/2023 INSC 0089/
Non­Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.               OF 2023
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.3329 OF 2021]
PANCHAM LAL PANDEY                    ….. APPELLANT
versus
NEERAJ KUMAR MISHRA & ORS.       …..RESPONDENTS
J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T
PANKAJ MITHAL, J.
1. Heard   Mr.   Praveen   Chaturvedi,   learned   counsel   for   the
appellant   and   Mr.  V.K.   Shukla,  Senior   Counsel   assisted   by
Ms. Parul Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents and
perused the pleadings exchanged between the parties. 
2. Leave granted.
3. Tripathi   Ramroop   Sanskrit   Vidyalaya,   Jogapur,   Kaushambi
in   the   State   of   Uttar   Pradesh   is   a   recognised   institution
1

imparting   Sanskrit   Education   upto   Uttar   Madhyama,   i.e.,
Class   I   to   XII.   It   was   granted   permanent   recognition   on
22.02.1999.   The   Government   of   Uttar   Pradesh   decided   to
take Sanskrit Vidyalaya and Mahavidyalaya on Grant­in­Aid
List. The criteria for taking institutions under the Grant­in­
Aid List was laid down in G.O. dated 07.02.2014. The State
Government vide its order dated 11.08.2015 notified the list
of   institutions   which   were   taken   in   the   Grant­in­Aid   list   of
the   Government,   which   included   the   above   institution   at
Serial No.47.
4. The State Government sanctioned five posts for  payment of
salary   from   the   State   Exchequer   in   respect   of   the   above
institution,   one   for   the   Headmaster   and   four   for   the
Assistant Teachers. 
5. The   Principal   Secretary,   Government   of   Uttar   Pradesh
issued   a   Circular   dated   01.01.2016   granting   approval   for
the payment of salary  to all the teachers of the institutions
receiving   Grant­in­Aid,   who   were   actually   working   prior   to
taking   the   institution   under   the   Grant­in­Aid   list.     Another
Circular   dated   18.03.2016   provided   for   the   application   of
2

reservation   policy.     Since   the   said   Circulars   were   affecting
some   of   the   teachers,   one   of   them   Satya   Prakash   Shukla
filed   Writ   Petition   No.29784   of   2016   before   the   Lucknow
Bench   of   the   Allahabad   High   Court.   The   said   Writ   Petition
was   allowed   vide   order   dated   21.12.2016   on   the   statement
made   by   the   Joint   Secretary,   Department   of   Secondary
Education “that the payment of salary to the teachers shall
be made on the basis of seniority of teachers as disclosed in
the   Manager’s   Return”.   Unfortunately,   the   Director
Secondary Education ignoring the statement so made by the
Joint Secretary before the High Court bifurcated the posts of
Assistant   Teachers   vide   order   dated   28.03.2017   and
directed that one Neeraj Kumar Mishra, who was almost five
years junior to one Pancham Lal Pandey, to be paid salary.
Accordingly,   the   aforesaid   Pancham   Lal   Pandey   preferred
Writ Petition  No.19709 of  2017 challenging  the order  dated
28.03.2017   passed   by   the   Director   Secondary   Education.
The   aforesaid   writ   petition   upon   hearing   the   parties   was
allowed   vide   judgment   and   order   dated   15.04.2019
quashing  the order dated 28.03.2017 with directions to the
3

authorities   to   declare   Pancham   Lal   Pandey   entitled   to
payment of salary from the State Exchequer. 
6. The   aforesaid   judgment   and   order   of   the   High   Court   dated
15.04.2019 was assailed by Neeraj Kumar Mishra as well as
State   Government   by   separate   Special   Appeal   Nos.578   of
2019   and   767   of   2019.   The   Special  Appeal   No.578   of  2019
of   Neeraj   Kumar   Mishra   was   dismissed   on   14.05.2019   and
that   filed   by   the   State   Government,   i.e.,   Special   Appeal
No.767 of 2019 was dismissed on 22.08.2019.
7. The aforesaid Neeraj Kumar  Mishra preferred Special Leave
Petition   (Civil)   No.23466   of   2019   before   this   Court   which
came to be dismissed vide order dated 14.10.2019. 
8. Upon   dismissal   of   the   Special   Appeal   filed   by   the   State,   a
Special   Leave   Petition   (Civil)   Diary   No.782   of   2020   was
preferred   by   the   State   and   the   same   was   dismissed   on
24.01.2020   with   the   clarification   that   the   liability   of   the
State   shall   be   limited   to   pay   the   salary   to   the   Headmaster
and four teachers upto the sanctioned strength. 
9. It   is   in   the   above   background   that   Neeraj   Kumar   Mishra
applied for the review in Special Appeal No.578 of 2019, i.e.,
4

against   the   order   dated   14.05.2019,   whereby   his   Special
Appeal against the judgment and order of the learned Single
Judge   dated   15.04.2019   was   dismissed.   The   aforesaid
Review   Application   has   been   allowed   by   the   impugned
judgment and order dated 05.02.2021. 
10. In   assailing   the   aforesaid   order,   the   submission   of   learned
counsel for the appellant herein, i.e., Pancham Lal Pandey is
that   the   Review   Application   was   not   maintainable   as   there
was   no   error   apparent   on   the   face   of   the   record   in
dismissing the Special Appeal filed by Neeraj Kumar Mishra
and   that   the   review   has   been   allowed   without   considering
his objections with regard to its maintainability. 
11. Mr. V.K. Shukla, learned Senior Counsel on the other hand
defended   the   order   on   the   ground   that   the   learned   Single
Judge   has   manifestly   erred   in   law   in   allowing   the   writ
petition   and   that   if   the   order   is   allowed   to   stand,   it   will
perpetuate   illegality   which   is   not   permissible   in   law.   The
review   petition   was   rightly   allowed   as   there   was   an   error
apparent   in   the   order   of   the   Division   Bench   dismissing   the
Special   Appeal   inasmuch   as   in   the   light   of   Section   9   read
5

with   Section   10   of   the   Uttar   Pradesh   High   Schools   and
Intermediate   Colleges   (Payment   of   Salaries   of   Teachers   and
other Employees) Act, 1971, the institution is not entitled to
create   any   new   post   of   a   teacher   or   any   employee   without
the   previous   approval   of   the   Director   and   that   the   State
Government   is   liable   for   payment   of   salary   of   teachers   and
employees   only   in   respect   of   those,   who   have   been   validly
appointed with the approval of the Director.
12. In the review petition the order of the Division Bench dated
05.02.2021 was sought to be reviewed and not of the Single
Judge   allowing   the   writ   petition.   The   illegality,   if   any,
pointed out in the order of the Single Judge is not material
to   review   the   decision   of   the   Division   Bench   passed   in
Special Appeal.
13. The Single Judge has allowed the writ petition in the light of
the   statement   of   the   Joint   Secretary,   Department   of
Secondary   Education   that   payment   of   salary   to   teachers
shall   be   made   on   the   basis   of   seniority   and   therefore,   the
subject of teaching had no relevance. The bifurcation of the
sanctioned   posts   of   Assistant   Teachers   of   the   institution
6

subject   wise   is   simply   an   internal   matter   of   the   institution
which   does   not   put   any   extra   burden   upon   the   State.   The
institution   was   taken   on   Grant­in­Aid   list   with   a
Headmaster   and   four   Assistant   Teachers   in   order   of
seniority   and   thus   permitting   only   five   persons   to   receive
salary  from  the  Government fund  is not illegal. There is no
creation   of   any   new   post   of   Assistant   Teacher   at   the
Institution   by   the   Court.   The   Writ   Court,   therefore,   rightly
allowed   the   writ   petition   and   the   Division   Bench   has   not
committed any error in dismissing the Special Appeal.
14. It   is   not   the   case   of   any   one   that   the   above   orders   permit
payment   of   salary   to   teachers   beyond   the   sanctioned
strength.   Therefore,   the   Full   Bench   decision   in   State   of
U.P.   through   Secretary,   Secondary   Educations   &   Ors.
vs.   C/M,   Sri   Sukhpal   Intermediate   College,   Tirhut,
Sultanpur   &   Ors.   in   Special   Appeal   Defective   No.673   of
2014   decided   on   12.5.2015   holding   that   in   the   absence   of
sanctioned post, a direction for payment of salary cannot be
given is not helpful. 
7

15. The provision of review is not to scrutinize the correctness of
the   decision   rendered   rather   to   correct   the   error,   if   any,
which   is   visible   on   the   face   of   the   order   /   record   without
going   into   as   to   whether   there   is   a   possibility   of   another
opinion different from the one expressed. 
16. The Division Bench in allowing the review petition has dealt
with the matter as it is seized of the special appeal itself and
has   virtually   reversed   the   decision   by   taking   a   completely
new   stand   for   the   payment   of   salary   to   teachers’   subject­
wise.  It amounts to rehearing and rewriting the judgment in
appeal without there being any error apparent on the face in
the  earlier  order.  The  Division  Bench  thus  clearly  exceeded
its review jurisdiction in passing the impugned order.
17. In   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case,   we   are   of   the
opinion that the impugned order dated 05.02.2021 allowing
the   review   is   unsustainable   in   law   and   is   accordingly   set
aside. 
18. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.
19. All the pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. 
8

…………………………….. J.
                                       [V. Ramasubramanian]
  
………………………………..J.
     [Pankaj Mithal]
New Delhi;
February 15, 2023.
9