R. B. MHTROTRA, J. In the above mentioned writ petitions common points arise for determination. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the three writ petitions have been heard together. Writ Petition No. 24309 of 1993 has with the consent of the parties counsel has been heard as leading case. 2. The learned counsel for the parties have agreed on the point that on the basis of the decision is writ petition No. 24309 of 1993 the above mentioned two writ petitions can be decided. 3. In support of the writ petition Sri Raj Kumar Jain learned counsel for the petitioner, and in opposition thereof Sri Rameshwar Nath the learned counsel for respondent and learned Standing Counsel were heard. 4. The facts necessary for decision of writ petition are as under. There is a primary school of Mahadevi Karijan Vidyalaya, Langarpur, post Bankat, district Azamgarh which will for the sake of convenience be referred to as "vidyalaya" and the same is being administered from July 1973 by Registrar Societies Mahadevi Harijan Development Committee Langarpur, post Bankat, district Azamgarh. The said institution is registered under the Societies Registration Act and has been renewed from time to time. Basic Shiksha Adhikari accorded recognition to the Vidyalaya on permanent basis in 1989. 5. Regarding dismissal of some previously appointed teachers in illegal manner writ petition No. 35788/91-Dudhnath v. District Judge, Azamgarh is pending before this Court. 6. In regard to the decision of the present, writ petition it is essential at the outset to mention the facts of aforesaid writ petition No. 35786/91, Dudhnath Rampher, Ashok Kumar, Mahendra Rai, Ramdhari Ram afore said filed the said writ in this court. In this writ Mahadevi Harijan Manag ing Committee and Rambali ware also impleaded as respondents. It is cleat from the facts of aforesaid writ petition that the petitioners of the said writ petition Dudhnath and others instituted original suit No. 428/83 in the court of Munsif Moharamadabad Gohna for permanent injunction and in the said suit prayed for interim injunction that the defendants be restrained from interfering in any manner with the working of the plaintiffs as teacher and peon with Mahadevi Harijan boy school district Azamgarh. The plaintiffs No. 1 to 4 alleged themselves to be teachers of the aforesaid school and plaintiff No. 5 alleged himself to be peon of the said institution. 7. The plaintiffs No. 1 to 4 alleged themselves to be teachers of the aforesaid school and plaintiff No. 5 alleged himself to be peon of the said institution. 7. In the present writ petition ;there is no dispute about Ramdhari Singh, however, the plaintiffs No, 1 to 4 are involved in the present writ. 8. In suit No. 424/83 instituted by plaintiffs Dudhnath etc. the Munsifs court passed interim mandatory injunction order in favour of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the said order the management of the Vidya- laya filed civil appeal No. 48 of 1990 in the court of District Judge, Azamgarh. The district Judge Azamgarh heard together civil appeal No. "48/90 and civil appeal No, 147/90 and both the appeals were allowed by order dated 30-8-91 and the interim order passed by Munsif court was set aside. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Judge Dudhnath aforesaid filed in this court writ No. 35787/91 and this court by its order dated 12-12-91 stayed the operation of the order of District Judge dated 30-8-91, The order dated 12-12-91 is still operative. According to that order the interim order passed in favour of Dudhnath etc. is also operative and on the strength of aforesaid two orders, Dudhnath and others are entitled to work as teachers in lie Vidyalaya. 9. In the present writ petition the case of petitioner No. 1 that plaintiff No. 1 was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 1-1-84 and on 1-11-86 he was promoted to the post of headmaster. It has also alleged in the petition that the appointment of the petitioner has been countersigned by sub-Inspector and Basic Shiksha Adhikari. 10. The case of petitioner No. 2 is that he is working in the Vidya laya from the year 1983 and the appointment letter given to the petitioner has been countersigned by Sub-Inspector and Basic Shiksha Adhikari. The petitioner No. 3 and 4 have also alleged themselves to be working with the institution since 1-3-83. In this very sequence petitioners No. 5, 6 and 7 have filed their appointment letters as Anncxures 21-A, 22-A and 23-A and the case of those petitioners, is that their appointments have also bean countersigned by Basic Shiksha Adhikari. No appointment letter has been filed by petitioner No. 8 in connection with this appointment. 11. In this very sequence petitioners No. 5, 6 and 7 have filed their appointment letters as Anncxures 21-A, 22-A and 23-A and the case of those petitioners, is that their appointments have also bean countersigned by Basic Shiksha Adhikari. No appointment letter has been filed by petitioner No. 8 in connection with this appointment. 11. In the writ the contention as regard the appointment of respon dent No. 2 to 7 is that the said respondents were appointed by the Manag ing committee as Assistant Teachers were not trained nor any sanction of their appointment had been obtained from Basic Shiksha Adhikari. Regarding respondent No. 4 it was alleged that on the day of appointment he was less than 18 years of age. Regarding respondents No. 6 and 7 it has been stated that they have resigned from their post. As regards res pondent No. 8 it has been alleged that he has not claimed himself to the teacher of the said school nor has laid any claim for his being declared as teacher. The other dispute pertains to Society. I do not think it neces sary to refer to same in this petition. 