Hon’ble Shabihul Hasnain, J.—Heard Sri A.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Sri Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary on behalf of Committee of Management and Sri H.G.S. Parihar on behalf of opposite party Nos.5 to 9, who have been subsequently added as opposite parties through impleadment.2. The first petitioner Ram Ashish Chaudhary has been substituted by his wife Smt. Indrawati vide this Court’s orders dated 16.12.2004. Later on by amending the prayer for quashing the orders passed by Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari Sri G.P. Dinkar, Director of Education (Basic), U.P., contained in Annexure-7 has also been added. The State is thus represented by learned Standing Counsel.3. Petitioners who are three in number have filed this petition for payment of regular salary and arrears.4. The contention of the petitioner in short is that they were working in the College before the College was taken in grant in aid and their names were forwarded by the Committee of Management for payment of salary which is not being made. For proper adjudication of the case, the brief narration of the facts as borne out from the contents of various affidavits which have been filed by the parties will be required which is as follows:5. Recognition was granted to the institution w.e.f. 1.7.1981 vide letter dated 20.1.1982 issued by Deputy Director of Education, Faizabad. According to the averments, petitioner No.1 was appointed on 1.7.1980, petitioner No.2 on 1.10.1986 and petitioner No.3 was appointed on 20.7.1980. Committee of Management, the opposite party No.3 applied for getting the aid from U.P. Government and the school was taken in the list of grant in aid in the year 1996. Petitioners claim that their names were included in the list of ‘teachers’.6. According to petitioners, they were appointed by the opposite party No.4 and they are still working. Through Annexure-5 the petitioners have tried to show that vide letter dated 15.2.1993 written by the Director of Education (Basic) two objections were raised. One of them regarding grant in aid and the Teachers being in excess and the second that approval of the Head Master was doubtful. The Basic Shiksha Adhikari vide his letter dated 1st March, 1993, contained in Annexure-5 gave a clarification that there was no question of there being any excess Teacher and the appointment of the Head Master was valid. The Basic Shiksha Adhikari vide his letter dated 1st March, 1993, contained in Annexure-5 gave a clarification that there was no question of there being any excess Teacher and the appointment of the Head Master was valid. The allegation of the petitioners is that the Manager-the opposite party No.4 at the time of sending the names in the Managers’ Report did not include two names of the petitioners, although they were already working. Only nine names were sent by the Manager and services of only 6 teachers were regularized. Since the name of petitioners were not in the report hence their services were not regularized by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari.7. The crucial question, therefore, that remains to be decided by this Court is whether the petitioners were working prior to the date when the institution came in grant-in-aid and their names were wrongly excluded from the list of Managers Report or the Managers Report was correct and the petitioners names have rightly been excluded from the list. The controversy is more in factual nature than the legal one. It is settled that in case the name of the petitioners is not included in the Managers’ report at the time of grant-in-aid, the officers of the State namely Basic Shiksha Adhikari is not under any obligation to pay salary to the Teachers. In the course of time the Basic Shiksha Adhikari passed an order ignoring the earlier objections of the Regional Committee on the basis of Manager’s report dated 17.10.1992 passed an order for payment of salary to the petitioners namely Ramashish Chaudhary, Akhilesh Kumar and Ram Achal Chaudhary. This order dated 6.10.1997 of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari for payment of salary has been annexed as Annexure-10 to this writ petition. While passing this order, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari has stated that the aforesaid order was being passed in compliance of the Court’s orders dated 19.5.1997. He further stated that on the basis of inquiry conducted by the Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikari and the Manager’s report dated 17.10.1992 and also the fact that the then Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Sri Banke Tewari had confirmed the documents regarding 14 employees to be correct, It was decided that the salary should be paid to the petitioners.8. This order of the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari was challenged by the Management before the State as well as the Director of Education (Basic), Govt. This order of the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari was challenged by the Management before the State as well as the Director of Education (Basic), Govt. of U.P. Counter affidavit on behalf of Management was also filed. According to the contents of the counter affidavit the Director of Education called the petitioners, Management and also the District Basic Education Officer as well as Deputy Director of Education (Basic) and afforded opportunity of personal hearing to all the concerned including the petitioners. The petitioners appeared before the Director of Education and the Director of Education considered the documentary evidences as well as recorded oral statement of the petitioners and thereafter decided the matter by holding that the order passed by the District Basic Education Officer dated 6.10.1997 was absolutely illegal and the petitioners are not entitled for payment of salary under the Payment of Salaries Act, 1978.9. The Director of Education also recorded his finding that the District Basic Education Officer vide order dated 3.11.1997 has regularized the services of Sri Brijendra Prased Chaudhary as Head Master and Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sri Satya Narain Mishra, Sri Ansar Ali and Sri Tribhuwan Narain Dwivedi as Assistant Teacher, Sri Shiv Kumar Tripathi as Clerk and Sri Ram Chet Yadav, Sri Ram Sewak Yadav and Sri Gajraj Verma as peon and in the report sent by the Management in the year 1996 only the name of the above mentioned persons were mentioned and the name of the petitioners were not mentioned in the said report.10. The Director of Education also mentioned that Sri Sheetala Prasad Maurya, Deputy Basic Education Officer, Faizabad/Ambedkar Nagar vide letter dated 18.7.1998 explained that while he working as District Basic Education Officer (incharge) he had appointed Sri Banke Tewari as Inquiry Officer and on the basis of enquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer, he had passed order dated 6.10.1997.11. The Director of Education also mentioned that for disposal of the matter the date was fixed on 15.10.2003 in the camp office at Nishatganj, Lucknow and the Director of Education (Basic) asked the petitioner Akhilesh Yadav as what subject was being taught by him in the institution, then he told that he teaches Hindi subject in Class VI, History subject in Class VIII and English subject in Class VII and when it was asked about the location of teachers room, he could not properly reply about the same.12. It has further been stated by the Director of Education that when the petitioner Ram Bachan Verma was asked as to since when he is not reporting in the institution, he could not reply the correct date. When the Director of Education asked as upto which date he attended the institution then Sri Ram Bachan Verma told that he had joined the institution on 27.7.1989 and no approval was granted to his appointment and only the appointment order was issued. He further stated that since 1993 he left the institution.13. It is also mentioned in the order of the Director of Education that when the petitioner Ram Ashish Chaudhary was asked as to when he had joined the institution, Sri Ram Ashish Chaudhary said that he had joined in the institution on 1.7.1980 and since 1995-96 he has left the institution.14. In the order of the Director of Education it is thereafter mentioned that in the institution in question no order was passed creating additional post and the order dated 6.10.1997 passed by then District Basic Education Officer was passed without examining the department rules, government orders and the material evidences and only on the basis of alleged Management Report sent in the year 1992 which was based on incorrect facts. The Director of Education also held that the District Basic Education Officer had not examined the facts that when the earlier Manager had regularized the teachers of the institution, why these three teachers of the institution were not regularized whereas they are said to have been working since very inception of the institution. The Director of Education has also held that the District Basic Education Officer has not examined that Manager’s Report, sent in the year 1982, was not accepted by the State Level Committee on the basis of the report submitted by the Regional Committee to the effect that 5 Teachers were in excess to the norms and further their approval order was forged and on the basis of the alleged Management Report of 1992, the petitioners were not found entitled for being taken into the list of grant-in-aid. Only after the Manager’s Report submitted in the year 1994 including 4 Teachers and one Head Master and other staff the institution was taken into the list of grant-in-aid and as such the order passed by the District Basic Education Officer was declared as illegal.15. Only after the Manager’s Report submitted in the year 1994 including 4 Teachers and one Head Master and other staff the institution was taken into the list of grant-in-aid and as such the order passed by the District Basic Education Officer was declared as illegal.15. Management has filed counter affidavit on 3.12.1997 in which it has annexed, Annexure No.CA-1 as letter dated 20.12.1994 sent by the then Manager of the Institution showing the details of Teachers and other staff of the institution in which the name of the petitioners do not find place. The management has also filed appointment orders of the opposite party No.5 to 9 and one Clerk and 3 peons as Annexure No.CA-2 to CA-10 who were appointed in the institution. Those appointment letters contained proper dispatch number and date. The Management has also filed the copy of the attendance register of various years as Annexure No.CA-11 starting from the year 1980 upto 1995-96 which was duly countersigned by the authorities of Education Department and in these attendance registers also the name of petitioners do not find place.16. Counter affidavit to the amended paras of the writ petition was also filed by the Committee of Management for which the petitioners have not filed any rejoinder affidavit.17. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, affidavits and the arguments it becomes clear that the petitioners’ name was never forwarded by the management in the Manager’s Report hence the question of payment of salary does not arise to the petitioners at all. Moreover, a detailed inquiry has been conducted by the Director of Education (Basic) in which opportunity to all the parties was given including the petitioners. Director besides being independent officer is also the highest authority in the Basic Education Department. His conclusions are based on irrefutable documentary and oral evidence, which has not been conveniently replied by the petitioners.18. Accordingly, this petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.(Petition dismissed)_