Heard Sri H.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, Advocate for respon¬dent No.4 and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for following reliefs: "(I) A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records of the case and quashing the impugned order of the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Mathura dated 23-10-2002 (approving the selection and appoint¬ment of Respondent No.4), letter of appoint¬ment dated 24-10-2002 (Annexure-5) issued by Manager of the institution to Respondent No.4 appointing him as Head Master of the institution and the entire selection proceed¬ings in respect of the post of Head Master of Shri Narain Das Vidya Mandir, Raipura, Jat, Mathura, in which Respondent No. 4 has been alleged to be selected. (II) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the concerned respon¬dent to hold fresh selection against the post of Head Master of Shri Narain Das Vidya Mandir, Raipura, Jat, Mathura in accordance with law. (III) Any other writ, order or direction to which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case. (IV) Award the cost of the petition. (V) To issue a suitable writ order or direc¬tion including a writ in the nature of Quo-Warranto declaring the Respondent No.4 is not entitled to hold post office of the Head Master of the Institution and his appointment against the said post is nullity. (VI) To issue a suitable writ order or direc¬tion including a writ in the nature of Manda¬mus directing the concerned Respondents and the State Authorities to recover the amount of money paid to Respondent No.4 as salary from Respondent No.4 and other Respondents and Authorities responsible for making payment of salary to Respondent No. 4." 3. This Court on 25th November, 2010 had noticed two preliminary objections, which were raised by Sri V.K. Singh, learned coun¬sel for respondent No.4 as well as reply sub¬mitted thereto. 4. The Court may, therefore, deal with the preliminary objections raised first. 5. On behalf of respondent No.4 it is con¬tended that the petitioner has no locus to maintain the present writ petition in view of the fact that he was not a candidate for the post and therefore, writ petition filed by him ought not be entertained. For the puipose. The Court may, therefore, deal with the preliminary objections raised first. 5. On behalf of respondent No.4 it is con¬tended that the petitioner has no locus to maintain the present writ petition in view of the fact that he was not a candidate for the post and therefore, writ petition filed by him ought not be entertained. For the puipose. a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 9th November, 2009 passed in Special Ap¬peal (Defective) No. 1172 of 2009 (Km. Vijeta Tripathi v. State of U.P. & others) has been relied upon. 6. Since the judgment in the special ap¬peal is short judgment, it would be appropri¬ate to reproduce the same herein below. "Respondent No. 7 - appellant, aggrieved by order dated 18.09.2009 passed by learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 50482 of 2009, has preferred this appeal un¬der Rule 5 Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. The order impugned looks innocuous as the writ petition has been disposed of with a direction to the Director of Education to ex¬amine the matter under Section 16-E (10) of the Intermediate Education Act. Mr. Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, ap¬pearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that as the writ petitioner-respondent No.7 (hereinafter referred to as the 'writ peti¬tioner'), was not a claimant to the posts held by the appellant as also respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6, the grievance raised by him about their illegal appointments does not give him a per¬sonal cause so as to file a writ petition cogni¬zable by a Single Judge, He submits that in case the writ petitioner attempted to question their appointments, he should have filed a pub¬lic interest litigation and that too was not fit to be entertained, as the issue relates to the ser¬vice matter." Be that as it may, as the writ petitioner was not a candidate for appointment, the writ pe¬tition filed by him ought not to have been en¬tertained by the learned Single Judge on this ground alone. Accordingly, we set aside the order dated 18.09.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge, giving liberty to the writ petitioner to take recourse to any other proceeding permis¬sible in law. In the result, appeal is allowed with the observation aforesaid." 7. Accordingly, we set aside the order dated 18.09.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge, giving liberty to the writ petitioner to take recourse to any other proceeding permis¬sible in law. In the result, appeal is allowed with the observation aforesaid." 7. From a reading of the aforesaid Divi¬sion Bench judgment, it is apparently clear that the Court held that since the writ peti¬tioner was not a candidate for the post, the writ petition ought not to have been enter¬tained. This observation has to be read in the background of the facts noticed in first three paragraphs of the judgment, wherein the Court has recorded the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant to the effect that the writ petitioner was not a claimant to the post. It is in this background that the Court held that petition at her behalf ought not to have been entertained. 8. In the facts of the present case, it has been amply demonstrated before this Court that the petitioner is a claimant for the post in ques¬tion. According to the petitioner, the vacancy was not advertised in accordance with Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Con¬ditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules, 1978") and therefore, he could not submit his appli-cation. This contention of the petitioner has been replied on behalf of respondent No.4 by contending that the petitioner himself made an application in writing in response to the ad¬vertisement published. It, therefore, does not lie in the mouth of the respondent No.4 to con¬tend that the petitioner was not a claimant for the post in question. Consequently, the first pre¬liminary objection raised on behalf of the peti¬tioner is rejected. 