Arun Tandon, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pramod Tripathi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, Sri Monu Goswami, learned Counsel for re spondent No. 4 and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondent.
(2.) ADARSH Vidya Mandir Junior High School Masffar Ganj, Mirzapur is an aided and recognised junior high school under the provisions of U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1972'). Provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules, 1978') are fully applicable to the teachers of the said institution. One Mohan Prasad, who was working as Assistant Teacher in the said institution resigned on 5.4.1997. The resultant vacancy was advertised and one Ramesh Chandra Pathak was selected. However, his appointment was disap proved under order dated 28.6.2002 on the ground that the vacancy was within the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes Category candidate and further that the Management has not obtained prior permission before advertising the said vacancy. This order is stated to have become final. The management thereafter made a request to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari for permission being granted for vacancy being advertised within the reserved category. Permission was granted by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari vide letter dated 3.7.2003. The vacancy was advertised in daily newspaper 'Aaj' inviting application from the prospective candidate. A selection commit tee was constituted with a nominee of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. After se lection, the Selection Committee found the petitioner most suitable and placed his name at serial No. 1 in the penal prepared for appointment against the said vacancy. Papers for grant of prior approval qua appointment of the peti tioner were forwarded to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari vide letter dated 21.10.2003. Since no orders were passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, having regard to Rules 10 and 11 of Rules 1978, the Committee of Management is stated to have issued appointment letter in favour of the petitioner on 4.5.2004 and in pursuance thereof, the petitioner joined on 11.5.2004. Since petitioner was not paid salary from public exchequer, even after appointment, he has approached this Court by means of present petition for a writ of mandamus directing the Basic Shiksha Adhikari to ensure payment of salary to the petitioner under the provisions of Rules, 1978.
(3.) WHILE entertaining the present writ petition, an interim mandamus was issued by this Court on 13.9.2004 calling upon the respondents to ensure payment of current salary to the petitioner from September, 2004 onwards regu larly month by month or to show-cause within the time specified. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Basic Shiksha Adhikari, wherein following three objections have been raised for refusing the prayer made by the petitioner in the present writ petition : (a) a ban on appointments in recognised institution has been imposed under Government Order dated 20.1.2003, therefore, the selection and ap pointment of the petitioner was contrary to the said Government Order, (b) papers pertaining to the selection of the petitioner have not been forwarded by the Manager of the institution, (c) Director of Education (Basic) vide letter dated 15.7.2005 has in formed the Basic Shiksha Adhikari that the procedure for awarding of quality point marks with regard to the educational qualification and in terview as provided under letter of the Director of Education (Basic) dated 20.10.2004 has not been followed, therefore, the selection of the petitioner is not in accordance with law.;