JUDGMENT Ashok KumarVishwakarma and three others are assailing the validity of order dated 23.1.2017 passed by learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.22015 of 2012 wherein claim of petitioners for ensuring their salary under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 has been turned down on the premises that there are only 18 sanctioned post and, teachers working against such sanctioned post are being paid salary from the State Exchequer. 2. The petitioners claim to have been working as Assistant Teachers in Sri Gandhi Inter College, Maudaha, Hamirpur, which is a recognized and aided educational institution and governed by the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Institution). The Institution was brought in grant-in-aid list by the Government Order dated 27.10.2004. According to the Government Order dated 27.10.2004 grant-in-aid to the Institution was limited to one post of Principal and 7 posts of Assistant Teachers apart from non-teaching posts. We are concerned with the post of Assistant Teachers in the present case. Subsequently, vide Government Order dated 24.11.2005 posts of 11 Assistant Teachers were also sanctioned for payment from government's grant. Claim of the petitioners is that the petitioners are working in the Institution since prior to the Institution being brought on grant-in-aid w.e.f. 1.1.2004 and they were appointed between the year 1996 to 1998, therefore, they are entitled for payment of salary from State Exchequer. Claim of the petitioners for sanctioning payment of salary as Assistant Teachers from government's grant including arrears from 1.1.2004 was rejected by the impugned order dated 28.3.2012 passed by the Director of Education (Secretary) U.P., Lucknow. The order passed by the Director of Education (Secretary) U.P., Lucknow dated 28.3.2012 has been subjected to challenge and the said challenge has been turned down and accordingly present special appeal with same set of grievance. 3. The order passed by the Director of Education (Secretary) U.P., Lucknow dated 28.3.2012 has been subjected to challenge and the said challenge has been turned down and accordingly present special appeal with same set of grievance. 3. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants submitted with vehemence that petitioners have been appointed as Assistant Teachers in Sri Gandhi Inter College, Maudaha, Hamirpur and as per the parameters of sanctioned post, much more posts were required in the institution and in view of this, the Director of Education has clearly misdirected himself while passing the order impugned and, in view of this, interference be made by this Court and requisite relief be accorded to the petitioners. 4. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contended that once there is no sanctioned post and no incumbent appointed subsequent to the petitioners have been adjusted against 18 post then petitioners legitimately have no claim as is being claimed by them and the present special appeal accordingly deserves dismissal. 5. After respective arguments have been advanced, the fact on which there is no dispute that petitioners claim to have been appointed in the institution concerned at the point of time when the institution in question was unaided and accepted position is that institution in question has been brought in the grant-in-aid list by the Government Order dated 27.10.2004 and at the said point of time, the sanctioned strength of the institution was limited to one post of Principal and 7 post of Assistant Teacher apart from non-teaching post. Subsequently, by the Government Order dated 24.11.2005, 11 post of Assistant Teacher has been sanctioned for payment from Government's grant. This is also accepted position that teachers, who were appointed prior to the petitioners have been accommodated and adjusted against aforementioned 18 sanctioned post. Subsequently, by the Government Order dated 24.11.2005, 11 post of Assistant Teacher has been sanctioned for payment from Government's grant. This is also accepted position that teachers, who were appointed prior to the petitioners have been accommodated and adjusted against aforementioned 18 sanctioned post. Thus, once such is the factual situation that under the provision of U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971, the Director of Education, in his wisdom, on the parameters provided for sanction of post in reference to the institution concerned has sanctioned 18 post therein and against those 18 sanctioned post, 18 incumbents have already been accommodated/adjusted, who have been appointed prior in time as compared to petitioners then certainly there is no reason or occasion for us to direct for ensuring payment to the petitioners under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971. The opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge is fully supported by the Full Bench Judgement of this Court in case of Gopal Dubey Vs. State of U.P., 2006 (4) UPLBEC 1. In the light of the above observations, Special Appeal sans merit and the same is dismissed.