JUDGMENT Hon’ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.—The petitioners are ten in number. They are Headmaster, Teachers and Non-Teaching Staff, Class-IV employees in different Junior High Schools. They are aggrieved by a common order of the Director of Education (Basic), U.P., Lucknow i.e. the second respondent dated 08th July, 2010, whereby their claim for the payment of salary has been rejected. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that Rajendra Singh Smarak Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Bilhat, Budaun; Tejendra Pal Singh Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Nagpur Manpur, Budaun; Raja Karan Singh Junior High School, Khera, Jalalpur, Budaun; Azad Junior High School, Kakrala, Budaun, and Janta Junior High School, Bankota, Budaun are recognized and aided Junior High Schools. They are recognized under the provisions of the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 34 of 1972). These Institutions are receiving financial aid from the State Government for the payment of their teachers and non-teaching staff, hence they are also governed under the provisions of the U.P. Junior High School (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978 and the U.P. Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Services of Teachers) Rules, 1978 (the Rules, 1978). 3. Initially, these institutions were not receiving the aid from the State Government. All the petitioners were appointed in the aforesaid respective institutions prior to the financial aid granted to them. The petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Headmaster on 16.2.1981 and the petitioner No. 2 was appointed on 03rd July, 1984. Their appointment has been approved by the District Basic Education Officer vide order dated 19th September, 1987 and 24th October, 1986 respectively. The approval orders of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are on the record as annexure Nos. 4 and 5 to the writ petition. The petitioner Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were appointed as Assistant Teachers. The petitioner Nos. 6 and 7 were appointed as Clerk and approval was accorded to their appointments on 10.8.1987 and 24.10.1986. The petitioner Nos. 8, 9 and 10 were appointed as class-IV employee. The details of the petitioners regarding the date of appointment, the name of institution and the date of approval are mentioned hereunder in a tabular form: Sl. The petitioner Nos. 6 and 7 were appointed as Clerk and approval was accorded to their appointments on 10.8.1987 and 24.10.1986. The petitioner Nos. 8, 9 and 10 were appointed as class-IV employee. The details of the petitioners regarding the date of appointment, the name of institution and the date of approval are mentioned hereunder in a tabular form: Sl. No. Name of the petitioner Name of Institution Date of appointment Date of approval 1 Ram Pal Singh (Headmaster) Raja Karan Singh, Junior High School, Kherha, Jalalpur, Budaun 16.2.1981 19.9.1987 2 Vikram Singh (Headmaster) Tejendra Pal Singh Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Nagpur, Budaun 7.3.1984 24.10.1986 3. Anil Kumar Singh (Assistant Teacher) Rajendra Singh Smarak Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Bilhat, Budaun 8.1.1979 14.5.1987 4 Suresh Chandra Sharma (Assistant Teacher) Azad Junior High School, Kakarala, Budan 17.9.1984 16.9.1987 5 Roshan Singh (Assistant Teacher) Janta Junior High School, Bankota, Budaun. 26.2.1981 8.10.1987 6 Ramesh Pal Singh (Assistant Clerk) Janta Junior High School, Bankota, Budaun 16.7.1986 8.10.1987 7 Sanjeev Kumar (Clerk) Tejendra Pal Singh Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Nagpur, Budaun 7.1.1985 24.10.1986 8 Ram Pratap Singh (Class-IV) Raja Karan Singh, Junior High School, Kherha, Jalalpur, Budaun 7.1.1986 19.9.1987 9 Jhallan Singh (Class-IV) Raja Karan Singh, Junior High School, Kherha, Jalalpur, Budaun 25.7.1986 19.9.1987 10 Angan Lal (Class-IV) Tejendra Pal Singh Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Nagpur, Budaun 7.1.1985 24.10.1986 The petitioners have brought on record their appointment and approval orders as annexure Nos. 4 to 8 to the writ petition. 4. The State Government issued a Government Order dated 07th September, 2006 calling applications from the eligible institutions to bring them on the grant-in-aid list. In pursuance of the said Government Order, the State Government issued an advertisement dated 09th September, 2006. In response to the said advertisement, the institutions where the petitioners were working, had submitted their applications and after detail scrutiny the institutions were brought on the record of the State Government. Relevant it would be to mention that the State Government has formed guidelines and norms for the grant of financial aid. 5. After the institutions were brought on the grant-in-aid list the Assistant Director of Education (Basic), Bareilly accorded his approval vide orders dated 21st February, 2007 for the the payment of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the institutions pursuant to a Government Order dated 02nd December, 2006. 6. 