JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. Prayer 1. The instant intra-court appeal is under Clause-10 of Letters Patent directed against the order/judgment dated 25.07.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.5621 of 2011, whereby and whereunder, the order dated 19.12.2008 passed by the Director, Secondary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, has been quashed and set aside with a direction to make payment of arrears as well as current salary as the petitioner has been working in the School w.e.f. 01.04.1996 excluding the period from 08.07.2002 to 25.07.2007 on the principle of ‘No work No Pay’. Facts 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition, are required to be enumerated, which reads as under:- 3. It is the case of the writ petitioner that in pursuance to the advertisement, published by the Secretary, Lutheran Girls High School, Govindpur, Ranchi in local newspaper ‘Ranchi Express’, dated 23.11.1995, inviting application for appointment of Graduate trained girl’s teacher in the subject of English including Geography for one post, the writ petitioner fulfilling the eligibility criteria made her application along with others for the aforesaid post and thereafter written examination and interview was held by the Selection Committee and after participating in the said written examination and interview, the petitioner stood first and as such, the Managing Committee in its proceeding dated 12.03.1996 took a decision to appoint the petitioner against the vacant post of Assistant teacher of English subject in the scale of Rs.1640-2900/-. In pursuance to the appointment letter dated 20.03.1996, the petitioner gave her joining on 1.4.1996 and the petitioner’s joining was duly accepted in the aforesaid school. 4. Thereafter, the concerned District Education Officer, Ranchi and the District School Inspectress, Ranchi have been informed by the Secretary of the said School for necessary action. In pursuance to the appointment letter dated 20.03.1996, the petitioner gave her joining on 1.4.1996 and the petitioner’s joining was duly accepted in the aforesaid school. 4. Thereafter, the concerned District Education Officer, Ranchi and the District School Inspectress, Ranchi have been informed by the Secretary of the said School for necessary action. It has been further stated that the District Education Officer, Ranchi vide letter dated 22.04.1997 wrote to the Secretary, School Service Board, Patna with regard to approval of the aforesaid appointment of the petitioner and in pursuance of the aforesaid letter, the Secretary, School Service Board, Patna vide letter dated 24.3.1999 sought some notification and besides other relevant documents, the District Education Officer, Ranchi vide letter dated 25.06.1999 provided the rectified report to the Secretary, School Service Board, Patna on obtaining the same from the School Management and in spite of the aforesaid fact, the decision regarding approval, remained pending before the said authority. Since the matter regarding approval of the petitioner’s appointment was being delayed, the petitioner filed writ application being W.P. (S) No. 2724 of 2002. 5. However, in the meantime, vide letter dated 6.7.2002, the Secretary of the said School terminated the petitioner’s services. The petitioner withdrew the aforesaid writ application on 31.08.2006 and moved before the Jharkhand Education Tribunal in Case No. 68/2006 (JET) challenging the aforesaid illegal termination order passed by the Secretary of the said School and the learned Tribunal vide order dated 10.01.2007 has quashed the termination order dated 6.7.2002 and directed to make payment in favour of the petitioner in the same scale in which the petitioner was appointed. 6. The School Management preferred A.C. (S.B.) No. 07 of 2007 and L.P.A No. 232 of 2007 before this Court and vide orders dated 26.04.2007 and 06.07.2007, the said AC (SB) and the L.P.A. respectively were dismissed by this Hon’ble Court. 6. The School Management preferred A.C. (S.B.) No. 07 of 2007 and L.P.A No. 232 of 2007 before this Court and vide orders dated 26.04.2007 and 06.07.2007, the said AC (SB) and the L.P.A. respectively were dismissed by this Hon’ble Court. Thereafter, the petitioner gave her joining in the aforesaid School on 26.07.2007 and since then she has been continuing there and is imparting teaching work to the satisfaction of the school authorities, which is evident from the certificate dated 5.2.2011, issued by the Secretary of the said School and inspite of the fact that the petitioner’s appointment was made after following due procedure against the vacant and sanctioned post, the application for approval of her appointment has been rejected by the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi vide order dated 19.12.2008. 7. As evident from order dated 3.9.1991, there are 13 sanctioned posts of the teachers in Lutheran Girls High School, Govindpur, Ranchi and the petitioner’s appointment was made on 20.03.1996, which clearly transpires that at the time of appointment of the petitioner, there remained sanctioned post in the aforesaid School. 8. The petitioner has repeatedly made representations and has recently on 23.12.2010 represented before the Director, Secondary Education, H.R.D. Department, Government of Jharkhand through proper channel for approval of her services and payment of arrears of salary, being aggrieved with the aforesaid, the writ petitioner has approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.5621 of 2011 but the learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the factual aspects, has allowed the writ petition by quashing and setting aside the order dated 19.12.2008 passed by the Director, Secondary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, which is the subject matter of the instant appeal. 9. It is evident from the factual aspect that the writ petitioner, in terms of the advertisement issued by the Secretary, Lutheran Girls High School, Govindpur, Ranchi way back on 23.11.1995 by which the application was invited for appointment of Graduate Trained Girls Teacher in the subject of English including Geography for one post. 9. It is evident from the factual aspect that the writ petitioner, in terms of the advertisement issued by the Secretary, Lutheran Girls High School, Govindpur, Ranchi way back on 23.11.1995 by which the application was invited for appointment of Graduate Trained Girls Teacher in the subject of English including Geography for one post. The writ petitioner offered her candidature, since she claims to be fulfilling the eligibility criteria, she was found to be successful in the performance test, since, she stood first and hence, the Managing Committee in its proceeding dated 12.03.1996 took a decision to appoint the petitioner against the vacant post of Assistant Teacher of English subject in the scale of Rs.1640-2900/-. 10. The joining of the writ petitioner was accepted, thereafter, the District Education Officer, Ranchi and the District School Inspectress, Ranchi have been informed by the Secretary of the said School for necessary action. 11. The District Education Officer vide letter dated 22.04.1997, had made a communication to the Secretary, School Service Board, Patna with regard to approval of the aforesaid appointment of the writ petitioner. Since, the matter regarding approval of the writ petitioner’s appointment was being delayed, as such, the writ petitioner filed writ application being W.P.(S) No.2724 of 2002. However, in the meantime, vide letter dated 06.07.2002, the Secretary of the said School terminated the petitioner’s service. The writ petitioner withdrew the aforesaid writ application on 31.08.2006 and moved before the Jharkhand Education Tribunal by filing a case being Case No.68/2006 (JET) challenging the aforesaid order of termination. The Tribunal, vide order dated 10.01.2007, has quashed the termination order dated 06.07.2002 and directed to make payment in favour of the writ petitioner in the same scale in which the writ petitioner was appointed. 12. The School Management has preferred appeal case being A.C.(S.B.) No.07 of 2007 which has upheld the order passed by the learned Tribunal against which L.P.A. No.232 of 2007 was filed but vide order dated 06.07.2007, the said letters patent appeal was dismissed. 13. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that she has given her joining in the aforesaid School on 26.07.2007 and since then she is continuing her service. But, the salary has not been paid and subsequently, the decision was taken vide order dated 19.12.2008 and again the approval of her appointment was rejected. 14. 13. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that she has given her joining in the aforesaid School on 26.07.2007 and since then she is continuing her service. But, the salary has not been paid and subsequently, the decision was taken vide order dated 19.12.2008 and again the approval of her appointment was rejected. 14. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the said decision of the Director, Secondary Education, H.R.D. Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, has approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.5621 of 2011. 15. The State was called upon, wherein, the ground was taken that the appointment of the writ petitioner cannot be approved due to want of sanctioned post of the Assistant Teacher in the English Subject. 16. The learned Single Judge has considered the issue and came to the conclusion by taking into consideration the order already passed by the Jharkhand Education Tribunal in Case No.68/2006 (JET) by quashing the order of termination which attains its finality by the order passed by this Court in A.C.(S.B.) No.07 of 2007 and L.P.A. No.232 of 2007 preferred by the School Management. 17. The reason has also been assigned that the Managing Committee vide its meeting dated 02.05.2018 has resolved to adjust the petitioner against the 10th vacant post of Assistant Teacher and grant approval of her appointment from the initial date of joining. 18. The learned Single Judge has also taken into consideration that the writ petitioner has continuously imparting teaching in the capacity of Assistant Teacher, since, the date of appointment and even though for a short while, she was terminated from service but the same was quashed and set aside by the learned Tribunal which also attains its finality and in that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition, has quashed and set aside the order passed by the Director, Secondary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand with a direction to grant and make payment of arrears as well as current salary as the petitioner has been working in the School w.e.f. 01.04.1996 excluding the period from 08.07.2002 to 25.07.2007 on the principle of ‘No work No Pay’. Argument advanced on behalf of the appellants-State 19. Mr. of Jharkhand with a direction to grant and make payment of arrears as well as current salary as the petitioner has been working in the School w.e.f. 01.04.1996 excluding the period from 08.07.2002 to 25.07.2007 on the principle of ‘No work No Pay’. Argument advanced on behalf of the appellants-State 19. Mr. Sreenu Garapati, learned S.C.-III appearing for the appellants-State has taken the following grounds in assailing the impugned order that:- (i) There cannot be any direction as has been passed by the learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition in absence of the sanctioned post of the Assistant Teacher in the English Subject. (ii) The fact about non-availability of the sanctioned post in English Subject has been taken as a main reason in denying the approval of the service of the petitioner and hence, on that ground, the State of Jharkhand cannot pay the salary in favour of the writ petitioner. (iii) The order passed by the Jharkhand Education Tribunal confirmed in A.C.(S.B.) No.07 of 2007 and L.P.A. No.232 of 2007 has been taken as a ground to interfere with the impugned order but if the order passed by the Jharkhand Education Tribunal, will be taken into consideration, the direction is there for making payment of salary by the Managing Committee of the School only, hence, the order passed by the Jharkhand Education Tribunal in Case No.68/2006 (JET) is having no bearing with the issue involved in this case, rather, the main issue is of non-availability of the sanctioned post in the English Subject. 20. Learned State Counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from an error, hence, not sustainable in the eye of law. Arguments advanced on behalf of the respondents 21. Per Contra, Mr. Afaque Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner/respondent no.1 herein and Mr. 20. Learned State Counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from an error, hence, not sustainable in the eye of law. Arguments advanced on behalf of the respondents 21. Per Contra, Mr. Afaque Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner/respondent no.1 herein and Mr. Bhanu Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 (respondent no.5 in the writ petition) has taken the common ground that it is incorrect on the part of the appellant-State to take the ground that there was non-availability of the post, rather, on the same said issue, the service of the writ petitioner was terminated on the ground of non-availability of the sanctioned post and once, it has been decided by the Jharkhand Education Tribunal holding the decision to terminate the services of the petitioner as illegal, which has attained its finality upto the level of the letters patent appeal before this Court then time and again, such ground of non-availability of the post having not been sanctioned in the English Subject, cannot be allowed to be taken for the purpose of approval of the services of the petitioner. 22. The ground has been taken by referring to one document as available at page-64 of the paper book, wherein, the appointment of the petitioner has been shown to be made which has been admitted by the District Education Officer, Ranchi in the communication vide letter no.1331 dated 22.04.1997 addressed to the School Seva Board, Bihar, Patna that the appointment of the writ petitioner was made against the post having been fallen vacant due to superannuation of Smt. Mahima Hero, the Headmaster of the concerned School. 23. Therefore, the argument has been advanced that it is incorrect on the part of the State to take the ground that there was no available post in the English Subject of the Assistant Teacher and it is also incorrect that there is only one post of the Assistant Teacher in the English Subject, which would be explicitly evident from page64 of the paper book. 24. Both the learned counsel, have submitted that if in such circumstances, if the learned Single Judge has interfered with the impugned order, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error. Analysis 25. 24. Both the learned counsel, have submitted that if in such circumstances, if the learned Single Judge has interfered with the impugned order, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error. Analysis 25. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 26. The undisputed fact in this case herein is that the writ petitioner has been appointed after issuance of the advertisement published by the Secretary, Lutheran Girls High School, Govindpur, Ranchi dated 23.11.1995. She was subjected to the process of selection in which she stood first and thereafter, she was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the English Subject. The salary having not been paid to her, since, the approval of respondent no.1/writ petitioner was being delayed, she approached to the Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.2724 of 2002 but during the pendency of the writ petition, the services of the writ petitioner was terminated vide order dated 06.07.2002. 27. The writ petitioner withdrew the aforesaid writ application on 31.08.2006 and moved before the Jharkhand Education Tribunal in Case No. 68/2006 (JET) challenging the aforesaid illegal termination order passed by the Secretary of the said School and the learned Tribunal vide order dated 10.01.2007 has quashed the termination order dated 6.7.2002 and directed to make payment in favour of the petitioner in the same scale in which the petitioner was appointed. The School Management being aggrieved with the aforesaid has preferred A.C. (S.B.) No. 07 of 2007 and L.P.A No. 232 of 2007 before this Court and vide orders dated 26.04.2007 and 06.07.2007, the said AC (SB) and the L.P.A. respectively were dismissed by this Hon’ble Court. Thereafter, the writ petitioner was reinstated in service and she made requisition for approval of her services on the basis of acceptance of the appointment against the sanctioned post which is against the post fallen vacant due to promotion of Smt. Sneha Prabha Toppo after superannuation of Smt. Mahima Horo, the headmaster, for ready reference, the content of the said letter is being referred as under:- 28. The Director in turn has taken decision by disallowing the approval of the services of the writ petitioner and being aggrieved with the said decision, the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.5621 of 2011 has been filed which having been allowed by quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Director, Secondary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, hence, the present appeal. 29. Thus, the fact about the order of termination is not in dispute as also the said order of termination has been set aside by the Jharkhand Education Tribunal which attained its finality as per the order passed in A.C. (S.B.) No. 07 of 2007 and L.P.A No. 232 of 2007 vide orders dated 26.04.2007 and 06.07.2007, respectively. 30. The question which requires consideration that once the order of termination has been quashed and set aside having been approved upto the stage of Letters Patent Appeal, is it proper on the part of the Director not to approve the services of the writ petitioner that too when the District Education Officer has already admitted the appointment of the writ petitioner against the post of Assistant Teacher in the English Subject after promotion of Smt. Sneha Prabha Toppo which is available at page-64 as quoted and referred hereinabove. 31. The ground has been taken by the Director that in the School only one post is available of English Subject of the post of Assistant Teacher and that is the reason, the Director has not approved the appointment of the writ petitioner but the aforesaid ground, according to the considered view of this Court, cannot be said to be just and proper due to the following reasons:- (i) The State is showing the appointment of the writ petitioner made in the English Subject but the said post is occupied by Smt. Shivan Sanga (Topno). But, it is evident from the communication as available at page-65 of the paper book that the said Shivan Sanga was working as Assistant Teacher in the English Subject, as would be evident from communication dated 24.03.1999 which is in response to the order as contained in letter no.1331 dated 22.04.1997 making therein the request for approval of the services of one Shivan Sanga and the writ petitioner asking therein the certain documents issued under the signature of the Secretary, School Service Board, Bihar, Patna addressed to the District Education Officer, Ranchi, for ready reference, the content of the letter dated 24.03.1999 is being referred hereinbelow:- But, the State has not appended any document with respect to the final decision taken by the School Service Board (Vidayalaya Seva Board). However, the State Counsel has argued orally without any valid document with respect to the decision taken by the Vidayalaya Seva Board, Bihar, Patna, since, no decision approving or disapproving of the appointment of the writ petitioner is available on record even in the writ Court or even before this Court. (ii) The argument has been advanced emphatically that there is only one post of Assistant Teacher in the English Subject but what is the basis to take such ground is not available, since, no document has been appended on behalf of the State. While the document suggests, otherwise, has been issued under the signature of the District Education Officer as under page64 of the paper book that the writ petitioner appointed against the post having been fallen vacant due to promotion of Smt. Sneha Prabha Toppo after retirement of Smt. Mahima Horo, who was working as headmaster. The content of the said letter issued by the District Education Officer suggests that the appointment of the writ petitioner was made against the post fallen vacant due to promotion of Smt. Sneha Prabha Toppo. The reliability of the document as available at page64 cannot be doubted in absence of any document in substance of the argument that in the School, only one post of Assistant Teacher in the English Subject is sanctioned. The reliability of the document as available at page64 cannot be doubted in absence of any document in substance of the argument that in the School, only one post of Assistant Teacher in the English Subject is sanctioned. (iii) Moreover, the aforesaid fact is strengthened from the issue which has been decided by the Jharkhand Education Tribunal while interfering with the order of termination, wherein, the sole ground was taken to terminate the services of the writ petitioner that her appointment was not against the sanctioned post of Assistant Teacher in the English Subject. (iv) The reason of termination of writ petitioner from service was the non-availability of the sanctioned post of Assistant Teacher in the English Subject and when it has been adjudicated by reaching to the finding in favour of the writ petitioner which also attained its finality upto the level of the Letters Patent Appeal Court, hence, again taking the same ground, cannot be said to be proper action on the part of the State authority. The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the aforesaid fact, as would appear from the finding so recorded at paragraph-9 of the impugned order. 32. This Court, considering the aforesaid fact as per the discussion made hereinabove, is of the view that if the learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion based upon the aforesaid reason that the decision so taken by the Director, Secondary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand dated 19.12.2008 (impugned in the writ petition), cannot be said to be justified. 33. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the instant appeal lacks merit and hence, the instant appeal fails and is, dismissed. 34. In consequent to dismissal of this appeal, I.A. No.4482 of 2019 stands disposed of.