12. On 31 March, 1989 Joint Secretary Uttar Pradesh Administration included Harijan Primary Pathshala and Hostels, Harijan Social Welfare Uttar Pradesh Lucknow and some other institution n non-recurring grant list. The annexures filed with the said letter indicate that in the annexure as regards Azamgarh District at serial No. 42 the name of "vidyalaya" also figures. By virtue of the aforesaid Government Order for the first time the institution has been included in the list of Government grant. In that very sequance the Government Order dated June 1989 was notified, all District and Harijan Social welfare officers ware intimated ^that as per condition No. 3 of the Government Order dated 31-3-89 referred to above the provision of Uttar Prdesh Recognition Basic Shiksha School 1975 be followed, and after verification of appointment of teachers from their records only those teachers will be entitled, who are trained and satisfy the prescribed qualification and in recognised institution, the yearly grant on the basis of previously considered and prescribed rules and procedure, on the basis or their annuals details and on being fully satisfied the sanction will be accorded by Divisional Welfare Officer. It is not necessary to men tion the details of the above mentioned Government Order. It is not necessary to men tion the details of the above mentioned Government Order. The annexure to the above mentioned Government Order mentions the amount granted to District Azamgarh, In the sequence of the said Government order, a list has been annexed on the basis of the enquiry made by all the Distt. and Harijan Social Welfar Officer through Gazetted Officer. In the said list "vidyalaya" is included and Rambali is shown to be the Manager of the Vidyalaya and as regards the list of teachers and headmaster the names of Harihar Lal, Headmaster, Assistant Teacher Urmila Kumari, Sri Chandrika Rai, Ram Milan Yadav, Prem Behari Devi, Indra Bhushan and Radhifca are entered. Despite the above Government order the manage ment did not ensure payment of salary in accordance with the Government grant to the petitioners. Consequently Ram Milan, Indra Bhushan filed writ No. 8785/93 in this court and prayed for a writ of mandamus that the respondents be directed to pay the petitioners from 1988 the salary ac prescribed by the Government order. In a similar manner Horilal, Urmila Kumari Prem and Radhika Devi and the Managing Committee of Vidya laya filed writ petition No. 1679/93 in this court and prayed for writ of mandamus that respondents be directed to ensure the payment of salary to petitioners since 1- 4-88 in accordance with the pay scale sanctioned by the Government order. During the pendency of the writ the Director Social Welfare on 19 June, 1993 passed the following order in compliance of the orders of the High Court; "hence in the matter having regard to the orders of Honble High Court dated 26-3-91 and the report of Deputy Director Social Welfare Division Gorakhpur and the representations of Rambali Ram dated 13-5-92 after consideration of the stopped grant to Mahadevi Harijan Bal Vidyalaya Sangarpur Banket, district Azamgarh, the previous real teachers Sarvsri Raineshari Ram, Rani Ram, Ashok Kumar Yadav, Mahendra Ram, Chandrabhan, Barkhu Yadav and Rajnath Singh are sanctioned the payment of their salary. These teachers will also be deemed to be working teachers of the Vidyalaya. Moreover, till all the dispute about Management is decided, the District Social Welfare Officer is appointed Receiver in accordance with the established procedure for making grants to Primary Schools controlled by Social Welfare Department. " 13. The aforesaid order of the director has been challenged in the main writ petition No. 24309/93. Moreover, till all the dispute about Management is decided, the District Social Welfare Officer is appointed Receiver in accordance with the established procedure for making grants to Primary Schools controlled by Social Welfare Department. " 13. The aforesaid order of the director has been challenged in the main writ petition No. 24309/93. 14. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that prior to the passing of the aforesaid order the view point of petitioners 1 to 7 was not heard. 15. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is also that while granted aid to the Institution the teachers who were approved in the list, in that list the names of the petitioners was also there. By the impugned order instead of the name of petitioners in their place the respon dents were being recognized as teachers of the Vidyalaya. The impugned order has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The same contravenes the principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside on this score. 16. It is clear from the counter-affidavit filed by the Director that the petitioners No. 1 to 7 were accorded no opportunity of hearing before the passing of the impugned order. 