5. After the institutions were brought on the grant-in-aid list the Assistant Director of Education (Basic), Bareilly accorded his approval vide orders dated 21st February, 2007 for the the payment of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the institutions pursuant to a Government Order dated 02nd December, 2006. 6. It appears that the Assistant Director of Education (Basic) on 23rd March, 2007 issued a direction to the District Basic Education Officer to stop the salaries of the petitioners. The said order was challenged by the petitioners by means of Writ-A No. 42417 of 2007 (Vikram Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others), which was allowed by this Court on 19th March, 2010. The Court found that the order impugned in the said writ petition was passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioners and It has also taken note of the fact that the appointment of the petitioners were approved by the appropriate authority. 7. With regard to the fact that whether procedure has been followed and the manner in which the petitioners claim to function in the Institution, the Court did not express its opinion and remitted the matter to the Director of Education. In compliance thereof, the Director of Education declined to sanction the salary of the petitioners by order dated 08th July, 2010 only on the ground that the Institution was brought on the grant-in-aid list on 02nd December, 2006 but there is no provision for regularization of services of the petitioners and in view of the fact that the case of the petitioners they were regularized, was not found to be valid, therefore, their claim has been rejected. The similar ground has been taken by the Director of Education in the case of non-teaching staff also. Dissatisfied with the said order the ten petitioners have instituted this writ petition. 8. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondents. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the appointment of the petitioners was made following the procedure prevailing at the time when they were appointed, hence their appointment was approved by the then District Basic Education Officer (the BSA). It is submitted that the BSA had approved the appointment of the petitioners only after he was satisfied that the procedure was followed in their selection. 10. It is submitted that the BSA had approved the appointment of the petitioners only after he was satisfied that the procedure was followed in their selection. 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of the Court to a judgement of this Court in the case of Munendra Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others, Writ-A No. 64346 of 2007, decided on 16.2.2012, wherein the similarly placed teachers in other institutions of the same district, had preferred a writ petition against the rejection of their claim for the payment of salary. In those cases also, as submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, it was recorded that their services have been regularized. 11. Learned Single Judge had allowed the aforementioned writ petition vide order dated 16th February, 2012 and has recorded a finding that the petitioners were initially appointed on probation and since they were not terminated, it shall be construed that their services have been confirmed. 12. Dissatisfied with the order of the learned Single Judge, a Special Appeal Defective No. 774 of 2012 (State of U.P. and others v. Munendra Singh and others) was filed by the State. The said special appeal was dismissed by this Court on 03rd December, 2013 and the order of the learned Single Judge has been affirmed. 13. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the judgement of the Division Bench in the aforesaid special appeal in State of U.P. and others v. Munendra Singh and others, 2014(2) ADJ 273 (DB), the impugned order is not sustainable. He has invited the attention of the Court to paragraph-10 of the counter-affidavit. The stand taken by the State in paragraph-10 of the counter-affidavit is that the impugned order has been passed by the Director of Education on the ground that after the Recruitment of Teachers, Rules 1979, the Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Ministerial Staff and Group ‘D’ Employees) Rules, 1984 were applicable and there was no provision for regularization of services of the teachers/non-teaching employees under the U.P. Basic Education Act and for the said reason the respondents (petitioners herein) were not entitled for their salary. 14. I have heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and perused the record. 15. 14. I have heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and perused the record. 