JUDGMENT : NEERAJ TIWARI, J. 1. Heard Sri Radha Kant Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Shrawan Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 & 5 and Sri Manoj Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Akhilesh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no. 4. 2. Pleadings are exchanged between the parties. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided at the admission stage. 3. Brief facts of the case are that there is one Educational Institution in the name of Sri Sanjay Gandhi Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Chhapiya Bujurg, Basti (hereinafter referred to as the “Institution”) duly recognized under the provisions of U.P. Basic Education Act. The Institution was granted temporary recognition for running Junior High School vide order dated 01.07.1980 and later on recognition was made permanent vide order dated 08.03.1985. Earlier three sections, one each in 6, 7 and 8 Classes, were started but later on considering the strength of the students, two more sections in Class 6 and one each in Class 7 & 8 i.e. total 7 sections were permitted to the Institution by the Competent Authority vide order dated 16.06.1986. As per number of sections (7 sections) and as per norms, total requirement of teachers was 11. The service conditions of the teachers and Headmaster are governed by U.P. Recognized Basic School ( Junior High School) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules, 1978') and further service conditions of the Class III and IV employees are governed by the Provisions of U.P. Recognized Basic (Junior High School) Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Ministerial Staff and Group-D Employees) Rules, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules, 1984'). The said Institution was unaided and not receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government. In the said Institution, 11 teachers including one Headmaster, one Clerk and three class IV employees were appointed in the year 1980-81. Their appointments were duly approved by B.S.A., but while granting the approval vide order dated 24.06.1986, instead of word “Approval”, the word “Regularization” was used. Out of the aforesaid 11 teachers, one Mr. In the said Institution, 11 teachers including one Headmaster, one Clerk and three class IV employees were appointed in the year 1980-81. Their appointments were duly approved by B.S.A., but while granting the approval vide order dated 24.06.1986, instead of word “Approval”, the word “Regularization” was used. Out of the aforesaid 11 teachers, one Mr. Ram Nayan Upadhyaya who was working as Headmaster in the aforesaid Institution, has been selected as Assistant Teacher in recognized Institution run by Parishad and he left the Institution, therefore, only 10 teachers are working and one Mr. Raja Ram, Class -IV employee died, therefore, only 2 Class-IV employees are working, hence 10 teachers, 1 Clerk and 2 Class-IV employees i.e. total 13 staff are working. The State Government has decided to put 1000 Junior High School into the list of grant-in-aid Institutions and for that, Government Order dated 07.09.2006 was issued fixing the terms and conditions for the said purpose and for that, several applications were invited through advertisement/notifications. Pursuant to that, petitioner's Institution has also submitted application and ultimately several Institutions have been put into grant-in-aid list which were granted permanent recognition upto the year 1988 but the petitioner-Institution was not added in the list though it was granted permanent recognition on 08.03.1985 and rejected vide order dated 04.01.2007 on the ground that there is no land certificate in the name of Institution and secondly, the approval appears to be forged. Petitioners have challenged the said order by filing Writ-C No. 51410 of 2007 and the same was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 26.10.2009 with a direction to the State Government to process the application of the petitioners a fresh after considering the reply of petitioners against the communication of Assistant Director of Education dated 04.01.2007. Petitioners have challenged the said order by filing Writ-C No. 51410 of 2007 and the same was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 26.10.2009 with a direction to the State Government to process the application of the petitioners a fresh after considering the reply of petitioners against the communication of Assistant Director of Education dated 04.01.2007. Pursuant to the order of this Court, matter of petitioners was reconsidered and it was again rejected vide order dated 08.02.2010 on the ground that as per report of Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari as well as Director, Education Basic, though the 10 Assistant Teachers are shown to be working but no such certificate has been annexed to show that additional posts are created in the Institution by the Competent Authority and so far as the regularization order dated 24.06.1986 is concerned, there is no provision of regularization in the Rules, 1978 and Rules, 1984, therefore, the said Institution is not fulfilling the conditions mentioned in Para 2(6) of the Government Order dated 07.09.2006. Again petitioners have challenged the said order by filing Writ-C No. 22961 of 2010, in which learned counsel for the petitioners has raised the issue of use of word “Regularization” in place of “Approval” and also given the reference of one teacher namely Ram Chandra Pandey, who was also given “Regularization” in place of “Approval” in Bharat Singh Krishi Vidyalaya, Bharat Nagar Harraaiya, Basti and that Institution was added in grant-in-aid list. In the said petition, no counter affidavit has been filed by the State Government and on submission of learned standing counsel, matter was sent back to the State Government to pass fresh order after setting aside the order in question i.e. 08.02.2006. Now matter of petitioners was considered for the third time and again it was rejected vide order dated 09.02.2011, which is under challenge in the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order impugned has been passed again on the almost same ground which was taken in the earlier order dated 08.02.2010. Grounds taken in the impugned orders are that post have not been created by the Competent Authority. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order impugned has been passed again on the almost same ground which was taken in the earlier order dated 08.02.2010. Grounds taken in the impugned orders are that post have not been created by the Competent Authority. Appointment of Assistant Teachers, Clerk and Class- IV Employees was made in the year 1980-81 and they have been regularized by the District Basic Education Officer vide order dated 24.06.1986 but under the Rules, 1978 and Rules, 1984, there is no provision of regularization. Therefore, rules have not been followed in selection process. They have taken one additional ground that in the dispatch register, there is over writing upon serial no. 1214-33 and 1233 has been mentioned. 5. Sri Ojha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that the order is absolutely bad and stated that he has taken specific plea in Para-23 of writ petition that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners, Institution was established in the year 1980 and permanent recognition was granted in the year 1985, permission for extra section was also granted in the year 1986. Teachers were also appointed as per provisions of the Rules and appointments were approved by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari vide order 24.06.1986 using the word "Regularization" that does not mean services of teachers have been regularised rather it was granting approval under the Rules, 1978. At that time, Institution was not in grant-in-aid list, therefore, there is no provision for taking permission/sanction of post and permission for running the classes were already granted by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari in the year 1986, therefore, ground for sanction of post has no relevance. 6. It is further submitted that Institutions were put in grant-in-aid list for the first time on 02.12.2006, therefore, petitioner-Institution cannot be debarred on this ground. It has also been stated by counsel for the petitioners that in other similarly situated Institutions where the word "Regularization" has been used rather the word "Approval" with regard to service of teachers, they have been taken into the grant-in-aid list. It has also been stated by counsel for the petitioners that in other similarly situated Institutions where the word "Regularization" has been used rather the word "Approval" with regard to service of teachers, they have been taken into the grant-in-aid list. Specific mention was made that one Ram Chandra Pandey was appointed in Bharat Singh Krishi Vidyalaya, Bharat Nagar Harraaiya, Basti and on his appointment order dated 17.03.1986, the word regularization has also written, but the said person is also getting salary under the provisions of U.P. Junior High School (Payment of Salaries of the Teachers and other employees) Act, 1978. 7. It is next submitted that there is no denial of facts in the counter affidavit filed by the State and in Para-5 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the averments made in the contents of paragraphs nos. 26 to 28 of the writ petition are argumentative nature and shall be suitably replied at the time of arguments. So far as Rules, 1978 and Rules 1984 are concerned, it was subject matter of writ petition before this Court in a bunch of cases in which leading petition was Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 59940 of 2010. In those cases, this Court has classified the Institution in two categories; first category is relevant for the present dispute which deals where the application for grant-in-aid has been rejected for the reasons that appointment of teachers and staff were made in contravention of provisions of Rules, 1978 and Rules, 1984. It was duly answered by the Court that such order cannot be sustained with respect to the claim of the schools falling in the first category and direction needs to be issued to pass fresh order in the light of observations made by the Court vide order dated 27.08.2013 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 59940 of 2010. Order dated 27.08.2013 was also challenged before this Court by filing Special Appeal Defective No. 542 of 2014 with other connected appeals and the said appeal was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 11.09.2014. 8. He has also placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court in the matter of C/M Ram Daun Ram Raj Pre-Secondary School And another Vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ-C No. 4735 of 2017) and Committee of Management, Shri Dravi Nath Purva Madhyamik Vidyala and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. 8. He has also placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court in the matter of C/M Ram Daun Ram Raj Pre-Secondary School And another Vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ-C No. 4735 of 2017) and Committee of Management, Shri Dravi Nath Purva Madhyamik Vidyala and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9722 of 2012), where the application for providing grant-in-aid was rejected on the ground that certain teachers were not appointed as per rules and court after considering relevant fact and rule, allowed the writ petition and directed the State Government to grant financial aid to the Institutions. 