17. In the present petition, the most important fact is that the post against which the petitioners claim to be appointed, the respondents 2 to 8 claim themselves be have been appointed from before, out of Respon dents, 2 to 8, Doodhnath, Rampher, Ashok Kumar, Mahendra Rai, Ramdhari Ram filed civil suit No. 423/83 in the court of Munsif Moham-madabad Gohna, and the said suit is pending and later on Munsif Moham-madabad Gohna on 8-8-83 had passed the confirmed mandatory injunction order. That order being operative the entire appointment on those posts were clearly against law. That order had been set j aside by the District Judge by his order dated 25-4-90. Prior to 25-4-90 ! clearly there was no justification for the posting made in place of respondents. The operation of the order of District Judge was stayed this court on 12-12-91. That order had been set j aside by the District Judge by his order dated 25-4-90. Prior to 25-4-90 ! clearly there was no justification for the posting made in place of respondents. The operation of the order of District Judge was stayed this court on 12-12-91. By this court order with reference to the above order, the order of Munsif Mohara-madbad Gohna dated 8-8-83 continues to be operative till date and in this context there is no error in the impugned order passed by Director treating the above 5 respondents to be working in the Vidyalaya as that order is in the tune with High Courts order so there can be no justification to hear the petitioners side in that connection. The impugned order has been passed merely in compliance of the orders passed by this court, if by that portion of the impugned order the petitioners are aggrieved, the said portion amounts to ensuring compliance of this Courts order, the petitioners in that connection could only put in an application writ petition No. 35787/ 91. By suppressing that material fact, there was no justification for the petitioner to file writ petition No. 8785/93, 16798/9^. In this sequence it is essential to unfold the facts alleged in writ petition No. 8785/93, 16798/93. 18. Writ petition No. 8785/93 has been filed by Rammilan Yadav. Chandrika Rai and Indrabhushan Dube. The said petitioners are No. 5, 6 and 7 in writ petition No. 24309/93. In a similar way Hori Lai, Urmila Kumari, Prema and Managing committee have filed writ petition No. 1679s/ 93 Hori Lal, Urmila Kumari, Prem and Managing committee are petitions in 24309/93. In writ petition No. 8785/93 the petitioners alleged that the petitioner No. 1 and 2 on 1-7-72 had been appointed by petitioner No. 3 on 3-1-82 as Assistant teacher. In this petition there is no where any mention of the civil suit filed by defendants nor there is any mention of the order of Munsif Mohammadabad Gohana regarding the passing of the interim mandatory injunction nor there is any reference of she order passed by this court. The writ petition has been filed definitely by suppression of material facts. 19. Writ petition No. 16798/93 has been filed by Hori Lai and other petitioners, and in the same the Managing committee is petitioner No. 5. The writ petition has been filed definitely by suppression of material facts. 19. Writ petition No. 16798/93 has been filed by Hori Lai and other petitioners, and in the same the Managing committee is petitioner No. 5. In this writ also there is no mention any where about the order passed by Munsif Mohammadbad Gohana, nor there is any reference of the order passed by this court in writ petition No. 35787/91. Obviously the writ petition No. 16798/93 aud writ petition No. 8785/93 have been filed by suppression of essential material facts and the above mentioned three petitions are liable to be dismissed merely on this ground. 20. In writ petition No. 16798/93 the Managing Committee itself was a petitioner, even if for the sake of argument it is assumed that the peti tioners No- 1 and 4 had no knowledge of the order passed by Mansif Court, even then there is no justification to hold that the Managing Committee had also no knowledge of the said order. The petitioners have 8!e I this peti tion jointly with the Managing Committee. It is clear that above mention ed all the petitioners had knowledge of the interim mandatory injunction passed in suit No, 424/93 and even after this the writ petition has been filed by suppression the material facts. In the writ petition of Rammilan the Managing Committee was a party respondent. 21. It is clear from the facts stated in writ petition No. 16798/93 and writ petition No. 24309/93 that the Managing Committee is supporting the case of petitioners. On the above basis I have arrived at a conclusion that the writ petitioners of writ petition No. 8785/93 also had the know ledge of the interim mandatory injunction order or Munsif Mohammadabad Gohna and also had full knowledge of the order passed by this court in writ petition No. 35787/91 and by suppression of material facts, the said order has been obtained from court by suppressing the material facts. 