JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J.—In the District of Jaunpur there has been recognised institution up to Junior High School level known as Kisan Junior High School, Etaily Gajna Kudda Jaunpur. Said institution was duly recognised under the provisions as contained in U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972. In the said institution, petitioner Krishna Dixit was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 1.3.1973 and appointment of the petitioner was also approved on 29.7.1977. Said institution in question was upgraded from Junior High School to High School by the Secretary Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad U.P. at Allahabad on 25.1.1993 and thereafter from High School to Intermediate on 16.1.1999. Sri Hari Prasad Maurya had been performing and discharging duties as regular Headmaster of the institution and he attained the age of superannuation on 30.6.1999. In between managing committee of the institution in order to consider the name of next incumbent who was to take over the charge of as Principal of the institution on 4.4.1999 passed resolution resolving to appoint the petitioner as Principal of the institution. On 1.7.1999 pursuant to said resolution petitioner joined as Principal of the institution and signature of the petitioner was also attested on 14.7.1999 by the District Basic Education Officer. Sri Krishna Dixit has contended that Manager Sri Raja Ram Vishwakarma made an advertisement for filling up the said post of Principal/Headmaster in the daily newspaper Tarunmitra on 6.6.1999 and as per the same applications were invited by 20.6.1999 and 25.6.1999 was the date fixed for interview. Sri Krishna Dixit has contended that he also applied and on 25.6.1999 which was the date fixed for interview, petitioner has contended that he appeared in the interview and his name was finalized for the post of Principal/Headmaster of the institution and appointment letter was also issued on 26.7.1999. On 13.7.1999 signature of petitioner as Headmaster was attested by District Basic Education Officer. Petitioner has further contended paper qua the said substantive appointment was submitted before District Basic Education Officer for approval and as nothing was being done, in this background Sri Krishna Dixit preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 893 of 2000 wherein this Court on 29.1.2000 gave direction to District Basic Education Officer to decide the matter pertaining to the approval on the post of Headmaster within two months. It has been contended till date no decision has been taken on the said matter. 2. Writ Petition No. 893 of 2000 wherein this Court on 29.1.2000 gave direction to District Basic Education Officer to decide the matter pertaining to the approval on the post of Headmaster within two months. It has been contended till date no decision has been taken on the said matter. 2. In regard to the management of the institution two set of incumbents were claiming that they have been validly elected, one group headed by Sri Raja Ram Vishwakarma and other group headed by Sri Subhash Chandra Yadav. Joint Director of Education on 13.3.2002 disapproved both the elections set up and directed for holding of election through Prabhandha Sanchalak. Against the order dated 13.3.2002 passed by the Regional Joint Director of Education Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16546 of 2002 has been filed before this Court by Raja Ram Vishwakarma and on presentation of aforesaid writ petition interim order has been passed on 22.4.2002. The Regional Joint Director of Education in spite of the fact that interim order has been passed on 9.12.2002 passed order authorizing Raja Ram Vishwakarma to function as Manager of the institution. Against the said order dated 9.12.2002 authorizing Sri Raja Ram Vishwakarma to function as manager, Sri Subhas Chandra Yadav filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54734 of 2002. This Court on 19.12.2002 passed order wherein categorical mention was made that charge should not have been handed over to either of the parties merely pursuant to the order of the High Court and there ought to have fresh consideration at least on the question of effective control. 3. Petitioner has stated that District Basic Education Officer attested his signature on 12.12.2002. It has been contended with vehemence that Sri Rajaram Vishwakarma for the reason best known to him became annoyed with petitioner, and proceeded with exercise to replace the petitioner as Headmaster by any mean fair or foul. Advertisement for selection on the post of Headmaster in newspaper dated 6.1.2003, ‘Dainik Manuyar’ has been sought to be manipulated. Fictitious selection proceedings has been set up, which has been illegally accorded approval by the District Basic Education Officer on 7.3.2003. One Sri Ajai Pratap Rai was shown to have been selected as Headmaster. Advertisement for selection on the post of Headmaster in newspaper dated 6.1.2003, ‘Dainik Manuyar’ has been sought to be manipulated. Fictitious selection proceedings has been set up, which has been illegally accorded approval by the District Basic Education Officer on 7.3.2003. One Sri Ajai Pratap Rai was shown to have been selected as Headmaster. Said Sri Ajai Pratap Rai on 20.3.2003 tried to join the institution, but he could not take over the charge, in absence of petitioner and was manhandled on the spot, which was subject matter of News item in daily Rashtriya Sahara on 21.3.2003. Sri Ajai Pratap Rai never showed himself in the institution thereafter. Petitioner questioned the validity of said action by filing and preferring Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14612 of 2003, wherein this Court on 21.5.2003, passed interim order for maintaining status quo to the post of Headmaster. On 26.5.2003 Sri Raja Ram Vishwakarma asked the petitioner to hand over the charge to Sri Ajai Pratap Rai to which petitioner submitted his reply dated 20.6.2003 refusing to hand over the charge of the office giving reference of interim order. Assistant Director of Education (Basic) Varanasi on 20.6.2003 asked Basic Shiksha Adhikari not to make payment of salary to Sri Ajay Pratap Rai until further order but ignoring the order passed by this Court on 21.5.2003 and the order dated 20.6.2003 salary was ensured to Ajay Pratap Rai on 26.6.2003. The District Inspector of Schools on 11.9.2003 directed the petitioner to continue to function as Headmaster of the institution and thereafter petitioner continued to perform and discharge his duties as Principal of the institution but thereafter quite illegally on 25.6.2005 District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur passed order in favour of Ajay Pratap Rai qua his functioning. Petitioner, Krishna Dixit filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48629 of 2005 before this Court questioning the validity of the order dated 25.6.2005 which was allowed vide order dated 13.7.2005 and District Inspector of Schools was directed to pass fresh order. Thereafter District Inspector of Schools passed order on 3.3.2006 authorizing Sri Ajai Pratap Rai to function as Principal/Headmaster of both Junior High School as well as upgraded Intermediate College. At this juncture Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16925 of 2006 has been filed. 4. Thereafter District Inspector of Schools passed order on 3.3.2006 authorizing Sri Ajai Pratap Rai to function as Principal/Headmaster of both Junior High School as well as upgraded Intermediate College. At this juncture Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16925 of 2006 has been filed. 4. To the said averments which has been narrated counter-affidavit has been filed by the contesting respondents as well as Manager of the institution therein plea has been taken that petitioner’s claim which has been set up that he has been appointed pursuant to selection proceedings dated 25.6.1999 is farce and fictitious proceedings and the fact of the matter is that pursuant to resolution dated 4.4.1999 as one Sri Shambhu Nath Singh who was senior most teacher and was suffering from eye trouble and was unable to discharge duties, therefore, petitioner by virtue of being second senior most teacher was authorized to take over the charge of Headmaster of institution, when regular incumbent Sri Har Prasad Maurya was to retire on 30.6.1999. It has been contended that District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur also approved the appointment of the petitioner as officiating Headmaster pursuant to resolution dated 4.4.1999 on 14.7.1999. It has also been contended that in the year 2002 when institution was granted recognition as Intermediate college and objection was taken by the Bank concern that since the signature of the petitioner had been attested by the District Basic Education Officer as officiating Headmaster of the High School. Thereafter on 28.12.2002 petitioner himself based on the resolution dated 4.4.1999, by attesting copy of the same requested for attestation of his signature. It has further been stated that petitioner has never been appointed as Headmaster but only charge was handed over to the petitioner, in this background it has been contended that petitioner persuaded the Committee of Management to promote him, in this background Committee of Management in its meeting dated 2.5.1999 passed resolution resolving to appoint petitioner as Principal of the institution by way of promotion. Resolution dated 2.5.1999 though passed had not been sent to the District Basic Education Officer as is reflected from the communication dated 3.7.1999 and 14.7.1999. The moment Managing Committee of the institution vide resolution dated 2.5.1999 had purported to appoint the petitioner by way of promotion as Headmaster of the institution, thereafter one Sanjay Priyadarshi was sought to be appointed in the resultant vacancy. Sanjay Priyadarshi filed Civil Misc. The moment Managing Committee of the institution vide resolution dated 2.5.1999 had purported to appoint the petitioner by way of promotion as Headmaster of the institution, thereafter one Sanjay Priyadarshi was sought to be appointed in the resultant vacancy. Sanjay Priyadarshi filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20453 of 2000 before this Court for payment of salary as Assistant Teacher and this Court asked the District Basic Education Officer to consider the claim of the said Sanjay Priyadarshi. District Basic Education Officer passed order dated 1.6.2003 stating therein that there is no provision for appointment of Headmaster of Junior High School by promotion and the alleged promotion of the petitioner on the post of Headmaster has been disapproved and post of Headmaster was directed to be filled up by way of direct recruitment and claim of Sanjay Priyadarshi was also rejected. It has further been contended that thereafter Committee of Management of the institution as per order dated 1.6.2003 advertised the post and it has been contended post in question was advertised and selection proceedings have been undertaken and appointment was approved. It has also been contended that theory which has been set up by the petitioner qua his appointment dated 28.6.1999 is farce, fictitious and same is based on forged documents. In this background it has been requested to dismiss the writ petitions. 5. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed and therein circumstance to show fact of functioning of the petitioner and also of the fact that entire claim of the respondent is based on forged and fictitious document and the certificate of experience which has been filed is also forged and fictitious on the face of it. 6. After pleadings mentioned above have been exchanged, the two respective Advertisement on the basis of which reliance has been placed both by petitioner and respondent qua their appointment and supplied through their respective Counsel and after inter se perusal same has been kept in sealed cover after perusal and marked as “A” and “B” and the present writ petitions have been taken up thereafter with the consent of the parties for final hearing and disposal. 7. 7. Sri P.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case institution in question has been upgraded as High School and thereafter Intermediate and once institution in question was upgraded from Junior High School to High School and thereafter to Intermediate then by no stretch of imagination appointment on the post of Principal could have been made under the provision as contained under U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 and U.P. Recognized Basic (Junior High School) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978, as such entire proceedings in the fact of the present case is without jurisdiction and nullity. It has also been asserted that entire claim of the petitioner is based on forged and fabricated documents as such no credibility could be attached to the same and educational authorities have clearly transgressed and overstepped their jurisdiction, and further payment has been illegally made, same is liable to be recovered. 8. Sri P.N. Saxena, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri R.M. Viswakarma, Advocate on the other hand contended that recognition which has been accorded to the institution as High School and thereafter to Intermediate is under Section 7-A of the U.P. Act No. II of 1921 only for the purposes of examination and the status of the institution up to Junior High School remains intact as such rightly proceedings have been undertaken under the provisions as contained in 1978 Rules wherein due advertisement was made and the nominee of the District Basic Education Officer has participated and thereafter valid selection has been held, and as far as claim of the petitioner is concerned same is self contradictory based on forged and fictitious documents, as such no credibility could be attached to the same. Learned Standing Counsel also toed the same line of argument. 9. Learned Standing Counsel also toed the same line of argument. 9. After respective arguments have been advanced, first question which is to be adverted to as to whether recognition which has been accorded to the institution in question, under Section 7-A (a) of U.P. Act No. II of 1921 takes said institution in question outside the purview of U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 and 1978 Rules and recognition of institution in question at High School level and Intermediate level is limited only for the purposes of examination and nothing beyond the same and the rest of the institution i.e. up to Junior High School, still remains to be governed under the provision as contained in U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 and 1978 Rules and other ancillary provisions. 10. In order to appreciate the respective arguments the provision as contained under U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 and U.P. Recognized Basic (Junior High School) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 and U.P. Junior High Schools (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other employees) Act, 1978 are being looked into. 11. Basic Education is defined under Section 2(b) of U.P. Basic Education Act as follows : "Section 2(b) : “Basic Education” means education up to eight classes imparted in school other than High School or Intermediate College, and the expression “Basic School” shall be construed accordingly." 12. U.P. Recognized Basic (Junior High School) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 defines under Rule 2(e) and 2(g) “Junior High School” and "Recognised Schools” respectively as follows : "Rule 2(e) : “Junior High School” means an institution other than High School or Intermediate College imparting education to boys or girls or both, from Class VI to VIII (inclusive) Rule 2 (g) : “ Recognised School” means any Junior High School not being an institution belonging to or wholly maintained by the Board or any local body recognised by the Board as such;" 13. U.P. Junior High School (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978 (U.P. Act No. 6 of 1979) defines, under Section 2(e) and 2(h) “Institution” and “Teacher” respectively as follows : "Section 2(e) : “Institution" means a recognized Junior High School for the time being receiving maintenance grant from the State Government; Section 2(h) : “Teacher” of an institution means Headmaster or other teacher in respect of whose maintenance grant is paid by the State Government.” 