JUDGMENT Smt. Kamala Rani is before this Court, assailing the validity of the order dated 27.04.2016 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.2227/2000 (Deepak Kumar & others vs. State of U.P. and others), wherein her claim in question has also been rejected alongwith the claim of other co-petitioners. 2. From the side of the petitioner-appellant, Shri L.K. Dwivedi, Advocate has tried to contend that as far as present petitioner-appellant is concerned, there is no requirement of any approval in her favour as at the relevant point of time service rules has not at all been enforced and her name figured in Manager's Return, which was submitted pursuant to such Government Order, and accordingly, her claim ought not to have been turned down as has been done in the present case and as such, the Special Appeal deserves to be allowed. 3. The claim in question has been resisted from the side of the respondent by learned Standing Counsel as well as by counsel representing other co-respondents, Shri B.S. Pandey, Advocate, Shri A.K. Yadav Advocate, Shri V.P. Shukla, Advocate and Shri Sanjay Srivastava, Advocate by submitting that the order impugned clearly reflects that large scale manipulation and manoeuvring has been done and there was no occasion for this Court to intervene and learned Single Judge has rightly proceeded to disallow the claim of petitioner-appellant. 4. After respective arguments have been advanced, we have proceeded to examine the record in question and from the record in question this much is accepted position that petitioner-appellant claims that she has been appointed in the Institution concerned through the Committee that was headed by Harish Chandra Agarwal and she also claims that her appointment in question has been made on 01.07.1977. 5. Record in question clearly shows that at the point of time when the Institution in question has been in the grant-in-aid list, then, at the said point of time, two set of incumbents have come forward; one set was presented by Bharat Singh and other set was presented by Harish Chandra Agarwal and record in question also reflects that in the list in question that has been so submitted by Harish Chandra Agarwal but for the name of Syed Maqsood Hasan, names of other incumbents was not at all tallying with the record that has been maintained by the office of District Basic Education Officer. 6. 6. Once such is the factual situation and this much is also clearly reflected from the order impugned that repeatedly opportunity was given to Harish Chandra Agarwal by asking him to produce entire record pertaining to their appointment, selection and at the said point of time, Harish Chandra Agarwal failed to produce the same and same was inclusive of record of petitioner-appellant also. 7. Once no document worth name has been produced by Harish Chandra Agarwal through whom the petitioner-appellant claims her existence and authority on the spot based on the same has formed an opinion that such an incumbent are not at all liable to be paid salary from the State exchequer and the said view has been affirmed by learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated 27.04.2016, in view of this, we refrain ourselves from taking a different view. A pointed question has been by us as to what was the procedure adhered to in making appointment of such class IV employees and to the said query reply has been submitted that at the said point of time when their appointment were done, there was no service rules or regulations in force and as such, no such particular procedure has been adhered to. 8. Taking into view such a reply and the view taken by the authority concerned and the same has been affirmed by learned Single Judge, no interference is required to be made by us. Special Appeal sans merit and same is dismissed accordingly.