15. The institutions where the petitioners are employed as Headmaster, Teachers and non-teaching staff, are recognized under the U.P. Act No. 34 of 1972. Indisputably, they were not receiving any aid from the State Government and their affairs were managed by founding societies and the Committee of Managements from their own resources. The State Government invited applications to bring the unaided recognized institution on grant-in-aid list from time to time. One such Government Order was issued on 07th September, 2006 calling applications from those institutions who were desirous to receive grant-in-aid and who fulfill the eligibility conditions/norms laid down in the said Government Order. The conditions, relevant for our purpose, are extracted herein below: ^^1- fo|ky; **v** Js.kh esa ekU;rk ¼LFkk;h ekU;rk½ izkIr gks A 2- lkslkbVh jftLVMZ o uohuhd`r gks A 3- fo|ky; dk d{kk&8 dk foxr 3 o"kkZsa dk ijh{kkQy U;wure 45 izfr'kr ls de u gksA 4- fo|ky;ksa dh d{kk 6] 7 o 8 dh foxr 3 o"kksaZ ls Nk=la[;k 30 flrEcj dks 105 ls de u gks A 5- vuqnku lwph ij fy, tkus okys fo|ky;ksa esa ckfydk fo|ky;ksa dh la[;k 20 izfr'kr j[kh tk; A vgZ ckfydk fo|ky; miyC/k u gksus ij 'ks"k LFkku ckyd fo|ky;ksa ls iwjs fd;s tk;saxs A 6- vuqnku gsrq vkosnu i= lEcfU/kr ftyk csfld f'k{kk vf/kdkjh dk;kZy; esa izkIr djkus dh frfFk dks fo|ky; esa Lohd`r inksa ij vuqeksfnr ,oa fu;fer v/;kid@deZpkjh dk;Zjr gksa A vkjf{kr inksa gsrq vko';d vuqcU/k@lgefr i= izkIr fd;k tk;] ftlls Hkfo"; dh fjfDr;ksa esa tc rd vkj{k.k dksVk iwjk u gks] rc rd 50 izfr'kr fu;qfDr;ka dh tk;sa A 7- fo|ky; esa foRrh; j[k&j[kko fu;ekuqlkj gks jgk gks rFkk dksbZ foRrh; vfu;ferrk u gksA 8- fo|ky; dk viuk futh Hkou gks A^^ 16. The condition No. 6 is relevant. It provides that the District Basic Education Officer shall verify the fact about the teachers who have been approved and regularly appointed, and non-teaching staff. It also provides that a consent letter shall be obtained from the Committee of Management that in future vacancies they would provide reservation under the law. 17. The aforesaid conditions clearly indicate that at the time of sanctioning financial aid and to bring the Institution on the grant-in-aid list the BSA would satisfy about the strength and result of the Institution. 17. The aforesaid conditions clearly indicate that at the time of sanctioning financial aid and to bring the Institution on the grant-in-aid list the BSA would satisfy about the strength and result of the Institution. An Institution is brought on the grant-in-aid list only when all the conditions mentioned in the Government Order are fulfilled, therefore, it can be safely presumed that at the time of providing financial aid to the Institution a sufficient number of teachers and non-teaching staff who are approved for regular appointment, have been working in the Institution according to the norms. 18. In the instant case of the petitioners, their appointments have been approved by the appropriate authority. Their approval orders are on the record. In the impugned order the claim of the petitioners has been rejected only on the ground that they were appointed on probation and their services have been said to be regularized but there is no provision for regularization under the U.P. Act No. 34 of 1972 and the Rules, 1978. 19. It would be profitable to consider the relevant statutory provision. The Institution is governed under the Rules, 1978. The only ground on which the petitioners’ salary has been declined by the Director of Education is that the procedure has not been followed. Rule-12 of the Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Services of Teachers) Rules, 1978 reads as under: “12. Confirmation.—The appointment of every Headmaster or assistant teacher’s as the case may be, of a recognised school, not being an appointment under Rule 20 shall, in the first instance, be on probation of one year, which may be extended for a further period not exceeding one year. (2) If the service of Headmaster or teacher of a recognised school are not terminated before the expiry of the period or the extended period of probation, as the case may be, he shall be deemed to have been automatically confirmed on the expiry of such period.” 20. From a perusal of the said Rule it instantly comes out that the Headmaster or Assistant Teacher shall be appointed on probation of one year, which may be extended for further one year but not beyond that. Thus, the maximum period of probation has been laid down in the Rules itself. 21. From a perusal of the said Rule it instantly comes out that the Headmaster or Assistant Teacher shall be appointed on probation of one year, which may be extended for further one year but not beyond that. Thus, the maximum period of probation has been laid down in the Rules itself. 21. In the present case, all the petitioners were appointed on probation and their appointment has been approved by the BSA at the first instance, therefore, simply because in their service record or in some other record it has not been mentioned that their services have been regularized, does not have any effect on their confirmation. 22. The automatic confirmation of a probationer is no longer res integra. The Supreme Court in a long line of decisions has settled the issue of automatic confirmation. While considering the automatic confirmation, the Rules which deal with the appointment and confirmation is relevant. In case the service Rules are silent then a probationer cannot be deemed to be confirmed automatically simply because the period of probation is over and he has been allowed to continue after expiry of the probation period. In such facts it would be treated that the probation period has been extended by necessary implication. The reference may be made to the judgement in the case of The State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh, AIR 1968 SC 1210 ; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kabir Ali Khan, AIR 1966 SC 1842 ; and G.S. Ramaswamy v. The Inspector-General of Police, Mysore State, Bangalore, AIR 1966 SC 175 . 