for the period 1.4.1980 to 31.3.1981. He found that, in view of the sanctioned strength of the school fixed by the Government, payment had been released to the Headmaster and rest of the six teachers and two non-teaching staff whose names were noticed in his order dated 28.11.2000. The Vice-Chancellor also took into account that the State Government releases amount for payment of salary only against sanctioned posts. Since the names of the seven teachers including the Headmaster did not include the name of petitioner in its records, it was not possible for the University to release salary of the petitioner. The Vice-Chancellor also took into account that the State Government releases amount for payment of salary only against sanctioned posts. Since the names of the seven teachers including the Headmaster did not include the name of petitioner in its records, it was not possible for the University to release salary of the petitioner. He also noticed that the order of approval of services of petitioner was issued by the Board and not by the University. In such circumstances, Vice-Chancellor vide his order dated 28.11.2000, annexed as Annexure-11, rejected the claim of petitioner. This order is impugned in the writ application. 11. The Board had not passed any order on his claim till then. Therefore, while assailing the said order of the Vice-Chancellor, the petitioner, in the main writ application, also prayed for a direction to the Board for consideration of his claim and for passing appropriate final orders in respect of the arrears of salary of the subsequent period, when the school came under the control of the Board. As said above, during the pendency of this writ application, Board also passed orders, rejecting the claim of petitioner, vide its order dated 16.7.2003, which has been assailed in this case through the said l.A., which has been allowed as above. In its order the Board has also noticed the fact that, against seven sanctioned posts of teachers in the school including the Headmaster, petitioners name was not there in its records. The Secretary of the Board in the said order also noticed that the State.Government releases fund only for payment against the sanctioned post and, since the records did not show that petitioner was working in the school against sanctioned post, and no further post was available in the school, his claim could not be entertained and, therefore, the same was rejected. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in. the impugned order, Annexure-11, passed by the University, as well as in the order of the Board, Annexure-16, it is clear that said Madhavendra Jha has been shown as working in the school on sanctioned post, although his initial appointment itself had already been held illegal by the Special Director, which was affirmed by this Court, and the SLP against the same was dismissed by the Supreme Court also. He submits that, since initial appointment of said Madhavendra Jha itself stands held illegal, a sanctioned post automatically becomes vacant in the school from the date of appointment of said Madhavendra Jha and, therefore, petitioner has to be treated as having worked in the school against sanctioned post and is accordingly entitled for his payment. He submits that the fact that said Madhavendra Jha was paid his salary earlier cannot be an impediment for release of salary to the petitioner in view of the fact that his very initial appointment was found illegal. Therefore, the post has to be deemed to have become vacant in the school from day one and petitioner, who was admittedly working in the school, has to be treated as having worked against the said sanctioned post. 13. Counter affidavits have been filed in the case by the University as well as by the Board. 14. Learned counsel for the University submits that, since fund released by the State Government for payment of salary of the incumbents on the sanctioned post of school has already been disbursed, the University has no fund to pay the salary of the petitioner, unless and until they get an allotment from the Government for the same separately. He submits that, for this purpose, proposal has to be sent to the State Government for its approval and release of fund. Therefore the University had rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner, as payment to him will amount to payment against ah eighth unit in the school, which the University cannot do on its own. 15. Learned councel for the Board has also supported the impugned order passed by the Secretary, as contained in Annexure-16, on similar grounds. He also submits that the Board does not have fund of its own. He submits that fund received by the Government for payment of salary to the teachers and non-teaching staff working on sanctioned post has been disbursed and no extra fund is allotted by the State Government for payment of salary to any incumbent outside the sanctioned strength. Therefore the representation of the petitioner has been rightly rejected by the Board. 16. It is true that payments in the school have to be made to incumbents validly appointed against vacant sanctioned posts only, and whose services have been duly approved. Therefore the representation of the petitioner has been rightly rejected by the Board. 16. It is true that payments in the school have to be made to incumbents validly appointed against vacant sanctioned posts only, and whose services have been duly approved. This Court will also not be justified in passing any order for payment of salary of any incumbent who has not been found validly appointed or appointed beyond the sanctioned strength. But the fact remains that the validity of appointment of petitioner does not stand challenged at any stage. The dispute between him and said Madhavendra Jha was only with regard to payment against a post within the sanctioned strength or beyond the sanctioned strength. Initially the management of the school and the Board also treated said Madhavendra Jha as having been appointed within the sanctioned strength. However, the very initial appointment of the said Madhavendra Jha was found illegal by the Special Director, which finding received a seal of approval by" this Court as well as by the Apex Court. 17. Therefore, so far asMadhavendra Jha is concerned, he became non-existent on the roils of the schools from day one. Accordingly the sanctioned post against which he received payment, has to be deemed to be vacant from day one. The order of the Special Director shows that the management of the school had produced before him the attendance register of the teachers in which the name of the petitioner as well as said Madhavendra Jha was mentioned. Therefore, the fact that petitioner was working in the school, may be at that time being treated as working beyond sanctioned strength, stands established. Hence, a vacant sanctioned post becoming available from day one in the eye of law, on account of findings of the Special Director, affirmed by. this Court as well as the Apex Court, the petitioner has to be deemed to have been working against the said-vacant sanctioned post. It is also relevant to notice here that, taking into account orders of the Special Director, this Court and the Apex Court, and taking into account appointment of the petitioner by the Managing Committee by its resolution dated 30.5.1997, the Board itself had approved the services of the petitioner. It is also relevant to notice here that, taking into account orders of the Special Director, this Court and the Apex Court, and taking into account appointment of the petitioner by the Managing Committee by its resolution dated 30.5.1997, the Board itself had approved the services of the petitioner. Hence, after so much development in the case and various orders passed, it was not open for the University, or the Board, now, to deny the claim of petitioner on the ground that payment had already been released to said Madhavendra Jha treating him as working against a sanctioned post. 18. In the circumstances, this Court finds that the order of the University as contained in Annexure-11, and of the Board as contained in Annexure-16, are not sustainable in the eye of law and are fit to be quashed. The same are accordingly quashed. 19. The University and the Board are directed to prepare proposals for release of fund for payment of salary of petitioner for the relevant periods, and submit the same to the State Government within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. On submission of such proposals by the University and the Board, the State Government shall consider the same in the light of this judgment and pass appropriate orders releasing necessary fund to the University and the Board, for payment of salary of petitioner of the periods, within one month thereafter. On receipt of such fund from the State Government, the University and the Board shall make payment to the petitioner within fifteen days thereafter. 20. This writ application is, accordingly, allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.