9. The second preliminary objection raised on behalf of respondent No.4 is that the peti¬tioner has not approached this Court with clean hands inasmuch as he had made an ap¬plication for the post in his own hand writ¬ing, but wrongly stated in the present writ petition that he was not aware of the adver¬tisement. This stand is false, inasmuch as if the petitioner was not aware of the advertise¬ment, there was no occasion for him to make an application. 10. This stand is false, inasmuch as if the petitioner was not aware of the advertise¬ment, there was no occasion for him to make an application. 10. The objection so raised on behalf of respondent No.4 is opposed by learned coun¬sel for the petitioner by contending that the alleged application is not in his own hand¬writing and it is prepared document only for the purposes of frustrating the present pro¬ceedings. The application is stated to be dated 15th July, 2002 when the last date for mak¬ing of the application under the alleged ad¬vertisement was 25th June, 2002. 11. This Court is not required to enter into the disputed issues of fact qua making of the application by the petitioner, inasmuch as it may ultimately require opinion of Hand Writ¬ing Expert and other evidence to be consid-ered. In the opinion of the Court, it would be appropriate, to only record that in the facts of he present case, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner is not guilty of deliberately filing a false affidavit before this Court or of not ap-proaching this Court with clean hands. Con¬sequently, the second preliminary objection raised on behalf of respondent No.4 is also rejected. 12. One additional preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of respondent No.4 to¬day i.e. the present writ petition suffers from laches, inasmuch as selection had taken place in the year 2002 and the present writ petition has been filed in the year 2003. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 22nd November, 2010 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38703 of 2006 (Guru Narain Singh v. State of U.P. & others) (reported in (2011) 84 All LR 160). 13. In order to deal with the aforesaid ob¬jection, it may be recorded that according to respondent No.4, his appointment as headmas¬ter of the institution was approved by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari on 23rd October, 2002 and he joined the institution on 1st November, 2002. The writ petition has been presented before this Court on 14th October, 2003 with the allegation that the petitioner was earlier given to understand that the respondent No.4 had been appointed by way of transfer and it is only when he was informed that such appoint¬ment has been made by direct recruitment, that the present writ petition has been filed. 14. 14. Be that as it may, this Court holds that the petitioner cannot be said to have slept over his rights nor can it be said that the writ peti¬tion suffers from unexplained laches, so as to defeat his right under Article 226 of the Con-stitution of India. So far as the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 22nd November, 2010 referred to above is concerned, this Court may record that the learned Single Judge had held in that case that there was undue delay and laches of more than two and half years. Reference paragraph-7 of the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 22nd November, 2010 and therefore the writ petition was not entertained. 15. The facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable and therefore, the judgment is of no help. NOW ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE 16. Sri Narain Das Vidya Mandir, Raipura Jat, District Mathura is a recognized and aided junior high school. The provisions of Rules, 1978 are admittedly applicable to the teachers of the said institution. Petitioner before this Court claims to be working in the said institu¬tion since 1974 and is stated to be possessed of the following teaching qualifications (a) Bachelor of Arts and (b) Basic Teaching Cer¬tificate Course. The vacancy on the post of headmaster of the institution was caused on 30th June, 1997 with the retirement of Gopi Chandra Shashtri, the regular headmaster. It is in respect of this vacancy and the appoint¬ment made against the same of respondent No.4 that the present writ petition has been filed. In the writ petition it has been stated that under Rule 7 of Rules, 1978, the vacancy is to be advertised in two newspapers, one having adequate circulation throughout the State and other at the local level. Since the advertise¬ment in terms of Rule 7 of Rules, 1978 was not made, the petitioner could not apply. Sub¬sequently, it was brought to his notice that the respondent No.4 has been appointed in the in¬stitution by direct recruitment with the ap¬proval of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. He has, therefore, approached this Court with the prayers as quoted herein above. 17. It is further contended that no selection infact has taken place in the institution and only papers have been manufactured suggest¬ing the selection of respondent No.4. He has, therefore, approached this Court with the prayers as quoted herein above. 