JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Heard Sri V.C. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vivek Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Petitioners before this Court seek a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay salary to the petitioners from State exchequer. 3. The facts in short relevant for deciding the present writ petition are as follows : Vikram Singh Vidyalaya, Prithavipur, Kannauj was initially a recognized junior high school. It was brought on the grant-in­aid list by the State Government under its order dated 2nd December, 2006. The controversy with regard to the payment of salary, to the teachers and staffs of the institution from the State exchequer after the institution was brought on the grant-in-aid list, travelled upto this Court under Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 57868 of 2006 and 63222 of 2006. The matter was relegated to be examined by the District Basic Education Officer. The District Basic Education Officer, Kannauj vide order dated 5th March, 2008 determined the names of persons entitled, for payment of salary from the State exchequer. This order of the District Basic Education Officer is not under challenge in this petition. 4. On behalf of the petitioners it is contended that they were also working in the institution since the date it was initially established i.e. even prior to its recognition. Their appointments are prior in point of time to the date on which the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment & Conditions of Services of Teachers) Rules, 1978, as well as those of Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment & Conditions of Service of Ministerial Staff & Group ‘D’ Employees) Rules, 1984 were enforced, as also prior to the enforcement of Uttar Pradesh Junior High Schools (Payment of Salaries of Teachers & other Employees) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1978”). Therefore, at the relevant point of time, neither there was a requirement of creation of posts nor there was requirement of approval being obtained from the District Basic Education Officer before making such appointment nor any statutory procedure was applicable. 5. It is stated that such appointment of the petitioners was approved by the District Basic Education Officer on 16th August, 1976, the order included the names of one Head-master, thirteen teachers, one clerk and three Class IV employees. 5. It is stated that such appointment of the petitioners was approved by the District Basic Education Officer on 16th August, 1976, the order included the names of one Head-master, thirteen teachers, one clerk and three Class IV employees. Reference is also made to the report of the District Level Committee enclosed as Annexure-S.A.4 to the supplementary affidavit filed today, which according to the petitioner establishes that 9 Sections were actually found running in the institution, and therefore, one post of headmaster, 13 posts of teachers, one post of clerk and three posts of Class-IV employees were liable to be sanctioned as per the Manak enforced under the Government Order dated 21st May, 1979 for Junior High Schools. 6. It is on these allegations that Sri V.C. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the petitioner contended that petitioners are entitled for payment of salary from State exchequer after the institution was brought on grant-in-aid list. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present writ petition. 8. For appreciating the controversy raised in the present writ petition, it would be worthwhile to reproduce the Government order dated 2nd December, 2006 wherein the institution has been taken in grant-in-aid list. The Government Order specifically provides that in terms of the Government Order dated 7th September, 2006, only those teachers and employees would be entitled to payment of salary from the State exchequer, who are working within the minimum of the Manak prescribed. From clause-2 of the aforesaid Government Order it cannot be disputed that the State Government has taken the liability of making payment of salary under the Act, 1978, only in respect of such teachers and employees, as per the required minimum of the Manak prescribed and not to any other teachers, who may have been working in the institution. This Court may clarify that it is within the competence of the State Government to take such number of teachers and employees of recognized institution for providing financial assistant as it may desire. In the facts of the present case, the State Government has expressed its desire to take on aid only minimum number of teachers and employees required under the Manak prescribed for the institution in question. 9. In the facts of the present case, the State Government has expressed its desire to take on aid only minimum number of teachers and employees required under the Manak prescribed for the institution in question. 9. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that there cannot be a direction to the State Government to make payment of salary to the teachers and staffs in excess of the minimum prescribe under the Manak, more so when the Government Order bringing on record the institution in grant-in-aid is not under challenge. 10. The issue, which remains for consideration is as to whether the petitioners are within the minimum of the Manak prescribed or not? 11. Learned Counsel has referred to the Government Order dated 21st May, 1979. Class-12 of the said Government Order provides for the Manak of teachers and employees to be appointed in recognized junior high schools. According to the petitioner for every Section of recognized junior high school, one and half teacher is permissible and similarly, one Class III and three Class IV employees can be appointed under the minimum of the Manak prescribed by the said Government Order. He submits that the petitioners before this Court are within the minimum of the Manak so prescribed, inasmuch as on the date of inspection of the institution on 18th June, 2006, it was found that there were 9 Sections in the institution in existence and therefore, for 9 Sections, 14 teachers would be permissible with one headmaster, one Clerk and three Class IV employees.’ Reference is also being made to the letter dated 5th October, 1975, of the District Inspector of Schools, who had informed the District Basic Education Officer for permission to start two new Sections in Classes VI to VIII to the institution being granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further pointed out that the appointment of 13 teachers, one headmaster, one clerk and three class IV employees was approved for the institution by the District Basic Education Officer vide order dated 16th August, 1976. He submits that against the vacancies which were caused due to retirement etc. of such approved teachers and staffs, petitioners have been subsequently appointed. 12. He submits that against the vacancies which were caused due to retirement etc. of such approved teachers and staffs, petitioners have been subsequently appointed. 12. In the aforesaid factual background, the issue can be more appropriately examined by the Secretary, Basic Education, U.P. Government Lucknow at the first instance and therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners may be asked to approach the Secretary, Basic Education, U.P. Government, Lucknow by way of representation supported by such documents as they may be advised, claiming that their appointment is within the Manak of the minimum number of posts permissible in a recognized junior high school and therefore, they are also entitled to be taken on grant-in-aid for payment of salary through State exchequer, alongwith a certified copy of this order. On such representation being made, the Secretary shall summon the original records from the institution as well as from the office of the District Basic Education Officer, Kannauj to satisfy himself as to whether the petitioners are within the minimum of the Manak permissible or not. If the answer to the query is in affirmative, the petitioners shall be aid their salary from State Exchequer and if the answer to the query is in negative, petitioners shall not be entitled to the payment of salary from the State exchequer. The Secretary shall pass a reasoned speaking order, taking note of all relevant facts and Government Orders applicable, preferably within eight weeks from the date the representation is filed. 13. The present writ petitioner is disposed of subject to the observations made above. ————