JUDGMENT : Saurabh Srivastava, J. Since the controversy involved in the aforementioned writ petitions is similar, they are being heard and disposed of together by a common order, which is being passed in Writ-A No. 48361 of 2010, treating it as a leading case. 2. Heard Shri Yogish Kumar Saxena alongwith Shri D.K.Tripathi, learned counsels for the petitioners and Shri Saurabh Sinha, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. 3. As per the directions of this Court, a detailed counter-affidavit has also preferred on behalf of the respondent No. 6, which is by and large supporting the stand whatsoever has been taken up by the petitioner. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been appointed on 1.4.1999 after adopting due process of recruitment as applicable in the case of Assistant Teacher. After initiating the appointment procedure for the post of Assistant Teacher, the respondent No. 6 submitted the entire documents pertaining to the petitioners who have been finally selected for the said posts for seeking approval of the same. 5. As per the documents appended alongwith the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner demonstrated that the approval has already been granted by the competent authority i.e. respondent No. 5 in favour of the petitioner. 6. The relevant facts with regard to the initiation of the appointment procedure as mentioned in the petition is that the formal approval has been sought by the institution, considering the strength of the students five additional posts have been sanctioned by the competent authority vide letter dated 16.8.1998 and as such the sanctioned strength in the institution concerned have been raised from four to nine and the appointment of the petitioner was finalised over the petitioner's sanctioned strength of Assistant Teachers, which was duly approved by the competent authority. 7. After being appointed and rendering the services for the post of Assistant Teacher, the documents regarding payment of salary to the petitioner have been apprised by the competent authority but inaction carried out by the respondent-authorities gave rise to the cause of action in favour of the petitioner to prefer writ petition for seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to extend the benefit of month-wise salary in favour of the petitioner. The writ petition preferred by the petitioner was C.M.W.P. No. 56520 of 2009 (Bharat Bhushan Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others), which was decided on 10.11.2009. 8. In the strict compliance of the order and direction dated 10.11.2009, the respondent No. 2 decided the claim of the petitioner by way of rejecting the same on the basis that there is hardly any order available issued by the competent authority of the department for sanctioning five additional posts of Assistant Teacher and as such whatever the appointment process initiated and conducted by the respondent No. 6 was not valid and the petitioner is not entitled to receive salary at the behest of aided institution which has to be extended by the State Exchequer. While deciding the claim of the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 saddled the responsibility upon the Committee of Management to initiate the process of selection without seeking formal approval which was mandatory to be obtained from the competent authority vide order dated 3.2.2010, which is put under challenge in the instant petition. 9. It is also the case of the petitioner that similarly situated persons who have been mentioned in the M.R. Register at the time of submitting the documents way back in the year 2006 when the institution has been taken into grant-in-aid the salary has been extended to them but the petitioner has been left. 10. While considering the prayer as made in the writ petition, all the respondents were directed to file counter-affidavits, in response the pleadings were exchanged and specific counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondent No. 6 have been preferred wherein it has been mentioned that the entire procedure initiated by the institution for finalising the selection over the sanctioned strength of the Assistant Teacher has been duly approved and the relevant documents have been produced before the authority concerned but the payment of salary has not been extended in favour of the petitioner which is highly illegal and the same is contrary to the settled proposition of law. 11. 11. While preferring the counter-affidavit on behalf of the official respondents, wherein a stand taken up by the respondent No. 2 while passing the order, which impugned the present writ petition dated 3.2.2010 have been supported and it has been crystal clearly mentioned that in absence of any specific document relating to the approval of the appointment, sanction of additional five posts in the institution concerned alongwith formal approval of the initiation of selection procedure, the case of the petitioner cannot be entertained and the same is liable to be dismissed. 12. During pendency of the instant petition, it has been directed by the orders of the Court on dated 25.5.2018 the original documents as produced by the Committee of Management of the institution i.e. respondent No. 6 in the instant petition to which the original sanction letter of the additional sections issued by Ram Shanker Singh, the then District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur dated 2.9.1986 and the order of the Assistant Director of Education (Basic), 5th region, Varanasi dated 16.8.1988 sanctioning five additional posts in the institution and it has also been observed that the order passed by the Assistant Director of Education (Basic), 5th region, Varanasi also indicates that the order was issued in reference to some letter of Additional Director of Education (Basic), Directorate of Basic Education, U.P. Allahabad bearing No. 5583-5833/85/86 dated 20.1.1986. 