17. It is further contended that no selection infact has taken place in the institution and only papers have been manufactured suggest¬ing the selection of respondent No.4. Lastly it is submitted that the respondent No.4 was not possessed of the prescribed minimum qualifi¬cations as per Rule 4 of Rules, 1978 and was therefore, ineligible to be appointed as head¬master in the said institution. It is explained that respondent No.4 had never worked in any recognised junior high school and therefore, he has no teaching experience as required un¬der Rule 4 (2) (c) of Rules, 1978. The certifi¬cate relied upon by respondent No.4 for es¬tablishing his teaching experience qua work¬ing in a recognised junior high school is only a waste paper, inasmuch as said respondent No.4 has failed to establish that he was ever appointed in the recognised junior high school with the approval of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, which is a condition precedent for any valid appointment in a recognised junior high school. It is further stated that respondent No.4 has to his credit a degree of B.Ed, only, when un¬der Rule 4 (2) he has to have a training quali-fication such as Hindustani Teaching Certifi¬cate, Junior Teaching Certificate, Certificate of Training or Basic Teaching Certificate etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the legal position with regard to B.Ed, degree being not equivalent to Hindustani Teaching Certificate, Junior Teaching Certificate, Cer¬tificate of Training or Basic Teaching Certifi¬cate etc., has already been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohd. Sartaj v. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in 2006 (1) JT 331 : ((2006) 2 ALJ 234: AIR 2006 SC 3492 ). It has been laid down that essential qualifications for recruitment to the post are to be seen/satisfied on the date of recruitment and not on any later point of time. Reference is made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission & Ors., reported in 2008 (4) ALJ 207 : ( AIR 2008 SC 1817 : 2008 Lab 1C 2596), wherein the judgment in the case of Mohd. Reference is made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission & Ors., reported in 2008 (4) ALJ 207 : ( AIR 2008 SC 1817 : 2008 Lab 1C 2596), wherein the judgment in the case of Mohd. Sartaj (supra) has been approved and it has been further held that essential qualifi¬cations for recruitment to a post, if not satis¬fied at the time of recruitment, the same can¬not be condoned. Such acts cannot be recti¬fied, appointment contrary to the Statute/statu¬tory Rules would be void and illegality, in that regard, cannot be regularized. 18. Faced with the aforesaid contention, Sri R.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate appear¬ing for respondent No.4 contends that peti¬tioner after making the application did not par¬ticipate in the selection and therefore, it is not open for him to challenge the selection. It is then contended that teaching experience cer¬tificate produced by respondent No.4 is from a recognized junior high school, which has rightly been held to be valid for the purposes of satisfying the requirement of Section 4 (2) (c) of Rules, 1978. With regard to the aca¬demic qualifications, legal proposition as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Sartaj (2006 (2) ALJ 234: ( AIR 2006 SC 3492 ) (supra) could not be disputed. However, it is explained that by subsequent amendment made in 2008, a degree of B.Ed, has now been included as valid teachers train¬ing course under Rule 4 (2) (b) and therefore, as on date respondent No.4 is qualified for the post in question. It is further stated that the original records pertaining to the selection have already been examined by this Court after sum¬moning the same from the office of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari including the advertisement and therefore, this Court may not interfere in the writ petition. 19. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present writ petition. 20. In terms of the order dated, 25th No¬vember, 2010, the Court has examined the original records as produced by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. It may be recorded that the vacancy was advertised in two newspapers published from Agra, namely, Aaj and Swaraj Time. 20. In terms of the order dated, 25th No¬vember, 2010, the Court has examined the original records as produced by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. It may be recorded that the vacancy was advertised in two newspapers published from Agra, namely, Aaj and Swaraj Time. There is no material, which could sub¬stantiate that Swaraj Time is local newspa¬per, so far as the city of Mathura is concerned. The notice was sent to the applicants by reg¬istered post only on 23rd September, 2002, when the interview was fixed for 29th Sep¬tember, 2002 i.e. just six days prior to the date of interview. From the interview-sheet this Court finds that as against 13 applicants, can¬didates empanelled at serial Nos. 1, 8, 9 and 12 did not have any teaching experience, can¬didates empanelled at serial Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were shown as absent, candidate empanelled at serial No.6 was shown as under-age. Against the name of the petitioner, at serial No. 13, it is recorded stated that application has been re¬ceived by hand, but he did not participate in the selection. It is, thus, clear that only the candidates empanelled at serial Nos. 5,7, 10 and 11 i.e. in all four candidates were found eligible and all these four candidates possessed a degree of B.Ed only as teaching qualifica¬tion. Therefore, no candidate was eligible for being considered for appointment on the date of selection, qua the post as per Rules, 1978. 21. The Basic Shiksha Adhikari has been conferred the power of approval with an in¬tent to ensure that the statutory rules are com¬plied. Under the order of approval in this case, no relevant facts have been noticed. 22. This Court may only refer to Section 10 (5) of Rules, 1978, which deals with the power of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, after re¬ceipt of the recommendations of the Selection Committee qua appointment on the post of teachers under Rules, 1978. The same reads as follows: "10. Procedure for selection.