JUDGMENT S.P. Srivastava, J. - The U.P. Junior High Schools (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978 (U.P. Act No. 6 of 1979) which wee an Act to regulate the payments of salaries to teachers and other employees of Junior High Schools receiving aid out of the said fund and to provide for matters connected therewith came into force with effect from 1-5-1979. Section 10 of the aforesaid Act provided that the State Government shall be liable for payment of Salaries of teachers and employees of every institution due in respect of any period after the appointed day. It appears that in the year 1986 the State Government decided to bring within the purview of the aforesaid U. P Act No. 6 of 1979, 240 Junior High Schools imparting education to boys and sixty Junior High Schools imparting education to gilts. It further appears that the its order dated 29-3-1990 the State Government modified the conditions which had to be satisfied before a Junior High School could be held eligible for being brought on the list of the selected Junior High Schools which were to be brought within the purview of the aforesaid Act. A part from several conditions of eligibility which were laid down in the aforesaid Government order, it was clearly provided therein that the selection of the eligible Junior High School for being brought within the purview of the aforesaid Act was to be done strictly in order of seniority determined on the basis of the date of permanent recognition by the U.P, Board of Basic Education. 2. It has been asserted by the petitioner that it satisfied all the conditions relating to the eligibility for being brought within the purview of the aforesaid Act and as such it applied for being brought within the purview of the Act and moved an application for the purpose in 1984-85. It is further asserted that applications were repeatedly made for the purpose in the years 1985-86, 86-7, 87-88, 88-89, 89-90, and lastly in the year 1990-91 hut in vain. It further appears from the record that on 27-3-1991 the State Government issued a list of sixty Junior High Schools impairing education to girl students exclusively which had been selected for being brought within the purview of U.P. Act No. 6 of 1979. It further appears from the record that on 27-3-1991 the State Government issued a list of sixty Junior High Schools impairing education to girl students exclusively which had been selected for being brought within the purview of U.P. Act No. 6 of 1979. The name of the Junior High School, run and managed by the petitioner was, not brought on the said list. 3. The present writ petition was .thereafter filed on 3-5-1991 seeking the quashing of the list prepared by respondent No. 1 dated 27-3-1991 and a direction commanding the respondents to include the Junior High School run and managed by the petitioner in the list of the Junior High Schools imparting education to Girl students which were brought within the purview of the U.P. Act No. 6 of 1979, on 3-5-1991 six weeks 'time was granted to the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents for filing a counter affidavit and an interim mandamus was issued to the respondents to bring the petitioner's institution on the maintenance grant in aid list of the State Government if the Institution given approval recognition subsequent to the petitioner's institution had been brought on the maintenance/grant-in-aid list of the State Government or to show cause within six weeks. 4. Instead of complying with the interim mandamus the respondents filed a counter-affidavit disclosing the grounds on which the Junior High School run and managed by the petitioner had not been brought on the list indicated above and consequently was denied the benefits available under the order dated 29-3-1990 and 27-3-1991, true copies of which have been filed as Annexures-9 and 10. the counsel for the petitioner has filed a rejoinder affidavit in reply to the allegations made in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent. 5. I have heard Sri Padhey Shyam, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for tho respondents. 6. the counsel for the petitioner has filed a rejoinder affidavit in reply to the allegations made in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent. 5. I have heard Sri Padhey Shyam, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for tho respondents. 6. It hes been asserted in the writ petition that the Junior High School run and managed by the petitioners had been recognised on 30-3-v982 whereas two Junior High Schools mentioned at aerial No. 13 and Serial No. 49 of the list of sixty Junior High School published on 27-8-1991 had been brought within the purview of the U.P. Act No. 6 of 1979 had been granted recognition, although they did not satisfy tho minimum requisite conditions and in fact the Junior High School mentioned at Serial No. 49 had been granted recognition in the year 1985 1. e. much later in point of time as compared to the recognition granted in favour of the petitioner which was in the year 1981. It has been further asserted that the impugned action of the respondent-authority was discriminatory and stood vitiated on account of being arbitrary as inspite of the cleat cut guidelines having been provided, the authority instead of complying with them had adopted a method of pick and choose which could not be justified. 7. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents it has been clearly admitted that the petitioner satisfied all the requisite eligibility conditions for being brought within the purview of the U.P. Act No, 6 of 1979. 8. In Para 15 of the counter-affidavit it has been further admitted that those Junior High Schools which satisfy the eligibility conditions but had been granted recognition on a date later in point of time had been brought within the purview of U. P. Act No. 6 of 1979 excluding those Junior High Schools which though had been recognised earlier in point of time yet did not satisfy all the eligibility conditions. In Para 16 it has b^en clearly admitted that the Junior High School mentioned at Serial No. 49 of the list bad been granted recognition in 1985 and that the petitioner had been granted recognition in the year 1932. In Para 16 it has b^en clearly admitted that the Junior High School mentioned at Serial No. 49 of the list bad been granted recognition in 1985 and that the petitioner had been granted recognition in the year 1932. In Para 23 of the counter-affidavit the only ground on which ' the respondent-authority has refused to bring the institution run and managed by the petitioner within the purview of U. P. Act No. 6 of 1979 has been stated to be the fact that an untrained teacher had been employed in tho said institution In the counter-affidavit it has been disclosed that the petitioners had employed Smt. Renu Srivastava who was an untrained, teacher and her appointment had not been approved. 9. In the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has asserted that in fact Smt. Renu Srivastava referred to in the loonier-affidavit had been appointed in a leave vacancy and her appointment did not require any approval. In any can Be, it has further been asserted, that Smt. Renu Srivastava had resigned from the post with effect from 1-12-1990 and in that view of the matter there could be no justification for refusing to bring the Junior High School run and managed by the petitioner, within the purview of the Act on 27-3-1991 by which date Smt. Renu Srivastava had ceased to be in the employment of the petitioners. In any view of the matter the respondent-authority could have taken the liability as envisaged under Section 10 of the U.P. Act No. 6 of 1979 excluding Smt. Renu Srivastava but it could not refuse to take responsibility for the payment of salary as envisaged under Section 10 of the U.P. Act No, 6 of 1979 so far as the teacher and employees of the Junior High School in question other that Smt. Renu Srivastava were concerned. In of the circumstances, therefore, it has been asserted that the impugned action is manifestly illegal and stands vitiated on account of arbitrariness. 10. The question which arises for consideration in this case, therefore, is as to whether the respondent authority has acted in an arbitrary manner in refusing to bring the Junior High School run and managed by the petitioner within the purview of U.P. Act No. 6 of 1972 and the impugned action is vitiated on account of being discriminatory. 11. 10. The question which arises for consideration in this case, therefore, is as to whether the respondent authority has acted in an arbitrary manner in refusing to bring the Junior High School run and managed by the petitioner within the purview of U.P. Act No. 6 of 1972 and the impugned action is vitiated on account of being discriminatory. 11. Section 10 of the U.P. Junior High School (Payment of Salary of Teachers and another Employees) Act, 1978 (U.P. Act No. 6 of 1979) applies to Junior High Schools which at the time of the enforcement of the Act were receiving maintenance grant by the Stave Government. A liability in respect of the payment of salaries of teachers and employees of every institution due in respect of any period after the appointed day i.e. 1-5-1979 stood fastened on the State Government. From the record it appears that the State Government bad taken the decision to bring sixty Junior High School imparting education to girl students exclusively vide the order dated 27-3-1991. This clearly indicated that the State Government had taken upon itself the liability for payment of salaries of teachers and employees of sixty Junior High Schools imparting education to girl students. While selecting these sixty institutions the State Government could not act in an arbitrary manner adopting the method of pick and choose. In order to avoid arbitrariness it had been clearly indicated in the order passed by the State Government itself dated 29-3-1990 that the Selection of institutions shall be on the basis of seniority determined on the basis of the date of permanent recognition. In the present case it is admitted in the counter-affidavit that the institutions have Dg been granted permanent recognition at a latter date as compared to the institution run and managed by the petitioner have been brought within the purview of the U. P. Act No. 6 of 1979. It was also admitted in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner satisfies all the the eligibility criteria. It was also admitted in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner satisfies all the the eligibility criteria. In this view of the matter the institution run and managed by the petitioner could not be denied the benefits which are being made available to the teachers and employees of a Junior High School imparting education to girl students and was similarly situated in that respect with the institution run and managed by the petitioner specially when the petitioner's institution had been granted permanent recognition at an earlier point of time and was entitled to a preference over the institutions recognised later. 12. Further as has already been indicated above the only ground which has been disclosed by the respondent authority for denying the benefits and for depriving the teachers and employees of the institution in question was an employment given by the petitioner to an untrained teacher and that too without any approval of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. This ground could not, in the circumstances of the case, be made the basis for withholding of the release to the teachers and employees of the institution in question other than Smt. Renu Srivastava, the benefits Which they were entitled to under the order dated 27-3-1990. The mere fact that the Assistant Teacher employed in the institution sought to be borough within the purview of the U.P. Act No. 6 of 1979 was not entitled to the payment of salary on account of same infirmity in the app ointment even though the institution satisfied all other eligibility criteria cannot be a justifiable ground for refusing the benefits available to the teachers and other employees of the institution whose appointments are in accordance with' law and stand duly approved by the Basio Adhikari under the relevant rules. In any, view of the matter the only ground on which the institution run and managed by the petitioner had bead refused to be brought within the purview of U. P. Act No. 6 of 1979 had become non-existent on account of Smt. Renu Srivastava having ceased to be in employment on the relevant dated i.e. 27-3-1991 when the respondent-authority published the list of sixty Junior High Schools imparting education to girl student exclusively and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no valid ground justifying the exclusion of the institution in question from being brought within the purview of U.P. Act No. 6 of 1979. 13. From tho facts and circumstances indicated above it is apparent that the impugned action is clearly discriminatory and stands vitiated on account of arbitrariness. It is manifestly illegal. 14. In view of the conclusions indicated hereinbefore sufficient ground has been made out for the issuance of a mandamus requiring the respondents to include the Mabarshi Dayanand Bslika Junior High School, Manauri TaNil Chail, Allahabad being run end managed by the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 in the list of Girls Junior High Schools which have been borough within the purview of U. P Act No 6 of 1979 and treating it at par with them and provide to it the same benefits as accorded to the institutions mentioned in the order dated 27-3-i99l. 15. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and a writ of mandamus is issued requiring the respondents to include Mahaishi Dayanand Balika Junior High School Manauri, Allahabad in the list of Girls Junior High Schools which have been brought within the purview of U. P Junior High School (Payment of Salary of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1979 and treat it at per with them so as to be entitled to the same benefits as accorded to the institutions mentioned in the order dated 27-3-1991. 16. There shall be no order as to costs. Dated May 22, 1992. 17. This is a reconstructed copy of the judgment which was pronounced on 22-5-1992. The office is directed to supply to the learned counsel for the patties the certified copy of this judgment on payment of usual charges within three days.