23. However, if the Rule provides maximum period of probation and if the employee is allowed to continue in service even after completing the maximum limit provided under the Rules, in that event even without an express order of confirmation, the employee would be deemed to have been confirmed by implication. The reference may be made to the judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Om Prakash Maurya v. U.P. Co-operative Sugar Factories Federation, Lucknow, AIR 1986 SC 1844 ; C.V. Satheeshchandran v. General Manager, UCO Bank, (2008) 2 SCC 653 ; State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh Khosia, AIR 1966 SC 2093 : (1996) 9 SCC 190 . 24. The Supreme Court in an elaborated judgement in the case of High Court of Madhya Pradesh thru. 24. The Supreme Court in an elaborated judgement in the case of High Court of Madhya Pradesh thru. Registrar and others v. Satya Narayan Jhavar, AIR 2001 SC 3234 , has considered this issue in the following terms: “11. The question of deemed confirmation in service Jurisprudence, which is dependent upon language of the relevant service rules, has been subject-matter of consideration before this Court times without number in various decisions and there are three lines of cases on this point. One line of cases is where in the service rules or the letter of appointment a period of probation is specified and power to extend the same is also conferred upon the authority without prescribing any maximum period of probation and if the officer is continued beyond the prescribed or extended period, he cannot be deemed to be confirmed. In such cases there is no bar against termination at any point of time after expiry of the period of probation. Other line of cases is that where while there is a provision in the rules for initial probation and extension thereof, a maximum period for such extension is also provided beyond which it is not permissible to extend probation. The inference in such cases is that officer concerned is deemed to have been confirmed upon expiry of the maximum period of probation in case before its expiry order of termination has not been passed. The last line of cases is where though under the rules maximum period of probation is prescribed, but the same require a specific act on the part of the employer by issuing an order of confirmation and of passing a test for the purposes of confirmation. In such cases, even if the maximum period of probation has expired and neither any order of confirmation has been passed nor the person concerned has passed the requisite test, he cannot be deemed to have been confirmed merely because the said period has expired.” 25. In the case in hand the Rule 12 of the Rules, 1978 has explicitly used the word that the probation of one year may be extended for a further period not exceeding one year. (emphasis supplied) 26. In the case in hand the Rule 12 of the Rules, 1978 has explicitly used the word that the probation of one year may be extended for a further period not exceeding one year. (emphasis supplied) 26. Since the Rule-12 clearly provides that probation period cannot be extended beyond one year, the judgement of the Supreme Court in Om Prakash Maurya (supra) is applicable on the facts of this case thus it is held that after completing their probation period all the petitioners’ services stood confirmed and there was no need to issue an order of regularization. 27. Insofar as the finding of the Director that the word regularization does not find place in the U.P. Basic Education Act or the Rules, 1978 my attention has been drawn to minutes of the meeting presided over by the Director of Education and other senior officers considering the application of the Institution for grant-in-aid, wherein it has been clarified that the educational authorities use different words for the approval including regularization also. For the sake of convenience the relevant part of the minutes is extracted hereunder below: ^^2&vuqeksnu%& fo|ky;ksa dh ekU;rk vkSj dfeZ;ksa dks osru nsus dks vuqeU;rk gsrq f'k{kk vf/kdkfj;ksa us i`Fkd i`Fkd 'kCnkofy;ksa dk iz;ksx fd;k gS ;Fkk vuqeU; vuqeksfnr] fofuf;er] ekU; fd;k tkuk] fu;qfDr dh lgefr bR;kfnA vr% lfefr us loZ lEefr ls mDr 'kCnkoyh dh ewy Hkouk dks g`nla;e djrs gq;s] mls vuqeksnu dh dk;Zokgh ds lekukUrj.k ekuk gS A** 28. From the aforesaid minutes it is evident that some of the educational authorities have used the word regularization for confirmation. Be that as it may, in terms of the Rule-12 of the Rules, 1978 all the petitioners have been deemed to be confirmed, hence, if any separate order has been passed regularizing their services it was superfluous and has no significance. Suffice it to say that all of them have been deemed to be regularized by implication of law. 29. Regard being had to the fact the Division Bench in Munendra Singh (supra) while considering the said case has recorded its opinion in the following terms: “22. Therefore, in our view, the services of the writ petitioners stood confirmed after the extended period of probation in terms of Rule 12 and there was no need to