S. K. Dhaon, J. - (1.) THE petitioners allege themselves to be the Assistant Teachers of the Laghu Madayamic Vidyalaya, a Junior High School, which is governed by the U. P. Recognised Basic School (Junior High Schools) Recruitment and Condition of Service of Teachers Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). THEir grievance is that they have not been paid their salary since 1st July, 1986. Hence the principal prayer is that the respondents may be commanded to pay to the petitioners their salary since 1st July, 1986 onwards.
(2.) THE petitioners had earlier approached this Court by means of writ petition no. 20272 of 1985, which was finally disposed of on 2nd March, 1987. This Court directed the District Basic Education Officer to dispose of the representations made by the petitioners within a specified time. THEse representations related to the payment of salary. On 16th April, 1987, the District Basic Education Officer rejected the representations of the petitioners. This order is also being impugned in the present writ petition. The material averments are these. The petitioner no. 1 was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Sanskrit purely on ad-hoc basis and a letter of appointment was issued to him on 19th March, 1986. He joined his duties on 1st July, 1986. On 19th March, 1986, the petitioner no. 2 was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on an ad-hoc basis. He too joined his duties as an Assistant Teacher on 1st July, 1986. In paragraph 9 of the writ petition the averments are these :- " That it is gathered from the committee of the management that the necessary papers of the petitioners were sent to District Basic Education Officer for approval on 20-3-1986 and after expiry of the prescribed period, the petitioners were appointed " This averment has been made on the basis of the information received from the record. A supplementary-affidavit has been filed. Annexure-I to this affidavit is an alleged copy of a letter of the management sent to the District Basic Education Officer seeking the approval of the appointment of the petitioners. A counter-affidavit on behalf of the Committee of Management has also been filed. The Committee of Management has supported the case of the petitioners in so far as it has filed documents showing that the attendance register pertaining to the petitioners had been verified by the Sub-Deputy Inspector of Schools from time to time.
(3.) THE letters of appointments issued to the petitioners by the Manager of the institution disclose that the selection committee appointed the petitioners as temporary Assistant Teachers on ad-hoc basis, vide Annexures 2 and 10. In the impugned order the District Basic Education Officer has emphasised that the Manager alone had appointed the petitioners as Assistant Teachers. Further, the petitioners had not been appointed as Assistant Teachers with the previous approval of the District Basic Education Officer, hence no valid appointment in favour of the petitioners came into existence at all. Therefore, the question of the District Basic Education Officer being under an obligation to make the payment of salary to the petitioners under the provisions of the U. P. Junior High School (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978 did not arise.;