JUDGMENT By the Court—This special appeal, under the Rules of the Court, arises from the judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge dated 30.8.2005 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 57795 of 2005 dismissing the writ petition of the appellant. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 3. It appears that the petitioner-appellant filed the aforesaid writ petition claiming that he was appointed as Assistant Teacher in a recognized Primary School in the year 1990 but he is not being paid his salary since 2001. The Hon’ble Single Judge found that the very appointment of the petitioner-appellant was not validly made and thus, he is not entitled for the payment of salary. 4. The petitioner-appellant claims to have been appointed as Assistant Teacher on 1.10.1990 at Janjati Shiksha Niketan, Taraini, Post Office Shekhuwani, District Maharajganj, which is a recognized Primary School, by the order issued by the Manager of the Committee of Management of the said Institution. The aforesaid appointment was made on a fixed pay of Rs. 500/- per month on temporary basis. He was also confirmed on the aforesaid post by the Manager of the Institution vide order dated 30.6.1993, with effect from 31.3.1992. It is stated that he received salary till 2001. Since the management prevented him from signing the attendance register and stopped payment of salary, he filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27447 of 2004, which was disposed of by the Hon’ble Single Judge vide judgment dated 23.7.2004 permitting the petitioner-appellant to file afresh representation before the District Social Welfare Officer, Maharajganj, who was directed to consider and decide the same after affording opportunity to the concerned parties. It is also stated that he shall pass necessary order with regard to payment of salary only if the petitioner-appellant was duly appointed in accordance with the prescribed procedure and after due approval of his appointment by the competent authority. Consequently, the District Social Welfare Officer, Maharajganj vide order dated 23.10.2004 rejected the representation of the petitioner-appellant since as per the stand of the management, the petitioner-appellant was never appointed as Teacher in the aforesaid institution and no appointment letter was ever issued. Consequently, the District Social Welfare Officer, Maharajganj vide order dated 23.10.2004 rejected the representation of the petitioner-appellant since as per the stand of the management, the petitioner-appellant was never appointed as Teacher in the aforesaid institution and no appointment letter was ever issued. On the other hand, the office record shows that the appellant was appointed by the then District Social Welfare Officer, Maharajganj on the post of Kahar at Rajkiya Janjati Ashram Padwati Vidyayala, Nautanwa vide Office Order No. 6-11 dated 31.10.1991 and was terminated vide order No. C-1746 dated 5.12.1991. He, therefore, observed that the petitioner-appellant, at the same time, could not have been employed at two places and, therefore, he recorded a finding of fact that the petitioner was not appointed as Teacher in the institution, as claimed, and has received salary by playing fraud. 5. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the petitioner-appellant preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 57795 of 2005, which has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Single Judge vide under appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Hon’ble Single Judge has failed to consider various documents placed on record showing that the appellant was actually appointed as Assistant Teacher in the institution and, therefore, was entitled for payment of salary. 7. Learned Standing Counsel, however, submits that the alleged letter of appointment dated 5.10.1992, placed on record as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, itself shows that the petitioner-appellant claims to have been appointed as untrained Assistant Teacher, although in pursuance to the statutory provisions on and after 25.5.1975 no untrained teacher in the Primary School could have been appointed. Therefore, ex facie the so called appointment of the petitioner-appellant is void and being contrary to the Rules and Regulations, there could be no occasion to issue any mandamus for payment of salary. 8. Admittedly, the recruitment and conditions of service of recognized basic schools, i.e., institution in question, is governed by the Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Other Conditions) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1975). Rules 2, 3, 4 and 9 of the aforesaid Rules provide as under: “2. 8. Admittedly, the recruitment and conditions of service of recognized basic schools, i.e., institution in question, is governed by the Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Other Conditions) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1975). Rules 2, 3, 4 and 9 of the aforesaid Rules provide as under: “2. Definitions.—In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires,— (a) “Act” means the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972; (b) “Junior Basic School” means an institution other than High Schools or Intermediate Colleges imparting education up to V Class; (c) “Board” means the Uttar Pradesh Board of Basic Education constituted under Section 3 of the Act; (d) “District Basic Education Officer” means the District Basic Education Officer appointed by the State Government; (e) “Recognised School” means any Junior Basic School, not being an institution belonging to or wholly maintained by the Board of any local body, recognised by the Board before the commencement of these rules imparting education from Classes I to V. 3. Applicability.—Every recognised school shall be bound by the conditions and restrictions hereinafter specified. 4.Financial resources.—In very recognised school adequate financial resources shall be made available by the management of such school for its efficient working and adequate facilities shall be provided in accordance with such standard as may be specified by the Board for teaching the subjects in respect of which such school is recognised. 9. Appointment of teachers.—No person shall be appointed as teacher or other employees in any recognised school unless he possesses such qualifications as are specified in this behalf by the Board and for whose appointment 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 of interview of the date fixed for interview by registered post, giving them at least 15 days time from the date of issue of the letter. The management shall not select any untrained teacher and if the selected candidates is trained one, he will be approved by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari.” 9. The date of interview of the date fixed for interview by registered post, giving them at least 15 days time from the date of issue of the letter. The management shall not select any untrained teacher and if the selected candidates is trained one, he will be approved by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari.” 9. Rule-9 categorically provides that no person shall be appointed as teacher or other employee in any recognized Schools unless he possess such qualification as are specified in this behalf by the Board and for whose appointment the previous approval of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari has been obtained in writing. The procedure for recruitment and appointment also provides that the management shall advertise the vacancies in two newspapers giving at least 30 days time for submitting applications and thereafter the candidates shall be interviewed. It also restrain management from selecting any untrained teacher. In the present case, it is not the case of the petitioner-appellant that any previous approval of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari was obtained. Further the letter of appointment itself shows that the appellant was appointed as untrained Assistant Teacher, which is prohibited in Rule 9 of 1975 Rules. Besides, it is admitted by the parties that the BTC or equivalent training is a necessary prescribed qualification for appointment of an Assistant Teacher in Primary School and in the present case the appellant did not possess any training qualification. 10. We also find that the payment of salary, in the case in hand, is not covered by any statutory rules but the recognised primary schools are allowed a lump sum grant by the department of Social Welfare on certain conditions to be observed. Where such lump sum grant is paid to the educational institution by the department of Social Welfare, it will not confer any right upon a teacher or employee of such recognised institution to claim salary from the department itself. Rule 4 of 1975 Rules expressly provides that in every recognised school adequate financial resources shall be made available by the management of such school for its efficient working and adequate facilities shall be provided in accordance with such standard, as may be specified by the Board. Rule 4 of 1975 Rules expressly provides that in every recognised school adequate financial resources shall be made available by the management of such school for its efficient working and adequate facilities shall be provided in accordance with such standard, as may be specified by the Board. Therefore, the financial assistance provided to the institution does not make said assistance, being statutory liability of the payment of salary between the department of Social Welfare and the employee or teacher of a recognised primary school governed by 1975 Rules. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we do not find any fault in the order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge. Accordingly, the special appeal, being without any merit, is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal Dismissed. ———