pass a separate order of regularisation. Therefore, in our view, the services of the writ petitioners stood confirmed after the extended period of probation in terms of Rule 12 and there was no need to pass a separate order of regularisation. It is true that there is no provision for regularisation under the Rules, 1978 or the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972 of such appointments. If the services of the writ petitioners are deemed to be confirmed, there was no need for regularisation as they have become permanent Assistant Teachers in terms of Rule 12 of the Rules, 1978. Therefore, the order of the District Basic Education Officer regularising the services of the writ petitioners can be ignored as it was not necessary to pass any such order in respect of a confirmed Assistant Teacher. 23. There is another aspect of the matter. The writ petitioners are working in the institution for the last several years uninterruptedly. Their appointment was made with the permission of the competent authority and after the appointment was made, the approval was also accorded. There is no dispute that they possess essential qualifications and their appointments were made within the sanctioned strength. Therefore, at this distance of time it would be too harsh to set aside their appointments on a technical ground. In somewhat similar facts, the Supreme Court in the case of Agra District Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Labour Court, AIR 2001 SC 2396 , has aptly observed, as under: “11. We do not think that such a course is permissible. It is not a case where appointments have been made in an unauthorised manner. We have stated that prima facie there is material to show that selection process had been gone through by them and the candidates have been selected and such appointment is not against non-existent vacancies. In the special features of the case, the ratio of the decision in Ashwani Kumar v. State of Bihar, (1997) 2 SCC 1 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 267 cannot be applied. Correct principle to be applied is what we have stated in Buddhi Nath Chaudhary v. Abahi Kumar, (2001) 3 SCC 328 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 589. Even though there may be irregularity in the recruitment but by reasons of the respondents being in employment for more than 20 years the same stood cured by their long service and they are deemed to have been regularly appointed.”” 30. Even though there may be irregularity in the recruitment but by reasons of the respondents being in employment for more than 20 years the same stood cured by their long service and they are deemed to have been regularly appointed.”” 30. Since the learned Standing Counsel has not disputed that the teachers who were original petitioners in Munendra Singh’s case were similarly placed persons, the petitioners are also entitled to get the benefit of the direction in the case of Munendra Singh’s case. 31. After careful consideration of the matter, for the reasons stated hereinabove, I am of the opinion that the order of the Director of Education dated 08th July, 2010 is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, it is quashed. 32. Now the next question comes that what relief the petitioners can be granted. Ordinarily, this Court does not pass an order for the payment of salary, and remit the matter to the authority concerned, but there are exceptions when this Court itself can pass the order to cut short the litigation. 33. In the present case the petitioners are teachers and they are working for a quite long time and their salary has been stopped on unjustifiable reasons. 34. In view of the law mentioned above, it would be futile to send the matter back to the authority concerned. Moreover, in the case of similarly placed persons, when their writ petition was allowed on 16th February, 2012, this Court has passed the following order: “In the result the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 23.3.2007 is hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to release the salary of the petitioners from the date it has been withheld within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order on the respondents. In case payment is not released in favour of the petitioners, interest @ 8 % per annum shall be paid to the petitioner from the date the amount is due till its actual payment.” 35. The said order has been affirmed by the Division Bench in Munendra Singh (supra), therefore, I am of the view that the petitioners are also entitled for the same benefit. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay the salary of the petitioners within four months. 36. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. 37. No order as to costs. 38. The petitioner Nos. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay the salary of the petitioners within four months. 36. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. 37. No order as to costs. 38. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 10 have unfortunately passed away during the pendency of the writ petition. Their legal heirs have been substituted in their place. The benefit of this order, be given to their legal representatives in accordance with law. ——————