22. It is clear from the order passed by the Director that he has passed the order in compliance of the order passed by this court in writ petition No. 35787/91. It is true that in the writ petition No. 35787/91 were merely 5 petitioners and by the impugned order, apart from the above 5 petitioner, 3 more persons have been accorded, sanction for being Assistant Teacher. It is true that in the writ petition No. 35787/91 were merely 5 petitioners and by the impugned order, apart from the above 5 petitioner, 3 more persons have been accorded, sanction for being Assistant Teacher. In this connection the petitioners could have been given an opportunity of hearing however, in view of the analysis of the facts of writ petition No. 8785/93, 16/98/93 I have reached the con clusion that the writ petitions have filed these writ petitions by suppression of material facts, to this court hence I do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned order otherwise also in view of all circum stances and after complete enquiry the Director Social Welfare Department passed the impugned order and in view of the above analysis I am satisfied that under the present circumstance I find no justification to interfere with the same. 23. In this connection one more question arises for consideration. There is detailed procedure for appointment of Primary School Teachers in terms of Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic School (Condition of Appoint ment and Service) Rules, 1975. The Rule 9 of the said rule is extracted as under: "no person shall be appointed as teacher or other employee in any recognized school unless he possesses such qualifications as are specified in this behalf by the Board and for whose appoint ment the previous approval of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari has been obtained in writing. In case of vacancy the applications for appointment shall be invited by the concerned Management through advertisement in at least two newspapers (one of them will be daily newspaper) giving at least thirty days time for submitting application. The date if interview may be given in the advertisement or the candidates be informed of the date fixed for the interview by registered post, giving them at least 15 days time from the date of issue of the letter. The Manage ment-, shall not select any untrained teacher and if the selected candidate is trained one, he will be approved by the Basic Shiksha Adbikari. " 24. According to the above rule before the appointment of any teacher it is essential that in two newspapers the publication be made in connection with the appointment of teachers. The date of interview should be mentioned in the advertisement and all the applicant be called for interview by registered post. " 24. According to the above rule before the appointment of any teacher it is essential that in two newspapers the publication be made in connection with the appointment of teachers. The date of interview should be mentioned in the advertisement and all the applicant be called for interview by registered post. There should be a minimum 15 days interval in the interview and the date of intimation. Apart from this the advertise ment can be made only in respect of these appointments for which prior permission of Basic Shiksha Adhikari has been obtained, and there is also a system that the appointment of teacher has not be approved by Basic Shiksba Adhikari. In the present writ petition the petitioners have said nothing about these facts so as to indicate that the appointment of peti tioner has been made according to rules. In the absence of above mention ed essentials it cleat that there is no basis to hold the appointment of petitioners to be regular, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief on the basis of appointments made against rules. 25. The learned counsel for the petitioners has alleged that the civil suit No. 424/83 is pending before the court of Munsif Mohammada-bad Gonna uptill now and during the pendency of the said suit, the Direc tor by passing the order that the appointment of the plaintiffs of the suit had been regularly made, has decided the matter even prior to decision of suit, it is being made clear with reference to this argument that the order of Director Social Welfare will not in any way effect the decision on merits by Munsif Mohammadabad Gohna Azamgarh in O. S. No. 424/83 nor will in any way effect the final decision of the suit or any other order passed in the suit. 26. With the above clarification, the writ petition is dismissed with cost. 27. It is necessary to clear in this connection that the order in Writ petition No. 35787/91- Dudhnath v. Distt. Judge, Azamgarh has been passed ex parte in favour of the petitioner, the application for setting aside that order is also pending before this court. The order passed by Director Social Welfare Uttar Pradesh Lucknow is in compliance of the ex parte order aforesaid. Judge, Azamgarh has been passed ex parte in favour of the petitioner, the application for setting aside that order is also pending before this court. The order passed by Director Social Welfare Uttar Pradesh Lucknow is in compliance of the ex parte order aforesaid. Incase of setting aside of that ex parts order, the Managing Committee will be free in this connection to intimate the Director Social Welfare regarding the setting aside of that order by this court and give application for review Director of Social Welfare U. P. Administra tion will decide that application of the committee of management according to rules after hearing the parties. 28. With the above clarification the three writ petitions are dismis sed. The interim order passed by this court are set aside. Note.-Under the mandatory provision of Rule 7 of Official Language Act, the Registrar of the Court is directed to get English Translation of a copy of this judgment done through a competent person and after approval by this court b? issued to parties as per rules. Petition dismissed. .