JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri R.N. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the record. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 21.10.2011 passed by Director, Social Welfare Department, Government of U.P. observing that appointment of petitioner is founded on forged and fictitious documents and, therefore, his appointment is void and illegal. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by letter of appointment dated 11.6.1984 the Manager of Harijan Primary Pathshala Bhedkul, Sultanpur, District Mau (hereinafter referred to as the “School”) appointed petitioner as Assistant Teacher w.e.f. 11.6.1984 and pursuant thereto petitioner joined on 12.6.1984. An inquiry was also conducted whereafter petitioner’s appointment was not found forged and fictitious, hence entire finding recorded against petitioner is incorrect. 4. The question of validity of petitioner’s appointment has been examined by Director, Social Welfare Department and in the impugned order it has been discussed and observed that his name never find mention in the list of staffs approved while sanctioning grant-in-aid and information in this regard was given by Manager of the School through Headmaster, Sri Dev Chandra Prasad but he concealed relevant documents and instead submitted forged and fictitious documents in collusion with Social Welfare Supervisor, Sri Ram and the then Social Welfare Officer, Sri Mukteshwar Chaubey. The Director has held that petitioner’s alleged appointment illegal based on forged and fictitious documents. 5. I do not find any substantial reason to interfere with the aforesaid findings of Director since it is not shown to be perverse or contrary to record. 6. There are certain other aspect which shows apparent forgery in the matter relating to alleged appointment of petitioner. Petitioner claims to have passed High School in 1980 and Intermediate in 1982 from G.M.A.M. Inter College Benthera Road, Ballia. The School in question is a Junior Primary School recognised by Board of Basic Education under the provisions of U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 and the Rules framed thereunder. The School being a privately managed School, for the purpose of terms and conditions of recruitment etc. of its teaching staffs, it was governed by provisions of U.P. Recognised Basic Schools (Recruitment & Conditions of Service of Teachers & Other Conditions) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the “1975 Rules”). Rule 9 thereof relates to procedure etc. of appointment of Teachers in Junior Primary School and reads as under: “9. of its teaching staffs, it was governed by provisions of U.P. Recognised Basic Schools (Recruitment & Conditions of Service of Teachers & Other Conditions) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the “1975 Rules”). Rule 9 thereof relates to procedure etc. of appointment of Teachers in Junior Primary School and reads as under: “9. No person shall be appointed as teacher or other employee in any recognised school unless he possesses such qualifications as are specified in this behalf by the Board and for whose appointment the previous approval of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari has been obtained in writing. In case of vacancy the applications for appointment shall be invited by the concerned management through advertisement in at least two newspapers (one of them will be daily newspaper), giving at least thirty days time for submitting application. The date of interview may be given in the advertisement or the candidates be informed of the date fixed for interview by registered post, giving them at least 15 days time from the date of issue of the letter. The management shall not select any untrained teacher and if the selected candidate is a trained one, he will be approved by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari.” (emphasis added) 7. It talks of advertisement of vacancy in atleast two newspapers giving atleast 30 days time for submitting applications. It also restrain the management from selecting any untrained teacher and required previous approval of District Basic Education Officer in writing before making appointment. In the present case it it nowhere the case of petitioner that the aforesaid procedure was followed. 8. The Court finds his alleged letter of appointment dated 11.6.1984 on record at page 37 of the writ petition. It is said to have been issued by Manager and reads as under: fu;qfDr vkns’k izs"kd] izcU/kd] gfjtu fo|ky; Hks.Mkdqy&lqYrkuiqj iksLV xft;kiqj tuin&vktex<+A i=kad % fnukad 11-6-84 lsok esa] uke&Jh t; izdk’k nwcs iq+= Jh eq[kjke nqcs xzke&rwrhZikj iksLV&rwrhZikj tuin&cfykA vkids vkosnu i= ij izcU/k lfefr HksMdqy lqYrkuiqj iksLV xft;kiqj tuin vktex<+ lgk;d v/;kid ds in ij fu;qfDr gsrq fopkj&foe’kZ fd;k vkSj loZlfEefr ls fu;qfDr lqfuf’pr dh xbZA rn~uqlkj vkidh fu;qfDr fnukad 11-6-1984 ls LFkk;h lgk;d v/;kid ds in ij dh tkrh gSA vr% vki lgk;d v/;kid HksMdqy lqYrkuiqj iksLV xft;kiqj tuin&vktex<+ ds lEeq[k mifLFkfr gksdj leLr izek.ki= voyksdu djkdj dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djsaA izcU/kd gfjtu fo|ky; HksMdqy lqYrkuiqj iksLV&xftkiqj tuin&vktex<+A g0 Hkxsyw izlkn dukSft;k 11-6-84 lhy&izcU/kd 9. It shows that an application was received from petitioner and thereupon immediately thereafter appointment letter was issued. Interestingly the petitioner was required to submit his joining by showing all testimonials to an Assistant Teacher of the School. From the very language used in appointment letter it is evident that same is a fictitious document. Moreover, it shows petitioner’s address at Village Tutipar, District Ballia but interestingly enough petitioner claims to have submitted joining on the very next date, i.e., 12.6.1984 to the Manager himself. It is not the case of petitioner that there was no Head-master in the School and, therefore, why joining was not given to Headmaster is not known. Thereafter an experience certificate claims to have been issued by Manager on 1.12.1996, i.e., after 12 years. 10. Petitioner admittedly did not possess any training qualification. His appointment was not made in accordance with procedure prescribed in Rule 9 of 1975 Rules. It was thus evidently illegal void ab initio. 11. This Court as long back as in Hari Lal and others v. Director, Samaj Kalyan, U.P. and others, 2002(2) UPLBEC 1407 , has held that when appointment of a teacher has not been made in accordance with procedure prescribed in Rule 9 of 1975 Rules, the person cannot be said to be a legally appointed teacher in the school and, therefore, has no right to hold the post or to claim salary. 12. The Director has found that in administering petitioner’s appointment to be valid, the officials of Social Welfare Department have also played important role but he has stopped thereat instead of recommending an appropriate criminal proceedings against such persons who have committed such kind of forgery and fraud. 13. I, therefore, direct the respondent No. 2 to lodge a First Information Report against all concerned persons including petitioner as well as the officials of department whom he has found to have acted in collusion to help the petitioner to get his appointment validated by playing fraud and misrepresentation and also committing forgery in the documents. The report shall be lodged by respondent No. 2 within 10 days from today. Thereafter the concerned police authorities shall make appropriate investigation in accordance with law and submit progress report before this Court after one month thereafter. Only for this purpose this matter shall be listed before this Court on 3.4.2012. 14. The report shall be lodged by respondent No. 2 within 10 days from today. Thereafter the concerned police authorities shall make appropriate investigation in accordance with law and submit progress report before this Court after one month thereafter. Only for this purpose this matter shall be listed before this Court on 3.4.2012. 14. Subject to above directions, this writ petition is dismissed with costs, which I quantify to Rs. 25,000/-. ——————