13. Only for cross checking, the documents produced by the respondent No. 6, several opportunities have been granted since 2018 to 2023 for production of the original documents pertaining to the averments as made in the counter-affidavit preferred by the respondent No. 6 as well as the documents as appended alongwith the petition. 14. After the orders dated 26.4.2023 the original documents produced from the office of the Assistant Director (Basic), 5th Region, Varanasi through which it has been transpired that at no point of time the documents as appended alongwith the petition through which the additional posts of Assistant Teacher have been sanctioned, there was hardly any communication from the respondent No. 6 is available, documents related to approval of the appointment made in favour of the petitioner in the office of the respondent No. 4 is also misplaced because of the shifting of the office from one place to another. The overall conclusion which has been drawn from perusal of the affidavit preferred by the State-respondents as well the information so received by the learned Standing Counsel from the responsible officer who is available at the time of hearing of this matter inside the Court, it is proved that no record is available neither in the office of the competent authority who are responsible to keep the same. 15. On the contrary the record appended alongwith the petition as well as produced at the time of earlier hearing, which took place and produced by the respondent No. 6 has been questioned by the respondent-authorities especially respondent Nos. 2 to 5. 16. The entire claim of the petitioner has been rejected only on the ground that the records are not available for which the petitioner has been victimised by way of not extending his salary which is admissible in pursuance to the appointment whatsoever has been initiated in strict compliance of statutory provisions which enables the institution for making the same after formal approval granted by the competent authority which is apparent from the record especially the order dated 30.3.1999 as appended alongwith the petition available as annexure-3 at Page No. 25 that the proper approval has been granted by the respondent No. 4 and thereafter the selection proceedings have been finalised in favour of the petitioner. 17. While replying with reference to the order dated 30.3.1999 the specific stand has been taken up by the respondent No. 4 while preferring the supplementary counter-affidavit mentioned under para 5 (vii) at page 7, which is quoted hereinbelow : ''In the office record, the so-called approval letter dated 30.3.1999 (annexed as Annexure-3 Page-25 of W.P.) is also not available in the office of Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Jaunpur which is mandatory under Rule-10 & 11 of the said Rules, 1978; and as the said letter dated 30.3.1999 itself seems to be fictitious and forged, hence, the complete selection and appointment on the basis thereof, has itself become illegal, wrong and void ab-initio.'' 18. The averment made in the aforementioned paragraph have been preferred by filing a supplementary counter-affidavit way back in the year 2020 itself, but even though no proper action has ever been taken by the responsible-authorities of the department, if their orders have been procured in such a manner which enables anyone for receiving the salary at the cost of public exchequer which also proves negligence in performing the duties of responsible-educational authorities and as such the averments made in paragraph 5(vii) of the supplementary counter-affidavit cannot be taken into consideration for determining the question as available in the instant petition, which is precisely as under : ''In the absence of any documents with the responsible authorities whether the claim sustained in favour of the beneficiary who submitted the relevant documents on affidavit and the same has been substantiated by one of the respondents is tenable or not?'' 19. While putting the abovementioned question precisely before the learned counsel for the petitioner, he relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Subodh Kumar Prasad v. State of Bihar, 2001 (10) SCC 282 , wherein it has been held that the letter of appointment itself and not the mere registers which indicate despatch of letters. If the letter of appointment issued to the appellant was a fake one there was certainly a cause for disciplinary action, but not by merely looking to the register such conclusion could be inferred for numbers noted therein may have been as a result of a mistake. 20. The ratio of the aforementioned judgment is fully applicable in the instant matter since the stand which has been taken up by the respondents that there is no despatch number available in the register with regard to the communication whatsoever has been made in between the respondent No. 6 and the other official respondents is not available, but at the same time denied the documents produced in original before the Court at the time of hearing took place on dated 25.5.2018, moreover, on having satisfaction over the record submitted by the respondent No. 6, the entire original record has been called from official-respondents especially from the office of Assistant Director (Basic), 5th Region, Varanasi but similar stand has been taken up that due to non-availability of the records the claim of the petitioner has been denied. 21. 21. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the order impugned in the present writ petition dated 3.2.2010 is hereby quashed and set aside. 22. The respondent No. 2 is hereby directed to issue a formal order in the shape of sanction and approval of the salary in favour of the petitioner since the institution has been taken in the list of grant-in-aid i.e. from the year 2006. 23. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly.