Sanctioned post requirement governs teacher salary claims; recognition alone does not create a right to payment.

Prior approval of the competent authority is required before a new teacher post is created for salary liability under the statutory scheme. Recognition of an institution or of a new subject under the Intermediate Education Act does not by itself sanction a post for payment of salaries, because recognition and post creation operate in distinct fields: the former concerns educational standards, while the latter fixes the State's financial liability. In the absence of a sanctioned post and prior approval, no legal right to salary arises and a writ court cannot issue mandamus contrary to the statutory mandate.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in the absence of a sanctioned post and prior approval of the competent authority, a direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be issued for payment of salary to a teacher.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under the Payment of Salaries Act requires prior approval of the Director before a new post of teacher or other employee is created. Recognition of an institution or of a new subject under the Intermediate Education Act does not by itself amount to sanction of the post for salary purposes. The two enactments operate in distinct fields: recognition concerns educational and infrastructural standards, while sanction of a post concerns the State's financial liability. The earlier Full Bench view in Gopal Dubey, as supported by the Supreme Court authority relied upon, was treated as laying down the correct law. In the absence of a sanctioned post, a legal right to salary does not arise and the High Court cannot issue a mandamus contrary to the statutory mandate.

Conclusion: No direction can be issued under Article 226 for payment of salary where the post was not sanctioned and prior approval for its creation had not been obtained. The answer is against the claim for salary and in favour of the State.

---