— (5) (i) if the District Basic Education Of¬ficer is satisfied that— (a) the candidates recommended by the Selection Committee possess the minimum qualifications prescribed for the post: (b) the procedure laid down in these rules for the selection of Headmaster or Assistant Teacher, as the case may be. The same reads as follows: "10. Procedure for selection.— (5) (i) if the District Basic Education Of¬ficer is satisfied that— (a) the candidates recommended by the Selection Committee possess the minimum qualifications prescribed for the post: (b) the procedure laid down in these rules for the selection of Headmaster or Assistant Teacher, as the case may be. has been followed he shall accord approval to the rec¬ommendations made by the Selection Com¬mittee and shall communicate his decision to the Management within two weeks from the date or receipt of the papers under clause (4). (ii) If the District Basic Education Officer is not satisfied as aforesaid, he shall return the papers to the Management with the di¬rection that the matter shall be reconsidered by the Selection Committee. (iii) If the District Basic Education Officer does not communicate his decision within one month from the date of receipt of the papers under clause (4), he shall be deemed to have accorded approval to the recommendations made by the Selection Committee." 23. From reading of Section 10(5) it is clear that Rule making authority has taken care to provide that the Basic Shiksha Adhikari has to satisfy himself that (a) the candidate rec¬ommended by the Selection Committee satis¬fies the minimum qualifications prescribed for the post, (b) procedure prescribed has been followed, (c) and it is only then that he is re¬quired to take decision for approving the ap¬pointment, otherwise, he has to return the pa¬pers to the Management for fresh selections. 24. Entire selections would fall atomically on the ground that none of the candidates, on the date of selection, was possessed of the minimum prescribed qualifications i.e. teach¬ing qualification for being considered for ap¬pointment for the post of headmaster as per Rules, 1978. 25. This Court may also deal with the is¬sue with regard to the teaching experience claimed by respondent No.4. From the origi¬nal records pertaining to the selection, this Court finds that there is a teaching experi¬ence certificate, issued by the Principal of Sri Gajadhar Prasad Junior High School, Rui Ki Mandi, Shahganj, Agra, which records that respondent No.4 has been working in the said institution since 1st July, 1998 till May, 2002 and that he was on leave without pay between November, 2000 to July, 2001. Before this Court respondent No.4 could not demonstrate that his alleged appointment in Gajadhar Prasad Junior High School, which was a recognised junior high school was made with the approval of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. Rule 10 of Rules, 1978 clarifies that no ap-pointment in a recognised junior high school on the post of a teacher can be made except without prior approval of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. 26. It is held that any appointment made without there being any order of approval in writing would be a nullity. This Court, there¬fore, has no hesitation to hold that the teach¬ing experience pleaded by respondent No.4 on the strength of such illegal appointment is no experience in the eyes of law. 27. Therefore, it is recorded that (a) the respondent No.4 was not possessed of the academic qualifications prescribed for the post, (b) respondent No.4 was not possessed of the teaching experience as required under Rule 4 (2) (c) of Rules, 1978. On both the grounds he was completely ineligible to be appointed in the institution. 28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohd. Sartaj and Pramod Kumar (2008 (4) ALJ 207 : AIR 2008 SC 1817 ) (supra) has explained that all qualifi¬cations are to be seen on the date of appoint¬ment as per the rules applicable and if any appointment has been made in teeth of the statutory provisions, of a candidate not pos-sessed of the required qualifications, such appointment would be void and cannot be regularised at latter point of time. Any length of service on the strength of such illegal ap¬pointment will not have the effect of curing the defect in the appointment. 29. This Court, therefore, holds that re¬spondent No.4 was ineligible to be appointed on the date, he was recommended for the post and had been offered appointment as head¬master. 30. In support of the conclusion recorded, reference is made to the judgments of this Court in the following cases: (a) Committee of Management v. State of U.P. & others, reported in (2009) 1 UPLBEC 381, (b) Arun Kumar Chaturvedi v. State of U.P. & others, reported in 2009 (5) ESC 3573 : (2010(1) ALJ 467) (All). (c) Sanjay Kumar Tyagi v. State of U.P. & others; reported in 2005 (1) AWC 924 , (d) Akhilesh Kumar Pandey & Anr. (c) Sanjay Kumar Tyagi v. State of U.P. & others; reported in 2005 (1) AWC 924 , (d) Akhilesh Kumar Pandey & Anr. v. State of U.P. & others; Special Appeal No. 1306 of 2009 decided on 4th September, 2009 (Re¬ported in 2010 (1) ALJ (NOC) 6 : 2009 (83) AIR 857). (e) Smt. Gyanwati Devi v. State of U.P. & others; Civil Mis. Writ Petition No. 71210 of 2005 decided on 12th August, 2009. 31. This Court may record that any subse¬quent amendments made in the Rules, 1978 altering the minimum essential qualifications will not improve the case of respondent No.4, who on the date of selection/appointment was not eligible for the post as per the statutory rules applicable then. 32. For the reasons recorded above, the impugned orders dated 23rd October, 2002 and dated 24th October, 2002 cannot be le¬gally sustained and are hereby quashed. The present writ petition is allowed. Petition allowed.