Irshad Ali,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Anurag Kumar Maurya, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3 and Sri Jyotinjay Verma and Sri Neeraj Chaurasia, both representing respondent no.4.
(2.) By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners are challenging an order dated 18.11.2008 whereby the claim for the payment of salary of the petitioners has been rejected on the ground that the procedure prescribed for selection and appointment of the petitioners has not been followed nor the Manager of the Institution has submitted papers for consideration of claim of the petitioners before Assistant Regional Director of Education, Basic, Faizabad Region, Faizabad.
(3.) The petitioners claim that petitioner no.1 was granted appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher on 25.6.1981 in the institution and in pursuance thereof, he joined on 1.7.1981. The petitioner no.2 was granted appointment on the post of Peon by the Committee of Management on 22.6.1986 and he joined in the institution on 1.7.1986. Appointment of the petitioners has been regularized vide orders dated 2.11.1988 and 14.9.1992 respectively. The institution was brought within the purview of Payment of Salary Act on 2.12.2006. The claim was set up by the petitioners for disbursement of salary from State Exchequer on the ground that they have been duly appointed teacher and Group-'D' employee of the institution and are entitled for the payment of salary from the State Exchequer. When no order was passed on the claim set up by them, Writ Petition No.5679 (SS) of 2008 was filed before this Court which was finally allowed with the direction to the Competent Authority to pass an appropriate order on 15.9.2008. After service of the copy of the order passed by this Court, direction was issued to the parties to file necessary documents to establish selection and appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher and Group-D post. Respondent no.3, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, passed an order on 18.11.2008 by recording a finding that in spite of direction issued to the Management to submit relevant papers in regard to selection and appointment of the petitioners, the same were not made available. In conclusion part of the impugned order, it has been recorded that the society was registered on 17.8.1981 which was renewed on 17.8.2005 for the period of five years. The institution which was run and managed by the Society, was granted temporary recognition by the District Basic Education Officer on 30.6.1982 and permanent recognition to the institution was granted by the Assistant Regional Director of Education Officer, Faizabad Region, Faizabad on 25.7.1987. In pursuance to the Government Order issued for taking the institution on the grand-in-aid list, applications were invited and in pursuance thereof, the institution in question applied for taking the institution in grant-in-aid list. The Manager of the Institution was directed to place necessary documents in regard to the selection and appointment of the petitioners vide letter dated 4.1.2007 along with copy of the approval but no documents in regard to the selection and appointment were produced by the Manager of the institution. The approval was also not in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Basic Schools (Junior High School) (Recruitment and Conditions of Services of Teachers) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as '1978 Rules'). The appointment for the Group-D employee namely Sri Ram Prakash Vishwarama was also not found in accordance with U.P. Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Ministerial Staff and Group ''D' Employees) Rules, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as '1984 Rules'), therefore no concurrence for payment of salary was accorded by the Competent Authority. At the time of hearing in the matter, the petitioners as well as Manager were granted time to place relevant documents to establish their selection and evidence to establish appointment in accordance with 1978 Rules, but at the said point of time also, no documentary evidence in regard to the selection and appointment were produced by the petitioner as well as Manager of the Institution, therefore, the claim for appointment and salary has been rejected by respondent no.3 vide impugned order dated 18.11.2008. ;