14. By means of U.P. Act No. 34 of 2000, published in U.P. Gazette Part I, transitory provisions in shape of Section 13-A in respect of certain upgraded institutions has been inserted which is as follows : "Section 13-A(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the provisions of this Act, shall mutatis mutandis, apply, to an institution which is upgraded to High School or Intermediate standard and to such teachers and other employees thereof in respect of whose employment maintenance grant is paid by the State Government to such institution. (2) For the purposes of this section the reference to the students wherever they occur in Section 5 shall be construed as reference to the students of classes up to Junior High School level only." 15. After noticing aforementioned provisions, relevant provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 is being looked into : The word institution is defined in Section 2 (b) as follows : "2 (b) “Institution” means a recognised Intermediate College, Higher Secondary School or High School, and includes, where the context so requires, a part of an institution, and “Head of Institution” means the Principal or Head Master, as the case may be, of such institution;" 16. The word recognition has been defined under Section 2 (d), which is quoted herein below : "2 (d) “Recognition” means recognition for the purpose of preparing candidates for admission to the Board’s examinations;” Power of Board : Subject to the provisions of Act, the Board has following authority among others : Section 7(4) : to recognize institution for the purposes of its examination. 17. The instant case is concerned with the recognition of a Junior High School for imparting education in higher classes of High School and Intermediate level. 17. The instant case is concerned with the recognition of a Junior High School for imparting education in higher classes of High School and Intermediate level. The provision for granting recognition to such institutions is provided in Section 7-A (a), which is quoted herein below : "7-A. Recognition of an institution in any new subject or for a higher class.— Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (4) of Section 7— (a) the Board may, with the prior approval of the State Government, recognize an institution in any new subject or group of subjects or for a higher class.” 18. The question which has been sought to be raised on the touchstone of the provisions applicable qua basic education and secondary education in recognized institution, already stands answered by this Court in the case of Dr. (Smt.) Sushila Gupta v. Regional Joint Director of Education, Kanpur Region, Kanpur and others, 2006 (1) ADJ 89 (All), decided on 22.11.2005 and there is no occasion to take different view. Said judgment exhaustively deals with each and every aspect of the matter and also specifically deals with that recognition under Section 7(4) and Section 7-A(a) of U.P. Act No. II of 1921 does not make any difference qua the status of institution. Aforementioned judgment has answered the said question in affirmative by holding that where the respondents are proceeding to make an appointment on the post of the Head of the institution which is admittedly an upgraded institution, same can only be made under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the Regulations framed thereunder and not at all under the provisions of U.P. Basic Education Act and 1978 Rules. Relevant extract of aforesaid judgment is being quoted below : "For the purposes of management of such a recognized institution, a Scheme of Administration has to be drawn up by which the institution shall be managed as provided under Section 16-A of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. Thus, the provision of an approved Scheme of Administration is mandatory. The aforesaid is also evident from the detailed conditions required to be fulfilled for grant of recognition by the Board contained in Chapter-VII of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. Regulation 9 of Chapter-VII provides as a condition precedent that the Scheme of Administration for managing the institution should be approved by the competent authority. The aforesaid is also evident from the detailed conditions required to be fulfilled for grant of recognition by the Board contained in Chapter-VII of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. Regulation 9 of Chapter-VII provides as a condition precedent that the Scheme of Administration for managing the institution should be approved by the competent authority. The most relevant regulation for the purposes of the present controversy is Regulation 11 (b) of the said Chapter which provides for that the entire teaching staff of the institution, which means a recognized institution, shall be appointed in accordance with the qualifications for such Teachers as provided in Appendix-A of Regulation 1 of Chapter II of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. Clause (c) of the said Regulation further provides that the institution shall be obliged to comply with the conditions of the education code and clause (d) of the said Regulation indicates that the institution shall be obliged to carry out all directions by the department. The aforesaid terms and conditions, therefore, apply with immediate effect upon recognition being granted by the Board. The Act also makes provisions for penal action in the event it is found that an institution has violated the aforesaid terms and conditions. The provision, which is relevant to the issue, is Section 16-D (3) (II). This provision empowers the Board to withdraw recognition on the ground that the Management has failed to appoint teaching staff possessing necessary qualifications or has retained in service teaching or non-teaching staff in contravention of the provisions of 1921 Act and the Regulations framed thereunder. The provisions of Section 16-G make it mandatory that every person employed in a recognized institution shall be governed by such conditions of service as may be prescribed by regulation. This is further fortified by another mandatory provision contained in Regulation 14 (g) of Chapter I which provides that the scheme shall also provide that all the terms and conditions of employment of the employees of the institution shall be governed by the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and the regulations framed thereunder. The mode of appointment of the head of the institution and Teachers is provided in Chapter III and the qualifications to be possessed for being appointed in a recognized institution either by direct recruitment or otherwise shall be as provided in Appendix-A to Chapter II of the Regulations." 19. The mode of appointment of the head of the institution and Teachers is provided in Chapter III and the qualifications to be possessed for being appointed in a recognized institution either by direct recruitment or otherwise shall be as provided in Appendix-A to Chapter II of the Regulations." 19. The aforesaid provisions leave no room for doubt that the conditions of recognition mandate the compliance of the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and do not make any exception for following the provisions of 1978 Rules for appointment of teachers in Junior High Schools. 20. Learned Standing Counsel on the strength of the Government Order dated 24.11.2001 and the provisions of Section 7-AB has urged that the Teachers so appointed on part time basis in an unaided High School or Intermediate College have been exempted from the applicability of the Payment of Salaries Act, 1971 and the Selection Board Act 1982. The aforesaid submission in the present context, does not hold water inasmuch as the instant case is in respect of the appointment of the Head of the institution. The provisions of Section 7-AB apply only in respect of Teachers, who are appointed on part time basis under Section 7-AA. Section 7-AA in turn does not make any provision for appointment of a part time Head of the institution. The said provision is only meant to enable the institution to bear the minimum expenses from its own sources and, as such, the appointment of these Teachers has been exempted from the rigors of selection under the 1982 Act. The question of applying the Payment of Salaries Act does not apply as the part time Teachers have to be paid by the Management from its own sources and not from any government grant-in-aid. This Court in the case of Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Shiksha Samiti and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2005 (4) ESC 2715, has held that Section 7-AA does not make any provision for the appointment of the Head of the institution on part time basis. In these circumstances, there is absolutely no scope for the argument to be considered as raised on behalf of the respondents in this respect. In these circumstances, there is absolutely no scope for the argument to be considered as raised on behalf of the respondents in this respect. Even otherwise, the nature and duties of the Head of the institution which are detailed in Regulation 10 of Chapter I do not indicate that the Head of the institution would be called upon to perform such duty on part time basis. 