Judgment : D. S. Sinha. J. 1. HEARD Shri C. D. Bahuguna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Shakti Dhar Dubey, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents No. 1 and 2. 2. INVOKING the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner urges this Court to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria and the State of U. P., the respondents No. 1 and 2 respectively, to pay him salary of the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit held by him at Ganga Bakch Kanodia Gandhi Intermediate College Kaptanganj, District Deoria. The petitioner asserts that he was appointed Lecturer in the institution on 13th October, 1974 and is, therefore, entitled to the payment of salary of the post of Lecturer. 3. IN support of his claim for salary the petitioner relies upon the provisions of section 10 of the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate College (Payment of Salaries of teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971, hereinafter called the Act. 4. SHRI S. D. Dubey, learned Standing Counsel, does not dispute that the provisions of the Act would be applicable in the matter of payment of salary claimed by the petitioner. Sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Act renders the State Government liable for payment of salaries of teachers and employees of every institution due in respect of any period after March 31, 1971. For attracting the provisions of Sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Act it is necessary that the claim of salary should be by a 'teacher' or 'employee' of an 'institution', as defined by section 2 of the Act. Further condition for attracting the said provision is that the salary claimed by the 'teacher' or 'employee' must be in respect of a period after March 31, 1971. 5. THERE is no dispute that the institution wherein the petitioner is alleged to be teaching is an 'institution' within the meaning of the Act. It is also not in dispute that the salary claimed by him relates to a period after March 31, 1971. 6. THUS, only one condition, namely, the factum of petitioner being a teacher', as defined in the Act, remains to be established for the purposes of grant of the relief claimed by the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the salary claimed by him relates to a period after March 31, 1971. 6. THUS, only one condition, namely, the factum of petitioner being a teacher', as defined in the Act, remains to be established for the purposes of grant of the relief claimed by the petitioner. Expression 'teacher' is defined in clause (e) of section 2 of the Act thus :- "(e) ''teacher" of an institution means a Principal, Headmaster or other teacher in "respect of whose employment maintenance grant is paid by the State Government to the institution and includes any other teacher employed in fulfilment of, the conditions of recognition of the institution or its recognition in a new subject or for a higher class or as a result of the opening with. the approval of the Inspector of a new section in an existing class" : 7. FROM the definition of the expression 'teacher' quoted above, it is apparent that a candidate can be treated to be teacher for purposes of the Act only when it is established that in respect of his employment maintenance grant is paid by the Government to the institution. The condition of payment of maintenance grant by the State Government in respect of the employment of the candidate alleging himself to be a teacher is sine qua non for attracting the liability of the State Government for payment of salary of such candidate under section 10 of the Act. 8. THERE is no material before the Court to show that in respect of the employment of the petitioner the State Government ever paid any maintenance grant to the institution. THERE is not even a whisper, express or implied, either in the petition or in the two rejoinder affidavits, filed by the petitioner, that in respect of his employment the State Government ever paid any maintenance grant which is a condition precedent for treating a candidate to be a teacher for the purposes of the Act. In theses circumstances, the Court is constrained to hold that the petitioner is not a 'teacher' for the purposes of the Act. The claim of the petitioner for payment of salary under section 10 of the Acts, therefore, cannot be sustained. For the foregoing reasons the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.