9. It is further submitted that so far as use of word “Regularization” in place of “Approval” is concerned, that was earlier raised by the petitioners in the previous Writ Petition No. 22961 of 2010 and same could not be defended by the State and ultimately the writ petition was allowed, therefore, the same cannot be raised again. With regard to over writing in dispatch register is concerned, it is submitted that the similar issue was before this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41838 of 2007, where the approval letter did not contain any dispatch number and appointment was cancenlled. This Court has allowed the writ petition and clearly held that approval letter is on the record of authority and since the approval order was on the record, the mere fact that the dispatch number was not displayed in the dispatch register was mere negligence of office and if there is no such finding given by the authorities that would not mean that approval order was a forged document. Here in present case too, if there is over writing on dispatch register, it is negligence on the part of office coupled with this fact that there is no finding of fraud. Lastly, it is submitted that in the light of factual position as well as law laid down by this Court, order passed by the Secretary, Basic Education is not sustainable in the eye of law. 10. Lastly, it is submitted that in the light of factual position as well as law laid down by this Court, order passed by the Secretary, Basic Education is not sustainable in the eye of law. 10. Learned standing counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the arguments made by counsel for the petitioners and submitted that apart from irregularities in the appointment of teachers and over writing in dispatch register, there are several discrepancies in the proposal of petitioners for putting the Institution in grant-in-aid list, which is mentioned in Para 3(8) of the counter affidavit and in the light of that, proposal of the petitioners has been rejected. It is further submitted that in the recommendation of District Basic Education Officer, Ballia dated 01.11.2010, a clear cut finding is that there is irregularities in appointment of teachers as well as over writing in dispatch register, therefore, proposal of the petitioners has rightly been rejected. 11. But so far as judgments relied upon by counsel for the petitioners is concerned, he could not dispute this fact that issue involved in present writ petition with regard to applicability of Rules, 1978 and Rules, 1984 is covered with the order dated 27.08.2013 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 59940 of 2010. Similarly, issue of over writing in dispatch register is concerned, that is also covered with the judgment of this Court passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41838 of 2007 (Ashok Kumar Gupta and others vs. State of U.P. and others. 12. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4 has also opposed the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners and accepted the argument of learned standing counsel. 13. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records as well as judgments relied upon. 14. So far as factual position is concerned, there is no dispute that order in question has been passed basically on two grounds; post of Assistant Teachers are not created; regularization was granted by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, vide order dated 24.06.1986 without any provision in the Rules. It is also not disputed that appointments were made in the year 1980-81 and regularization was granted by the Basic Shiksha Adhikar vide order dated 24.06.1986. I have also perused the judgment of this court passed in a bunch of cases with leading Civil Misc. It is also not disputed that appointments were made in the year 1980-81 and regularization was granted by the Basic Shiksha Adhikar vide order dated 24.06.1986. I have also perused the judgment of this court passed in a bunch of cases with leading Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 59940 of 2010. Relevant paragraph of the judgment is being quoted below:- “The first category consists of such petitions where the applications for grant-in-aid have been rejected for the reason that the appointments of teaching and non-teaching staff were made in contravention of the provisions of the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 1978 Rules') and the provisions of the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment & Conditions of Service of Ministerial Staff and Group D Employees) Rules, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the 1984 Rules') as they were made prior to the grant of approval to their appointments by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari and, therefore, did not satisfy the condition contained in Clause 2(8) of the Government Order dated 7th September, 2006. ............... ............... In the First Category petitions, the sole reason mentioned for rejecting the applications filed by the Schools for bringing them on the grant-in-aid list of the State Government is that the teaching and non-teaching staff were appointed prior to the grant of approval to their appointments by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, which is in contravention of the provisions of 1978 Rules dealing with the teaching staff and the 1984 Rules dealing with the non-teaching staff. .................. Thus, in view of the aforesaid decisions, it cannot be said that the appointment of the teaching/non-teaching staff was not regular because even if the appointments were made prior to the approval of the District Basic Education Officer, they would become effective from the date of approval or deemed approval. In Kunda Motiram Bodalkar (supra) the Supreme Court also observed that the appointment of a Headmistress made in 2004 in a recognized Secondary School could not have been cancelled merely for the reason that prior permission from the Competent Authority had not been obtained. The relevant observations are as follows:- "The dispute in this case relates to the appointment of the Headmistress of Sant Shivram Maharaj Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Bhandara, which is a recognised secondary school run by Swami Vivekanand Shikshan Sanstha, Respondent 1. The relevant observations are as follows:- "The dispute in this case relates to the appointment of the Headmistress of Sant Shivram Maharaj Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Bhandara, which is a recognised secondary school run by Swami Vivekanand Shikshan Sanstha, Respondent 1. The appellant was appointed as Headmistress of the school by Respondent 6 in the year 2004. Admittedly, prior permission for her appointment was not obtained from the competent authority and that alone is the reason for which the High Court found the appointment illegal and struck it down. It is undeniable that the appointment of the appellant as the Headmistress was made on the basis of an advertisement. It is also clear that at that time no other teacher in the school was eligible to be appointed as Headmistress. It is also not denied that later on the appellant's appointment was approved by the competent authority. We were also told that since her appointment the appellant is working as the Headmistress in the school. The learned counsel appearing for the State admitted that apart from the fact that there was no prior permission for the appointment, there is no other irregularity in the appellant's appointment as Headmistress. In those facts, we are of the view that the High Court was in error in interfering in the matter and setting aside the appellant's appointment. We, accordingly, set aside the High Court order and confirm the appellant's appointment to the post of Headmistress." It is, therefore, not possible to sustain the orders passed by the State Government with respect to the claim of the Schools falling in the First Category Writ Petitions and a direction needs to be issued to pass fresh orders in the light of the observations made above.” 