21. Apart from this, Section 16 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 mandates and prohibits the selection and appointment of the teaching staff by any other mode and provides that all such appointments shall be made only on the recommendation of the Board. The terms and conditions of recognition of the institution clearly contain clause-5 specifying that a suitable Head of the institution shall be appointed in accordance with Rules. The Rules for appointing the Head of the institution and the qualifications in respect thereto have been indicated herein above. The recognition order and the Rules referred to herein above, do not provide for the appointment of the Head of the Institution under the Rules governing a Junior High School. The Rules referred to in the order of recognition are, therefore, the Rules applicable in respect of recognized institution under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and the Selection Board Act, 1982. The appointment of the Head of the institution, therefore, cannot be resorted to under the garb of a Government Order dated 24.11.2001 as suggested by the Respondents including the learned Standing Counsel. 22. Even though it is not necessary to state the proposition that a Government Order cannot have a over riding effect over the provisions of the Act, yet it is necessary to reiterate the same in view of the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondents. The decisions of the Apex Court, therefore, need to be referred at this stage. In the case of Union of India and others v. A.K. Roy, (1986) 1 SCC 675 , the Apex Court has held that a piece of subordinate legislation in the shape of a notification cannot over ride Rules Statutorily made governing the conditions of service. In the case of K. Kuppu Swami v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1998) 8 SCC 469 , has held that statutory rules cannot be over ridden by executive orders or executive practice. In the case of K. Kuppu Swami v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1998) 8 SCC 469 , has held that statutory rules cannot be over ridden by executive orders or executive practice. In the instant case, the Government Order dated 24.11.2001 does not either expressly or impliedly amend any or all the provisions which have been taken note of herein above. Even otherwise the Government Order cannot over ride these statutory rules as interpreting in such a way would amount to negating all the provisions that define and control the terms and conditions of an institution recognized under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The Government Order cannot run counter to the provisions of the Act and the Regulations so long as the provisions exist on the Statute book and the Government Order cannot be permitted to make room for inconsistency in such matters. 23. The question that has to be addressed to in these 2 writ petitions is in respect of the status of the institution. Before the coming into force of 1982 Act which made a provision for the first time for holding selections in High Schools and Intermediate Colleges recognized under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, the institutions up to the level of Junior High School were upgraded and upon a upgradation as a High School or Intermediate College as the case may be, the employees of such institutions were given the benefit of upgradation and were absorbed as employees of the High School and Intermediate College respectively in terms of the provisions contained in Regulation 4 of Chapter II of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. After the coming into force of the 1982 Act, no appointment to the post of Teachers or Head of the institution could be made except upon the recommendation of the Commission presently known as the Selection Board, as per Section 16 of the said Act. 24. What comes in between is the consideration the impact of recognition granted to a Junior High School to run High School and Intermediate classes under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and the Regulations framed thereunder. This question arose in a matter in the year 1979 when the Selection Board Act 1982 had not been enacted by the legislature. 24. What comes in between is the consideration the impact of recognition granted to a Junior High School to run High School and Intermediate classes under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and the Regulations framed thereunder. This question arose in a matter in the year 1979 when the Selection Board Act 1982 had not been enacted by the legislature. The question of up-gradation of an institution to the level of High School and Intermediate College was considered in detail vis-a-vis the applicability of the Payment of Salary Act. Needless to mention that in respect of Teachers of High Schools and Intermediate level, U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 is applicable for the purposes of payment of salary whereas in respect of Junior High Schools, U.P. Act No. 6 of 1979 has been made applicable. This Court finding a conflict between 2 Division Benches referred the matter to a Full Bench which decision is reported in State of U.P. and others v. District Judge, Varanasi and others, 1981 UPLBEC 336, wherein this Court went on to hold as follows : "17. A basic school or a Junior High School is thus different from a High School or an Intermediate College. On the plain language of these definitions the same institution cannot be called a basic school or a Junior High School as well as a High School or an Intermediate College. Each one has a distinct legal entity. On a basic school or a Junior High School being upgraded as a High School or an Intermediate College the identity of the institution known as basic school or Junior High School is lost. It ceases to exist as a legal entity and in its place another institution with a new legal entity comes into being. One cannot be equated with the other. In this connection reformance may also be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner, Lucknow Division v. Km. Prem Lata Misra, AIR 1971 SC 334. It would further be seen that administration including constitution of Committee of Management of an institution recognized under U.P. Act 11 of 1921 is to be carried out in accordance with a Scheme of Administration prepared under Section 16-A of the said Act and this section does not apply to a basic school or a Junior High School. It would further be seen that administration including constitution of Committee of Management of an institution recognized under U.P. Act 11 of 1921 is to be carried out in accordance with a Scheme of Administration prepared under Section 16-A of the said Act and this section does not apply to a basic school or a Junior High School. For all these persons and in the absence of any specific provisions in this behalf none having been pointed out to us maintenance grant payable to the basic school or Junior High School which has been upgraded as High School cannot and does not automatically became payable to the recognized High School. Suppose after a Basic School or a Junior High School has been upgraded as a recognized High School, the State Government stops payment of the amount of maintenance grant which was being paid to the basic school, can the recognized High School claim as a matter of right that the said amount has become automatically payable to it. The answer, in the absence of any specific provision permitting such automatic formation, so to speak till, in our opinion, have to be in the negative. Such a recognized High School will have to wait maintenance grant payable to it as a recognized High School has been fixed as contemplated by Section 2 (c) of U.P. Act 24 of 1972. Consequently, even if the maintenance grant payable to a basic school or a Junior High School is continued to be paid to those who were managing the erstwhile basic school or Junior High School it cannot be said that the upgraded recognized High School is receiving any maintenance grant as defined in Section 2 (c) of U.P. Act 24 of 1971.” 25. It was further held that in such a situation the grant-in-aid which was available to a Junior High School does not automatically become available to High School or Intermediate College. It was further held that in such a situation the grant-in-aid which was available to a Junior High School does not automatically become available to High School or Intermediate College. Realizing this difficulty having arisen on account of the interpretation given by the Full Bench, an amendment was brought about by introducing Section 13-A in U.P. Junior High Schools (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978 (U.P. Act No. 6 of 1979), which is to the following effect : [“13-A. Transitory provisions in respect of certain upgraded institutions.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the provisions of this Act shall, mutatis mutandis apply, to an institution which is upgraded to High School or Intermediate standard and, to such teachers and other employees thereof in respect of whose employment maintenance grant is paid by the State Government to such institution. (2) For the purposes of this section the reference to the students wherever they occur in Section 5, shall be construed as reference to the students of classes up to Junior High School level only.] 26. This Section was introduced as a transitory provision in order to meet the contingency of an institution which was receiving grant-in-aid up to the Junior High School level but was not extended this benefit of the level of High School. This was consciously done by the legislature keeping in view the difficulties that had arisen in such a situation and in view of the Full Bench decision referred to herein above. 27. However, observations made by the Full Bench to the effect that the Junior High School looses its identity when a High School comes into existence, still holds the field. No amendment has been brought about by the legislature in the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 to exclude the applicability of the Act on the employees of such an upgraded institution. 28. It is in the aforesaid background that the impact of recognition having been granted to the institution in question has to be considered. Copies of the recognition orders as communicated to the institution in question dated 1.8.1992 and 14.9.1995 have been handed down to the court about which there is no dispute. 28. It is in the aforesaid background that the impact of recognition having been granted to the institution in question has to be considered. Copies of the recognition orders as communicated to the institution in question dated 1.8.1992 and 14.9.1995 have been handed down to the court about which there is no dispute. A perusal of the order dated 1.8.1992 indicates that the recognition had been granted by the State Government on the recommendation of the recognition Committee and the U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Examinations under Section 7-A (a) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. One of the conditions of the said recognition is that in future only part time Teachers shall be appointed for teaching in the classes which will come into existence as a result of the said recognition. Part time teachers are appointed under Section 7-AA of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The recognition order further provides that one Headmaster/Principal shall be appointed in accordance with Rules. It further provides that all financial liabilities in respect of such appointments shall be borne by the management itself. In essence, the recognition is an unaided recognition. The recognition for running Intermediate classes vide order dated 14.9.1995 is also to the same effect. 29. A perusal of the aforesaid documents and the provisions of Section 2 (b) and 2 (d) coupled with the ratio of the decision of the Full Bench referred to herein above, it is evident that the institution binds itself to be governed by the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and the Regulations made thereunder. The recognition and financial aid are 2 different things; the institution which has been recognized as High School or Intermediate College may not be receiving grant-in-aid and in such a situation it is only the Payment of Salaries Act i.e. U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 would not be applicable, but after having been recognized by the State Government under Section 7-A (a) the institution is governed by the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and the Regulations framed thereunder. As a necessary corollary to the same, since the appointments to the post of Teachers have to be made by way of selection and recommendations under the 1982 Act, the said Act would also apply to the institution. 30. As a necessary corollary to the same, since the appointments to the post of Teachers have to be made by way of selection and recommendations under the 1982 Act, the said Act would also apply to the institution. 30. Learned Standing Counsel for the State invited the attention of the Court to a Government order dated 24.11.2001 which provides that the matters relating to the service conditions of such employees of an upgraded institution shall continue to be dealt with by the Basic Education Officer and an action required to be taken would be under 1978 Rules pertaining to the employees of a Junior High School. It further indicates that for administrative purposes, even though the Junior High School and the upgraded institution are being run under a single Management, they shall be treated to be different Units. There is another provision in the said Government Order indicating the applicability of the Rules pertaining to compassionate appointment. 31. The aforesaid Government Order became subject matter of scrutiny in 2 decisions of this Court. Clause 5 of the said Government order was found to be in consistent with the provision of U.P. Intermediate Education Act and was held to be ultra vires in the decision of Ramesh Singh v. State of U.P. and others, in Writ Petition No. 17422 of 2003 decided on 23.5.2003. 32. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of the Court the Government Order dated 23.11.2001 issued by the Principal Secretary, Education, in respect of the dependents of Teachers, who have died-in-harness while serving in the primary section attached to an Intermediate College. This Government Order clearly recites that the primary sections attached to Intermediate Colleges are part and parcel of the institution and, as such, the dependents of such Teachers, who have died-in-harness while working in the primary section are entitled to seek appointment from the District Inspector of Schools for which Rules and Regulations are contained in Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. Thus, even for primary schools the State Government recognizes the applicability of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act on such Teachers. The said Government Order is only by way of an illustration, as the present case is a case of upgradation of a Junior High School to High School. 33. Thus, even for primary schools the State Government recognizes the applicability of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act on such Teachers. The said Government Order is only by way of an illustration, as the present case is a case of upgradation of a Junior High School to High School. 33. The Intermediate Education Act, 1921 makes a provision for consideration of promotion of Teachers in JTC and BTC grade to CT grade. Since CT grade has been declared to be a dying cadre, therefore, the said benefits are available as a LT grade Teachers. This provision is contained in Regulation 7 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. The regulations had been deleted but have been reintroduced through a Government Order dated 26.2.2003 and 1.12.2003 whereby the aforesaid Regulations were amended. The said amendments are subject matter of controversy before this Court in Special Appeal No. 931 of 2005 in which orders are operating in favour of such promotees in the LT grade. The reference to the aforesaid is relevant in the context of the decision of this Court in the case of Samantika Chaterjee v. R.I.G.S., Allahabad, (1990) 1 UPLBEC 289, and in the case of Smt. Aruna Ghosh reported in 1995 (3) ESC 92. The aforesaid decisions consider the impact of the amendment brought about in the word institution in Section 2 (b) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and qualified that the previous decisions as referred to therein including the decision in the case of Pramila Mishra by the Apex Court had not considered the aforesaid amendment brought about in the definition referred to herein above. 34. The question as to whether what would be the provisions applicable upon an up gradation and have been recognized under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act even if remain unaided arose in the case of Shiksha Prasar Samiti Babhnan, district-Gonda v. State of U.P. and others which decision is reported in (1986) UPLBEC 477. The Court clearly held that once the institution was upgraded, the mode and Rule of recruitment was to be governed by the provisions of the Removal of Difficulties Orders, 1981 and the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 read with the provisions of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982. 35. The Court clearly held that once the institution was upgraded, the mode and Rule of recruitment was to be governed by the provisions of the Removal of Difficulties Orders, 1981 and the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 read with the provisions of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982. 35. A question arose with regard to applicability of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act in respect of appointment of class 3 post in an upgraded institution. This Court clearly ruled that the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 would apply and followed the ratio laid down in the case of Shiksha Prasar Samiti (supra). The decision is reported in 2000 (4) ESC 2768, R.C. Sharma v. State of U.P. and others. 36. This issue was further raised in the case of Vishwanath Singh v. District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur and others, 1995 (1) UPLBEC 269. In para 12 of the said decision, the Court clearly ruled that in case the institution is upgraded to High School then it will be governed by the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act instead of other provisions which might have been applicable earlier to the Teachers of the Junior High School. 37. Once the institution is recognized under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, the institution binds itself with the terms and conditions of recognition which includes the applicability of the Act itself. It is not open to the institution to change its option in respect of the applicability of Rules and Regulations in view of the binding force of the Act which provides that an institution so recognized, shall be governed by the provisions of the same Act. The Intermediate Education Act does not carve out any exception for the applicability of Rules to the employees and the institution of the earlier Junior High School which stands upgraded. 38. In the recent case namely Shree Krishna Tripathi and another v. District Basic Education Officer, Kanpur Nagar and another, a single Judge passed an order allowing a class-III employee to continue up to the age of 60 years, who had been appointed as an employee of an earlier Junior High School. The institution was upgraded as a High School but was unaided. The learned single Judge allowed the continuance of the class-III employees up to the age of 60 years which provided under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The institution was upgraded as a High School but was unaided. The learned single Judge allowed the continuance of the class-III employees up to the age of 60 years which provided under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The State went up in appeal being Special Appeal No. 170 of 2005 which appeal is pending in which on 18.2.2005 the following order was passed : "This appeal and the application is preferred from an order of Hon’ble Single Judge passed on 13.1.2005 whereby opposite party No. 1, who was the writ petitioner in the Court below, was allowed to continue to serve the School in question up to the year 2006 when he would attain the age of 60 years. The controversy arises because of a Vitta Vihin i.e. grantless upgradation and recognition granted to the School by an order, which is annexed to page 64 of the Annexures to the papers put before us, the said order being of 19.2.97. The argument of the appellants before us has run on this basis that as the recognition of the higher and upgraded status was granted without aid, it left the school to formulate its own administrative procedure and appointment without almost any supervision so far as the higher classes are concerned. However, as far as the junior high school is concerned, the school is wholly unaided and, therefore, the salary of opposite party No. 1 would be a burden on the Board, which is received for the lower class of the School. As such, the appellants feel aggrieved and their case that without the employee like opposite party No. 1, works in the junior section, his conditions of service including payment and retirement age should be governed by the U.P. Recognised Basic School Employees Rules, 1984 and not by the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The opposite party No. 1 has argued before us that after granting of the upgraded status whether such grant is Vitta Vihin or without aid, the whole institution gets an upgraded status and, therefore, the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 would be applicable for all employees whether working in upper classes or lower ones. The opposite party No. 1 has argued before us that after granting of the upgraded status whether such grant is Vitta Vihin or without aid, the whole institution gets an upgraded status and, therefore, the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 would be applicable for all employees whether working in upper classes or lower ones. There are certain authorities, which are before us today and which do support the case that once the institution is upgraded, it is so for all purposes and for all its parts and becomes completely separate entity; the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. District Judge, Varanasi and others, 1981 UPLBEC 336, at paragraph 17 supports this proposition. In the judgment, under appeal, a reliance has been placed upon the case of Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Babhanan, District Gonda v. State of U.P. and others, 1986 UPLBEC 477, which also supports this proposition. So far as our view at present is concerned, we do not find that there is any specific rule or any specific law to this effect, which would support the case of only controversial upgradation of School in case the upgradation is granted without any State aid. From the practical view to the situation, it appears that the employee, who is a Clerk has been reported to duty even during and after 2004 i.e. after his attainment of the age of 58 years. Probably, he has not received any salary as yet. In our prima facie view, the case leans very heavily in favour of opposite party No. 1, but not quite so heavily as for us to dismiss the appeal here and now. However, opposite party No. 1 deserves a very strong interim order. As such, we direct that notwithstanding pendency of this appeal, opposite party No. 1 be permitted to work for the post in which he was working before he attained the age of 58 years and such permission be continued to be accorded to him until he attains the age of 60 years. This order, needless to say, will bind all concerned including School Management, appellants, the Government and all its wings. This order, needless to say, will bind all concerned including School Management, appellants, the Government and all its wings. If and when, the appeal is decided, the court of appeal will have full jurisdiction to pass an order in accordance with law, but we specifically permit opposite party No. 1 to withdraw appropriate of salary, as if the appeal had been decided in his favour and all arrears of salary be paid to opposite party No. 1, positively, within a month. The application for compliance, if any, will be made before the Hon’ble Single Judge. It is, thus, clear from all the decisions cited herein above and the provisions discussed herein above that a Junior High School upgraded to the High School/Intermediate level, the institution is governed by the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act and Service Rules as applicable to such institution, have to be applied. There is no distinction drawn between an aided or an unaided school. The recognition of the institution is by itself sufficient to exclude the applicability of the laws governing Junior High School once the institution is upgraded. It is for this reason that a special transitory amending provision was brought in by way of Section 13-A in U.P. Act No. 6 of 1979 discussed herein above to enable such upgraded institution to continue to receive the grant-in-aid that they were receiving at the level of Junior High School. In view of the conclusions and findings recorded herein above, the issue raised on behalf of the petitioner has to be answered in the affirmative in favour of the petitioner. Consequently, the institutions where the respondents are proceeding to make an appointment on the post of the Head of the institution which is admittedly an upgraded institution, can only be made under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the Regulations framed thereunder coupled with the provisions of the U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 and such other provisions that are consistent with the law laid down herein above.” 39. Now coming to the fact of present case, in the present case also institution in question has been upgraded from Junior High School to High School and once institution in question was upgraded then by no stretch of imagination provisions of U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 and 1978 Rules could have been invoked for making selection and appointment on the post of Headmaster of the institution. The appointment of Headmaster, Ajay Pratap Rai is totally dehors the provision as contained in U.P. Act No. II of 1921, as such appointment of Ajay Pratap Rai cannot be sustained by any means and is hereby quashed. 40. One more important aspect of the matter is that in the present case both petitioner as well as Sri Ajai Pratap Rai have tried to make all sort of manipulation and maneuvering to show that they have been validly appointed as Headmaster of the institution. 41. In this regard qua manipulation made by Sri Krishna Dixit the matter is being adverted to. Sri Krishna Dixit, petitioner before this Court raised argument to the effect that on institution being upgraded, the provision of U.P. Act No. II of 1921 were applicable and appointment of Sri Ajay Pratap Rai was void, on the other hand Sri Krishna Dixit has also claimed his appointment in the same way and manner by way of direct recruitment. For the same reasons, appointment of Sri Krishna Dixit, that after upgradation the provision of U.P. Basic Education Act 1972 and 1978 Rules are not applicable, appointment of Sri Krishna Dixit also on the post of Headmaster by way of direct recruitment is held to be illegal by all means. 42. One more important major feature which has emerged in the present case is that Sri Krishna Dixit was undisputedly second senior most teacher and as such was promoted to function as officiating Headmaster on the strength of the resolution dated 4.4.1999. On 3.7.1999 petitioner Sri Krishna Dixit on the strength of resolution dated 4.4.1999, informed District Basic Education Officer that he has been functioning. District Basic Education Officer on 14.7.1999 based on the same authorized Sri Krishna Dixit for operation of the accounts. Petitioner at no point of time, while forwarding letter dated 3.7.1999 had given any reference of selection undertaken on substantive basis for the post of Headmaster by means of Advertisement dated 25.6.1999. District Basic Education Officer on 14.7.1999 based on the same authorized Sri Krishna Dixit for operation of the accounts. Petitioner at no point of time, while forwarding letter dated 3.7.1999 had given any reference of selection undertaken on substantive basis for the post of Headmaster by means of Advertisement dated 25.6.1999. Not only this Managing Committee on 2.5.1999 had shown to have passed resolution in favour of petitioner promoting him as Headmaster, and in the resultant vacancy so occurred, Assistant Teacher was to be appointed, wherein subsequently one Sri Sanjai Priyadarshi was shown to have been appointed. Once resolution, may be wrong had been passed for promoting the petitioner on substantive basis on 2.5.1999, then by no stretch of imagination it could be ever conceived of that simultaneously immediately after one month process of selection by way of direct recruitment for the same post of Headmaster was undertaken by means of Advertisement dated 6.6.1999. Entire proceedings are prima facie nothing but an outcome of manipulation and maneuvering. Original Newspaper, dated 6.6.1999 has been produced by Sri P.N. Saxena, Senior Advocate and also by Sri P.N. Tripathi Advocate both after perusal has been kept in sealed cover “A”. Page 7 of Newspaper is different. In the copy of Newspaper dated 6.6.1999 produced by Sri P.N. Saxena Senior Advocate there is no advertisement inviting application for selection and appointment on the post of Headmaster at page 7 or at any other page. In the copy produced by Sri P.N. Tripathi Advocate, at Page 7 advertisement is there, made by Raja Ram Vishwakarma inviting application for the post of Principal of the institution. Prima facie copy produced by Sri P.N.Tripathi Advocate appears to be manipulated as in the copy produced by Sri P.N. Saxena, Senior Advocate each and every page has been paginated in English, whereas in the copy produced by Sri P. N. Tripathi, Advocate page 7 is paginated in Hindi and rest of the pages are paginated in English in the same way and manner. All pages are identical except page No. 7 which has been prima facie changed. Petitioner when he filed, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 893 of 2000 then he has set up his theory of direct recruitment. Petitioner is teacher and in case he has involved himself in such acts then certainly he has disentitled himself to continue as teacher. All pages are identical except page No. 7 which has been prima facie changed. Petitioner when he filed, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 893 of 2000 then he has set up his theory of direct recruitment. Petitioner is teacher and in case he has involved himself in such acts then certainly he has disentitled himself to continue as teacher. Such conduct of petitioner requires thorough enquiry into the matter qua his continuance in service and if documents have been forged and fabricated then lodging of F.I.R. and consequential action, thereafter. 43. Proceeding further with the matter, now matter qua Sri Ajai Pratap Rai is being adverted to. Sri Ajai Pratap Rai has come out with case, that proposed promotion of petitioner had been disapproved by the District Basic Education Officer, on 1.6.2002, by mentioning that there is no provision of promotion and post of Headmaster is to be filled up by way of direct appointment and said post be filled up after taking due permission of Advertisement. Manager applied for permission on 12.12.2002, which was accorded on 4.1.2003, and post was Advertised in two Newspapers on 6.1.2003, wherein date of interview was fixed as 24.1.2003. On 18.1.2003, Manager requested for nominee, and on 23.1.2003 District Basic Education Officer nominated Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikari. Selection took place on 24.1.2003, papers were transmitted on 28.1.2003 and approval was accorded on 7.3.2003. At the first instance when short counter-affidavit dated 6.4.2003 was filed most surprisingly, the name of Newspapers, wherein Advertisement had been published was not at all disclosed. Before this Court, Sri P.N. Saxena, Senior Advocate has produced copy of Newspaper, Dainik Manvyar dated 6.1.2003 wherein at page 2 Advertisement for the post of Headmaster has been made. Receipt issued by Advertisement Manager dated 7.1.2003, has also been produced. Sri P.N.Tripathi, Advocate has also produced Newspaper of the same date i.e. 6.1.2003. Dainik Manvyar, and therein at page-2 most conspicuously different. News item has been published in place of Advertisement. Manipulation in copy of Newspaper supplied by Sri P.N. Saxena, Senior Advocate prima facie is apparent to naked eyes and is speaking for itself. Even the receipt copy of which has been supplied at the top shows that initially some other date was mentioned then same has been sought to be corrected. Copy of both these Advertisement and receipt is being kept in Seal “B”. Even the receipt copy of which has been supplied at the top shows that initially some other date was mentioned then same has been sought to be corrected. Copy of both these Advertisement and receipt is being kept in Seal “B”. Not only this, there is requirement of three years experience as teacher for being appointed as Headmaster of Junior High School under Rule 4(2)(c) of 1978 Rules. Large Scale manipulation appears to have been made. Ajai Pratap Rai in his affidavit dated 30.12.2003, has mentioned that he has worked as Assistant Teacher at Mahantha Ram Asrey Das Madhyamik Vidyalaya Madhuban Nagar, Laparey, Jaunpur since 1.7.1999 to June 2002 and said fact finds support from the certificate issued by the Principal of the college on 18.1.2003 and also from the attendance register of July 1999 to June 2002. Certificate dated 18.1.2003, certifying functioning of Sri Ajai Kumar Rai has been given by Manager Ram Daur Yadav. Sri Ram Daur Yadav, pursuant to letter written by petitioner has categorically informed that Sri Ajai Pratap Rai has never functioned in the institution and has never been appointed in the institution. Notarial Affidavit has also been given, by Sri Ram Daur Yadav, reiterating same statement of fact and further documents submitted in this regard be treated as forged. These documents have been filed as Annexure RA-2 and 3 to rejoinder affidavit filed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16925 of 2006, copy of which has been served on Sri R.M. Vishwakarma, Advocate on 4.5.2006 and qua which no dispute has been raised. In attendance register which has been appended at various places, Sri Ajai Pratap Rai who claims himself to be Assistant Teacher has appended his signature below Class IV employee. In the data list (Annexure RA-I and RA-II of Rejoinder affidavit dated 11.1.2004) maintained at Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Regional Office Varanasi, qua teachers of institution name of Sri Ajai Pratap Rai is conspicuously missing. All these circumstances mentioned above, prima facie speaks for itself, and until and unless there is nexus in between Manager, candidate and the District Basic Education Officer, such appointment is not at all feasible. All these circumstances mentioned above, prima facie speaks for itself, and until and unless there is nexus in between Manager, candidate and the District Basic Education Officer, such appointment is not at all feasible. District Basic Education Officer while according approval was duty bound to apply his mind to the fact as to whether the incumbent who was proceeding to make appointment had authority to make appointment, in view of backdrop of management dispute and whether pre-requisite terms and conditions of 1978 Rules was fulfilled or not and then take appropriate decision. Prima facie complicity of the then District Basic Education Officer cannot be ruled out, as prima facie as no exercise has been undertaken and same has to be subject matter of investigation. 44. Consequently in the present case, against Sri Krishna Dixit separate F.I.R. be lodged and qua Ajay Pratap Rai, Sri Raja Ram Vishwakarma and the then District Basic Education Officer who accorded approval on 7.3.2003, separate F.I.R. be lodged as these incumbents have prima facie indulged in manipulating/forging documents and as such District Inspector of Schools is directed to lodge First Information Report and thereafter let investigation be carried out in free, fair and transparent manner against all guilty persons who have indulged in such act and thereafter whatever the fate of criminal investigation be, the same be brought to its logical end. Two newspapers which are prima facie forged and fabricated papers, as per petitioner and contesting respondent No. 3 respectively are transmitted, through Chief Standing Counsel, Sri C.B. Yadav to be handed over to the Investigating Agency. 45. In the present case, appointment of Sri Ajay Pratap Rai was clearly dehors the Rules. Appointment letter had been issued to Sri Raja Ram Vishwakarma and signature had also been attested and on 20.3.2003, Sri Ajai Pratap Rai had tried to join but he could not join and was badly manhandled. The fact of the matter is that appointment letter had been issued in his favour, signature had also been attested, but he never functioned in the institution, and this is fortified from the circumstance that Sri Raja Ram Vishwakarma on 26.5.2005 asked Sri Krishna Dixit to hand over the charge to Sri Ajai Pratap Rai and Sri Krishna Dixit then apprised the Manager of interim order of this Court. There is voluminous documents on record to suggest that it was Sri Dixit who had functioned as Principal, at all point of time and not Sri Ajai Pratap Rai, filed alongwith rejoinder affidavit, copy of which has been served on Sri R.M. Vishwakarma, Advocate on 4.9.2003. On 20.6.2003, Additional Director of Education, Basic gave categorical direction for not ensuring salary to Sri Ajai Pratap Rai, but ignoring the same it appears salary has been ensured to Sri Ajai Pratap Rai. Consequently, Director of Education, Basic is directed to make enquiry qua the conduct of District Basic Education Officer and Finance and Accounts Officer, who have been responsible for ensuring payment of salary to Sri Ajai Pratap Rai, ignoring the fact that he was not functioning, there was order of status quo of this Court qua the office of Headmaster within next two months and thereafter transmit the said report to State Government for necessary follow up action. Sri Ajai Pratap Rai is directed to return the entire amount drawn by him by way of salary within next three months from the date of delivery of judgment failing which said amount shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue, by the concerned District Magistrate, where he is permanently residing. 46. In the present case, normally Sri Krishna Dixit by virtue of being senior most teacher would have been permitted to function as Headmaster of the institution but as prima facie he has indulged in manipulation and maneuvering as such in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Om Prakash Mann v. Director of Education (Basic) and others, 2006 AIR SCW 4548 wherein following observations have been made : "The appellant was appointed as Headmaster of the institute. The conduct of the appellant, therefore, must be role model. Considering the conduct of the appellant as revealed in the charge-sheet, in our view, the appellant has committed a grave misconduct which would warrant his termination from service.” 47. As such till the petitioner does not clear himself from the aforesaid charges Sri Krishna Dixit could not be permitted to function as Headmaster of the institution as Headmaster has to be role model and not the way and manner in which Sri Krishna Dixit prima facie has sought to conduct himself in the present case. 48. As such till the petitioner does not clear himself from the aforesaid charges Sri Krishna Dixit could not be permitted to function as Headmaster of the institution as Headmaster has to be role model and not the way and manner in which Sri Krishna Dixit prima facie has sought to conduct himself in the present case. 48. Consequently next senior most teacher eligible of the institution is directed to be handed over the charge of institution in place of Sri Krishna Dixit, till he is not cleared of the charges or till regular selection is made in accordance with law. 49. Now coming to the dispute qua management of the institution. Dispute which has been raised is pertaining to the period which has already come to an end. In this background parties to the dispute agree that with the passage of time dispute has been rendered as infructuous. 50. Keeping in view the dictum of Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Committee of Management Pt. J.L.N. Intermediate College v. Deputy Director of Education, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur, 2004(4) ESC 2257 (FB) the Regional Joint Director of Education is hereby directed to appoint Prabandha Sanchalak over the institution in question forthwith. Said Prabandha Sanchalak shall take over the charge of the institution forthwith. District Inspector of School shall determine the electoral college and further get the election held of the Committee of Management on the basis of electoral college so determined preferably within three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. In case any one has any grievance about electoral college/holding of elections, then after election is over liberty is given to them to raise objection before the Regional Committee constituted under Government Order dated 19.12.2000. Regional Committee shall take decision within next two months from the date of Receipt of the papers qua election. 51. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14612 of 2003 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16925 of 2006 are allowed, subject to observations and directions made above. Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 16546 of 2002, 54734 of 2002 and 16623 of 2003 are dismissed as infructuous, subject to observations and directions made above. ———