Neeraj Tiwari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Radha Kant Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Shrawan Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 & 5 and Sri Manoj Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Akhilesh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no. 4.
(2.) Pleadings are exchanged between the parties. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided at the admission stage.
(3.) Brief facts of the case are that there is one Educational Institution in the name of Sri Sanjay Gandhi Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Chhapiya Bujurg, Basti (hereinafter referred to as the "Institution") duly recognized under the provisions of U.P. Basic Education Act. The Institution was granted temporary recognition for running Junior High School vide order dated 01.07.1980 and later on recognition was made permanent vide order dated 08.03.1985. Earlier three sections, one each in 6, 7 and 8 Classes, were started but later on considering the strenght of the students, two more sections in Class 6 and one each in Class 7 & 8 i.e. total 7 sections were permitted to the Institution by the Competent Authority vide order dated 16.06.1986. As per number of sections (7 sections) and as per norms, total requirement of teachers was 11. The service conditions of the teachers and Headmaster are governed by U.P. Recognized Basic School ( Junior High School) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules, 1978') and further service conditions of the Class III and IV employees are governed by the Provisions of U.P. Recognized Basic (Junior High School) Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Ministerial Staff and Group-D Employees) Rules, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules, 1984'). The said Institution was unaided and not receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government. In the said Institution, 11 teachers including one Headmaster, one Clerk and three class IV empoyees were appointed in the year 1980-81. Their appointments were duly approved by B.S.A., but while granting the approval vide order dated 24.06.1986, instead of word "Approval", the word "Regularization" was used. Out of the aforesaid 11 teachers, one Mr. Ram Nayan Upadhyaya who was working as Headmaster in the aforesaid Institution, has been selected as Assistant Teacher in recognized Institution run by Parishad and he left the Institution, therefore, only 10 teachers are working and one Mr. Raja Ram, Class -IV employee died, therefore, only 2 Class- IV employees are working, hence 10 teachers, 1 Clerk and 2 Class-IV employees i.e. total 13 staff are working. The State Government has decided to put 1000 Junior High School into the list of grant-in-aid Institutions and for that, Government Order dated 07.09.2006 was issued fixing the terms and conditions for the said purpose and for that, several applications were invited through advertisement/notifications. Pursuant to that, petitioner's Institution has also submitted application and ultimately several Institutions have been put into grant-in-aid list which were granted permanent recognition upto the year 1988 but the petitioner-Institution was not added in the list though it was granted permanent recognition on 08.03.1985 and rejected vide order dated 04.01.2007 on the ground that there is no land certificate in the name of Institution and secondly, the approval appears to be forged. Petitioners have challenged the said order by filing Writ-C No. 51410 of 2007 and the same was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 26.10.2009 with a direction to the State Government to process the application of the petitioners a fresh after considering the reply of petitioners against the communication of Assistant Director of Education dated 04.01.2007. Pursuant to the order of this Court, matter of petitioners was reconsidered and it was again rejected vide order dated 08.02.2010 on the ground that as per report of Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari as well as Director, Education Basic, though the 10 Assistant Teachers are shown to be working but no such certificate has been annexed to show that additional posts are created in the Institution by the Competent Authority and so far as the regularization order dated 24.06.1986 is concerned, there is no provision of regularization in the Rules, 1978 and Rules, 1984, therefore, the said Institution is not fulfilling the conditions mentioned in Para 2(6) of the Government Order dated 07.09.2006. Again petitioners have challenged the said order by filing Writ-C No. 22961 of 2010, in which learned counsel for the petitioners has raised the issue of use of word "Regularization" in place of "Approval" and also given the reference of one teacher namely Ram Chandra Pandey, who was also given "Regularization" in place of "Approval" in Bharat Singh Krishi Vidyalaya, Bharat Nagar Harraaiya, Basti and that Institution was added in grant-in-aid list. In the said petition, no counter affidavit has been filed by the State Government and on submission of learned standing counsel, matter was sent back to the State Government to pass fresh order after setting aside the order in question i.e. 08.02.2006. Now matter of petitioners was considered for the third time and again it was rejected vide order dated 09.02.2011, which is under challenge in the present petition.;