15. By the perusal of the judgment, this fact is very much clear that very similar issue was before this Court where appointment was made much prior to the scheme of putting the Institution into grant-in-aid list and rejection was made only on the ground that provisions of Rules, 1978 and Rules, 1984 have not been followed and the Court after considering the rules, has given a clear cut finding that such order of rejection for violation of Rules, 1978 and Rules, 1984 is not sustainable in the eye of law and allowed the writ petition remanding back the matter for passing fresh order. The said order was also challenged before this Court by filing Special Appeal Defective No. 542 of 2014 with other connected appeals and the said appeal was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 11.09.2014. 16. Controversy involved in the judgments of C/M Ram Daun Ram Raj Pre-Secondary School (Supra) and Shri Dravi Nath Purva Madhyamik Vidyala (Supra) are also of the similar nature and Court after considering facts as well as rules allowed the writ petition and writ of mandamus was issued to State Government to grant financial aid to the petitioner-Institution. 17. I have also perused the other judgments of this court. Issue of dispatch number was subject matter and the Court has clearly held that approval order was on record and mere fact that dispatch number was not displayed in the dispatch register was mere negligence and if there is no such finding given by the authorities that would not mean the approval order was a forged document and in the present case too, there is no finding with regard to fraud and it is only stated that there is cutting in the dispatch register, therefore, matter is squarely covered with the matter decided by this court. There is only cutting on the dispatch register for which petitioner cannot be made responsible and it is negligence on the part of the office of the Authority, therefore, approval letter cannot be said to be forged. 18. So far as the word "Regularization" is concerned, once this fact has not been disputed, the regularization has been made by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari vide order dated 24.06.1986 that cannot be said that word “Regularization” is something differenct to the word “Approval”. Undisputedly Basic Shiksha Adhikari under Rules, 1978 and Rules, 1984 is having authority, therefore, either the word used as “Regularization” or “Approval” that would mean that the word is used under the provisions of Rules, 1978 and Rules, 1984 and there cannot be a difference between the word “Regularization” and “Approval”. Further in the matter of petitioner, this issue was earlier before this Court in Writ Petition No. 22961 of 2010, which could not be defended by the State, therefore, again cannot be raised. Therefore, this ground is also not sustainable. 19. Learned standing counsel on the basis of counter affidavit submitted that there are several other deficiencies were found which are not mentioned in the impugned order. Therefore, this ground is also not sustainable. 19. Learned standing counsel on the basis of counter affidavit submitted that there are several other deficiencies were found which are not mentioned in the impugned order. Considering the same also, application of the petitioner was rejected. 20. It is necessary to mention here that in the light of judgment of Mohinder Singh Gill and another vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & others reported in AIR 1978 SC 851 , with the help of affidavit impugned order cannot be improved by fresh reasons. Relevant paragraph no. 8 of the judgment is quoted below:- “The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought, out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose J. in Gordhandas Bhanji (1) "Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in Ms mind, or what he intended to, do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to effect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself." Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older:” 21. It is also specific case of the petitioner that one Ram Chandra Pandey was appointed in Bharat Singh Krishi Vidyalaya, Bharat Nagar Harraaiya, Basti and on his appointment order dated 17.3.1986, the word “Regularization” has been written, but he is getting salary under the provision of U.P. Junior High School (Payment of Salaries of the Teachers and other employees) Act, 1978. There is no denial of this fact in the counter affidavit filed by the State, therefore, it is clear that Government itself is not treating any difference between the words “Regularization” and “Approval” and Institutions, where the “Regularization” in place of “Approval” is given to the teachers, have also been put in grant-in-aid list. 22. Under such facts and circumstances of the case, as well as law laid down, Court is of the view that order dated 09.02.2011 is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. 23. Accordingly, order dated 09.02.2011 is hereby set aside. Considering this fact that this is the third round of litigation, writ of mandamus is issued to respondent nos. 1 & 2 to grant financial aid to the petitioner Institution know as Sri Sanjay Gandhi Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Chhapiya Bujurg, Basti within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 24. With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs.