JUDGMENT : Devendra Kumar Arora, J. The present writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 3.9.2014, against which, the petitioner has filed Special Appeal Defective No. 680 of 2014 : Jai Prakash v. State of U.P. and others. A Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment and order dated 19.11.2014, while allowing the special appeal and setting aside the order dated 3.9.2014, requested the learned Single Judge to decide the same on merits after considering all possible pleas that have been made by the respective parties. Subsequently, the present writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 3.7.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an application for restoration/recall of the order dated 3.7.2015 (C.M. Application No.76145 of 2015). 2. Heard Mr. M.P. Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Badrul Hasan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Mr. Rahul Shukla, learned Counsel for the opposite party No.2- District Basic Education Officer, Barabanki and Mr. V.P. Nag, learned Counsel for the Committee of Management, Harijan Primary Pathshala, Vadipuri Lakhpeda, Post Bhamau District Barabanki headed by Kamlesh Kumar. 3. It appears that though a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Committee of Management, Harijan Primary Pathshala, Vadipuri Lakhpeda, Post Bhamau District Barabanki through Sri Shiv Mangal but none appears on his behalf. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that he has no objection in case application for restoration/recall of the order dated 3.7.2015 be allowed and the writ petition be restored to its original number. 5. Since cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of C.M. Application No. 76145 of 2015 is satisfactory, C.M. Application No. 76145 of 2015 is allowed. The order dated 3.7.2015 is recalled. The writ petition is restored to its original number. 6. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this Court proceed to hear the matter finally. 7. Petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties to pay salary to him for the post of Assistant Teacher along with arrears from the date of his joining in the School i.e. 1.10.2005 together with monthly salary. 8. Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties to pay salary to him for the post of Assistant Teacher along with arrears from the date of his joining in the School i.e. 1.10.2005 together with monthly salary. 8. Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. M.P. Rao is that Harijan Primary Pathshala, Vadipuri Lakhpeda, Post Bhamau District Barabanki (hereinafter referred to as the “Institution”), a Junior Basic School under the control of Basic Shiksha Parishad, is recognised by the department of Social Welfare as Harijan School and the grant-in-aid is made available to the Institution by the department of Social Welfare. In order to fill up the vacancy of Assistant Teacher, an advertisement was published in the local newspaper (Hindi Dainik Nishpaksh Sahara Times) on 2.9.2005. 9. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being degree holder of B.A., B.Ed. and member of Scheduled Caste category, applied in pursuance to the said advertisement on 5.9.2005 to the Institution. The opposite parties, after considering the qualification of the petitioner, issued an order dated 30.9.2005, appointing him on the post of Assistant Teacher in the pay-scale of Rs. 900-1100 along with the admissible allowances. The petitioner, in pursuance to the order dated 30.9.2005, submitted his joining on 1.10.2005 and since then, he has worked as Assistant Teacher in the Institution to the entire satisfaction of Institution but no salary was paid despite repeated reminders having been sent by the Manager of the Committee of Management. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, the instant writ petition for payment of salary as averred above, has been filed. 10. The writ petition has been opposed by the official respondents i.e. respondent Nos. 1 to 4 by filing counter affidavit, denying the averments made in the writ petition. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that there was a dispute pertaining to Committee of Management of the Institution, therefore, the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Faizabad Division, Faizabad, vide letter dated 5.5.2003, referred the dispute to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nawabganj, Barabanki. 11. Thus, there was no occasion for the Manager of the disputed Committee of Management to notify any vacancy for giving appointment to any teacher in the Institution and the same cannot be legally accepted. 11. Thus, there was no occasion for the Manager of the disputed Committee of Management to notify any vacancy for giving appointment to any teacher in the Institution and the same cannot be legally accepted. The District Basic Education Officer has also not approved the appointment of the petitioner. 12. It is also submitted in the counter affidavit that looking to the dispute in the Committee of Management of the Institution, the District Social Welfare Officer, Barabanki had also directed the Manager to stay the process of selection but the Manager had illegally initiated the selection proceedings, which is unjustified and illegal. 13. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the Committee of Management headed by Kamlesh Kumar, stating therein that the Institution is being run by the Society and a meeting was held on 16.3.2005, in which he (Kamlesh Kumar) was elected as Manager of the Institution and since then, Shri Shiv Mangal has no concern with the affairs of the Institution. It is also stated that alleged advertisement issued by the opposite party No.5 is forged one as the newspaper in which it is said to have been published has no wide circulation in the area. In the year 2003, there was vacancy of only one teacher and for filling the said post, permission was sought by the authorities and since then no advertisement was issued by the legally constituted Committee of Management of the Institution. The authorities of Social Welfare Department and the District Basic Education Officer never granted permission for making selection on the post of Assistant Teacher nor Shri Shiv Mangal was the Manager of the School after 16.3.2005. Therefore, the advertisement issued on 2.9.2005, alleged appointment on 30.9.2005 and joining on 1.10.005 by the petitioner cannot be accepted. In these backgrounds, it has been stated that the petitioner was neither appointed in the Institution nor he worked and the appointment letter as well as joining letter including working certificates all are forged and have been manipulated just to mislead the Court. 14. In these backgrounds, it has been stated that the petitioner was neither appointed in the Institution nor he worked and the appointment letter as well as joining letter including working certificates all are forged and have been manipulated just to mislead the Court. 14. A supplementary counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the Committee of Management headed by Kamlesh Kumar, placing on record the issue which was referred to the Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow to the Sub- Divisional Magistrate (Prescribed Authority) with the direction to decide the controversy but the Sub-Divisional Magistrate did not pass any order, therefore, Shri Shivmangal had approached this Court by filing writ petition 5361 (M/S) of 2006, in which, this Court, vide order dated 23.11.2016, directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Faizabad to look into the matter. In the meantime, Sri Kamlesh Kumar Yadav had filed writ petition No. 3753 of 2007 (M/S) and this Court, vide order dated 7.8.2007, gave liberty to Sri Kamlesh Kumar Yadav to move a representation before the Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow and on receipt of the representation, Registrar was directed to take appropriate action. Thereafter, Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Lucknow, heard the matter and vide order dated 4.1.2008, uphold the election of Shri Kamlesh Kumar Yadav dated 16.3.2015 and has also directed for renewal of the society. 15. Mr. V.P. Nag, learned Counsel for the Committee of Management headed by Kamlesh Kumar has submitted that as per information, the order of Registrar dated 4.1.2008 has not been challenged by any one and as such, the same had attained finality. Therefore, Shri Shivmangal was not the Manager of the Committee of Management as after 16.3.2005 and all the action taken with respect to the appointment of the petitioner are illegal and arbitrary and have been done in order to give undue advantage to the petitioner. He has also brought to the notice of the Court that at the relevant date, Sri Chhanga Lal was the only teacher working in the school but Yatendra Kumar and Ashutosh Singh, who claimed to be appointed as Teacher in the Institution and has not been paid salary along with arrears, had approached this Court by filing writ petition No. 2244 of 2006 (SS). This Court, vide order dated 3.9.2014, dismissed the writ petition along with the present writ petition but the petitioner challenged the order dated 3.9.2014 passed in the present writ petition by filing Special Appeal Defective No. 680 of 2014 : Jai Prakash v. State of U.P. and others. A Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment and order dated 19.11.2014, while allowing the special appeal and setting-aside the order dated 3.9.2014, requested the learned Single Judge to decide the same on merits after considering all possible pleas that have been made by the respective parties. 16. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party No.1 to 4, reiterating his submission regarding appointment and working in the Institution from the date of his joining and denial of salary. Copy of the appointment order, which was not filed earlier, was also filed along with the rejoinder affidavit as well as copy of the letter dated 2.1.2004 of the District Basic Education Officer to the District Harijan Social Welfare for giving his concurrence so that further step is taken for publication of advertisement. Certified copy of the unregistered documents containing the names of the Committee of Management showing Shivmangal as Manager of the Institution has also been brought on record. 17. Rejoinder affidavit has also been filed to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of Shri Kamlesh Kumar, reiterating the earlier averments and stated that since the petitioner has been initially appointed, direction be issued to the opposite parties to pay salary of the petitioner from the date of his joining. 18. Mr. Rahul Shukla, learned Counsel for the Basic Education Officer has drawn attention of this Court towards the Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and other conditions) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as “1975 Rule” and has submitted that the institution being recognised is to follow the provisions of 1975 Rules and as per the provisions of Rule 9 of 1975 Rules, no person can be appointed as teacher or other employee in any recognised school unless he possess 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 newspaper (one of them will be daily newspaper), giving at least thirty days time for submitting application. It has also been provided in Rule 9 of 1975 Rules that 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 and the management shall not select any untrained teacher and if the selected candidate is a trained one, his appointment is to be approved by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. 