JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—The petitioner Committee of Management has come up against the order dated 19.5.2009 passed by the Regional Committee, Allahabad Region, Allahabad questioning the correctness of the order on the ground that the reduction in number of Class-IV employee, which has been indicated in the impugned order, is against law and contrary to the norms fixed by the respondents themselves. 2. The matter was placed before the Regional Level Committee on account of a direction issued by this Court on 2nd April, 2009 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18041 of 2009. A copy of the judgment has been appended as annexure 6 to the writ petition. A perusal of the same indicates that the Regional Level Committee had earlier passed the order without giving any notice or opportunity to the petitioners’ Committee and without considering the relevant Government Orders, as a result whereof, the order dated 21.8.2008 was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Regional Committee to be decided afresh. 3. The matter was again examined and the petitioner Committee of Management relied on the recognition order with regard to sanction of posts dated 11.6.1974. A copy of the said order has been appended as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. Subsequently, it appears that the strength of the employees was indicated by an order dated 25.1.1985, a copy whereof is Annexure 10 to the writ petition and the strength of Class IV post shrunk to 12. When the Committee of Management proceeded to make an appointment upon a vacancy having arisen, the said matter was placed before the Regional Level Committee whereafter the order dated 21.8.2008 had been passed, which was quashed by this Court and the matter was remitted back. According to the impugned order the recognition and the sanction of the posts in the year 1974 stood merged in the order dated 25.1.1985 and even otherwise according to the norms fixed, the institution could not have more than 12 posts of Class-IV employee. 4. The Committee of Management supplied the documents and urged that the stand taken by the authorities was not correct and in view of the strength of the students of the institution the petitioner is entitled to retain 16 posts against which employees have continued to function and have received their salary. 5. 4. The Committee of Management supplied the documents and urged that the stand taken by the authorities was not correct and in view of the strength of the students of the institution the petitioner is entitled to retain 16 posts against which employees have continued to function and have received their salary. 5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State and the main stand taken in the counter-affidavit is that in view of the Government Order dated 20.11.1977 the norms fixed clearly indicate that the institution was having Class IV posts in excess of the said norms. The counter-affidavit in paragraph 10 recites that the institution was entitled to a sanction of 12 posts, which was done by the order dated 21.1.1985 and which is also the basis of the passing of the impugned order. However, in paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit it has been stated that in view of the norms fixed in the Government Order dated 20.11.1977 the institution is entitled to maxim of 14 posts only. The said paragraph also indicates that under the norms adopted by the authorities two posts would stand abolished on the strength of the said Government Order as such the impugned order does not deserve any interference. 6. I have heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Raj Kumar Khanna learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri K.K. Chand, learned Standing Counsel for all the respondents. 7. Shri K.K. Chand, learned Standing Counsel contends that there is no error in the impugned order and therefore the norms as prescribed do not require any alteration and the petitioner Committee has to abide by the norms as contained in the Government Order dated 20.11.1977. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties there is no doubt that the sanction of 16 posts was made on 11th June, 1974. Not only this, the employees who were appointed against the said posts continued to get salary against the said 16 posts. A perusal of the facts that have been brought on record clearly indicate that the sanction which was granted on 11th June, 1974 by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools has not been denied and the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools was the authority competent at that point of time to grant sanction. A perusal of the facts that have been brought on record clearly indicate that the sanction which was granted on 11th June, 1974 by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools has not been denied and the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools was the authority competent at that point of time to grant sanction. The counter-affidavit says that the Government Order of 1974 became inoperative and ineffective as the same stood merged in the order dated 25.1.1985, which rectifies and fixes the strength of Class-IV employees up to 12 posts. 9. This issue arose when one Shri Pyare Lal came to be appointed against one of the post which fell vacant and which was sought to be disapproved by the respondents with a further finding recorded that the norms had been violated by the institution. This finding is based on the fact that the order dated 11th June, 1974 has merged with the order dated 15th January, 1985. If the said argument is accepted then there was no occasion for making payment of salary to 16 employees after 15th January, 1985. In view of this, the theory of merger as set up does not appeal to any reason and as a matter of fact the respondents have by their own action and conduct disproved the said theory of merger as set up in the impugned order. The order dated 15.1.1985 does not contain any reason or recital relating to merger of the order dated 11.6.1974. The reduction in strength therefore cannot be presumed or founded on such theory more so when the fact of disbursement of salary by the respondents long thereafter has not been disputed. 10. However, coming to the question of applicability of the government Order dated 20.11.1977, which fixes the norms, indicates that upto the High School level 10 posts of Class IV employees are available and if the strength of the students is over and above 500, then an additional Class-IV employee can be appointed. This takes up the strength to 11. At the Intermediate level, in addition to above there shall be a Class-IV employee each for the subject of Physics, Chemistry and Biology. In the instant case, there is no dispute that all the three subjects are being taught and recognized by the Board in the institution at the Intermediate level. 11. This takes up the strength to 11. At the Intermediate level, in addition to above there shall be a Class-IV employee each for the subject of Physics, Chemistry and Biology. In the instant case, there is no dispute that all the three subjects are being taught and recognized by the Board in the institution at the Intermediate level. 11. In this view of the matter, the norms as indicated in the Government Order dated 20.11.1977 entitle the institution to engage at least 3 more Class-IV employees, which takes the strength upto 14. 12. Shri Ashok Khare contends that the institution would be satisfied in case the aforesaid strength of 14 Class-IV employees is maintained. 13. In view of the aforesaid submissions advanced and in view of the conclusions drawn herein above, the impugned order dated 19.5.2009 is set aside to the extent that the petitioners’ Committee is entitled to only 12 posts. The order passed by the Regional Level Committee shall stand modified to the extent that the institution shall be entitled to have a total strength of atleast 14 Class-IV employees. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent accordingly. 14. The consequential order shall be passed by the District Inspector of Schools in the light of the observations made herein above within a period of two weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before him. ———