19. Mr. Rahul Shukla, learned Counsel for the District Basic Education Officer has also drawn attention of this Court towards advertisement contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition and has submitted that the same was published on 2.9.2005, giving last date of submission of form on 15.9.2005 and 27.9.2005 for interview. He has also submitted that the advertisement itself was against the provisions of Rule 9 of 1975 Rules and no approval was ever granted by the District Basic Education Officer for processing selection, therefore, no direction can be issued for grant of salary to the petitioner. 20. I have examined the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record. 21. The petitioner claims to be appointed on 30.9.2005 and there is no dispute to the fact that at that relevant point of time, the institution was governed by the provisions of 1975 Rules. The said Rules were framed in exercise of power under subsection 1 of Section 9 of the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972. Section 9 of the said Rules provides that no person shall be appointed as a 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. For the sake of convenience Rule 9 of 1975 Rules is extracted hereunder below:- “9. For the sake of convenience Rule 9 of 1975 Rules is extracted hereunder below:- “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 trained one, he will be approved by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari.” 22. In the instant case, there is nothing on record, which could demonstrate that advertisement was issued in two newspaper nor even in the counter affidavit filed by the Committee of Management of Shri Shivmangal has mentioned about the same. 23. Another aspect of the matter is that the petitioner himself has brought on record through rejoinder affidavit, a copy of the letter dated 2.1.2004 written by the District Basic Education Officer, Barabanki to the District Harijan & Social Welfare Officer, Barabanki for granting his concurrence for issuance of the advertisement but there is nothing on record, which shows that the District Harijan & Social Welfare Officer had given his concurrence. Therefore, this Court is of the definite view that the advertisement was issued without approval of the District Harijan & Social Welfare Officer as well as without following Rule 9 of 1975 Rules. It may be added that in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 to 4, it has been specifically stated that District Harijan & Social Welfare Officer had restrained the Management of the Institution from making any process for selection. 24. The petitioner along with writ petition has filed a copy of the letter dated 30.9.2005, whereby he requested the Manager of the Institution to permit him to join duty. 24. The petitioner along with writ petition has filed a copy of the letter dated 30.9.2005, whereby he requested the Manager of the Institution to permit him to join duty. It is important to mention herein that at the time of filing the present writ petition, no appointment order was brought on record and after denial of his appointment by the opposite parties especially by the Committee of Management headed by Kamlesh Kumar, copy of the appointment order was brought on record as Annexure No.2 to the rejoinder affidavit. Perusal of the same reveals that appointment order was issued by the Manager under the signature of Shiv Mangal with endorsement to the Headmaster of the institution to accept the joining of the petitioner, whereas Annexure No.4 to the writ petition indicates that the petitioner joining was accepted on 1.10.2005 by Sri Shivmangal in the capacity of Manager of the Institution. After seeing these three documents, a doubt is created in the minds of the Court that when the petitioner was having the appointment letter dated 30.9.2005 in his possession, then, there was no reason to file the same along with the writ petition. If the appointment order issued on 30.9.2005 by Sri Shivmangal in the capacity of Manager of the Institution with endorsement to the Headmaster to accept the joining of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher, then, there was no occasion to accept the petitioner's joining by the Manager himself on 1.10.2005 at 7.00 AM and, therefore, the authenticity of the appointment order is also doubtful. 25. It may be mentioned here that issue is also examined with another angle in view of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Committee of Management headed by Kamlesh Kumar, wherein a specific stand was taken that in the meeting of the Committee of Management dated 16.3.2005, he (Kamlesh Kumar) was elected as Manager of the Institution and subsequently, looking to the dispute of Committee of Management, the issue was referred by the Deputy Registrar to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Prescribed Authority). The Sub- Divisional Officer did not take any decision as such he has filed writ petition No. 5361 of 2006 (M/S). This Court, vide order dated 23.11.2006, directed the Registrar to look into the matter. The Sub- Divisional Officer did not take any decision as such he has filed writ petition No. 5361 of 2006 (M/S). This Court, vide order dated 23.11.2006, directed the Registrar to look into the matter. In the meantime, Kamlesh Kumar had filed writ petition No. 3353 of 2007 (M/S) and this Court, vide order dated 7.8.2007, gave liberty to the petitioner to file representation before the Deputy Registrar and the Deputy Registrar was required to examine and take appropriate action in the matter. The Registrar, in pursuance to the order dated 7.8.2007, examined the issue and while upholding the election of the Committee of Management held on 16.3.2005, wherein Kamlesh Kumar was elected as Manager of the Institution and accordingly, renewal of the Committee of Management was also done. 26. After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. The writ petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 27. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.