JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri Ratan Deep Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for State-appellants and Mrs. Kamla Singh, learned counsel for the opposite parties-petitioners. 2. The instant intra court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules has been preferred assailing the validity of the judgment and order dated 27.09.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.13353 of 2013 (Santu Prasad Chaudhary & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.), the operative portion of which, for ready reference, is reproduced as under:- “……...14. On precise query made before the learned Standing Counsel, the legal terminology related to irregularity and illegality submitted through counter affidavit in consonance with the wordings mentioned in the order which impugned in the present petition is not clear, if in any case, any illegality found in the appointment that does not relate to the matter which has been decided by the respondent no. 2 while adjudicating the controversy in the strict compliance of the order direction passed by co-ordinate bench of this Court. 15. More so, no illegality is apparent on the face of record at the time of adjudication of writ petition No. 12216 of 2010, wherein interim protection has been extended at the time of admission and later on considering the bonafide of the petitioner, the matter has been remitted back to the respondent no. 2 for deciding afresh. 16. Learned Standing Counsel sought attention of the court over the ground which has formed the basis of passing the order dated 12.09.2012 but at the same time fails to apprise that once the decision has been taken up by the respondent no. 1 in favour of the respondent no. 5, wherein the same position was prevalent as mentioned in the order which impugned in the present petition how the case of the petitioner are different with respondent no. 5, whereas, the allegation which has been put forward by the respondent no. 5 was only against one Mohd. Sayeed and not at all against the petitioners. The reasoning behind order dated 12.09.2012 is contrary to the order 03.08.2010. 17. It is also informed by learned counsel for the petitioners are not paid their salaries till June, 2012 and thereafter retired during pendency of the instant writ petition. 18. 5 was only against one Mohd. Sayeed and not at all against the petitioners. The reasoning behind order dated 12.09.2012 is contrary to the order 03.08.2010. 17. It is also informed by learned counsel for the petitioners are not paid their salaries till June, 2012 and thereafter retired during pendency of the instant writ petition. 18. After having the rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the counter affidavit preferred by respondent no. 5 which more or less supporting the case of the petitioners, the order dated 12.09.2012 is hereby set aside. All the petitioners are thereby treated as permanent incumbent of the institution, arrears of salary from July, 2012 till date of their retirements be extended. Since there is hardly any case made out by the respondents that the petitioners never rendered their services for the institution and thereafter, retiral benefits admissible to the petitioners be also extended within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 19. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly." FACTS 3. The facts in a nutshell relevant and essential for disposal of instant appeal are noted herein below. 4. The opposite parties-petitioners while preferring the writ petition had challenged the order dated 12.09.2012 passed by Director of Education (Basic), Uttar Pradesh on the ground that he had rejected the representation of the petitioners overlooking the order dated 03.08.2012 passed by Special Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh and also prayed for direction to the respondents to pay the salary and all the emoluments to the petitioners. 5. The claim of the petitioners is that they are serving in Lal Bahadur Shastri Purwa Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jagdishpur, Raja, Siddharth Nagar, [institution in question], which is a recognized and aided Junior High School and governed under the Uttar Pradesh Junior High School (Payment of Salaries) Act, 1978. The institution was granted temporary recognition on 4.6.1980 and the permanent recognition was granted on 31.10.1984. The institution had received grant-in-aid on 01.12.2006. On the said date, salary of 01 Head Master, 04 Assistant Teachers, 01 clerk and 03 Class-IV employees were approved. The Asstt. Director of Education (Basic), Gorakhpur vide order dated 31.3.2007 had approved the salary against the said posts. 6. The petitioner no.1 was appointed in the institution in question on 02.07.1977. The institution had received grant-in-aid on 01.12.2006. On the said date, salary of 01 Head Master, 04 Assistant Teachers, 01 clerk and 03 Class-IV employees were approved. The Asstt. Director of Education (Basic), Gorakhpur vide order dated 31.3.2007 had approved the salary against the said posts. 6. The petitioner no.1 was appointed in the institution in question on 02.07.1977. Petitioner nos.2 and 3 were appointed as Assistant Teachers in the said institution on 02.07.1977 and petitioner no.4 was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 05.07.1977. The petitioner no.5 was appointed as Clerk on 2.7.1977 and petitioner nos.6, 7 and 8 were appointed as Peon on 02.07.1977 and 26.09.1989 respectively. The services of all the petitioners were affirmed by the then District Basic Education Officer, Siddharth Nagar vide order dated 23.3.1985. The services of the teachers are covered by the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978, [Rules, 1978] and the service of the Ministerial Staff and Group-D employees is covered by the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Ministerial Staff and Group ‘D’ Employees) Rules, 1984, [Rules, 1984]. 7. The controversy had raked up when one Kanhaiya Lal, who was Asstt. Teacher in the institution made a complaint against one Md. Sayeed, Asstt. Teacher (Urdu). He had also later on filed Writ Petition No.44836 of 2009, which was disposed of on 26.08.2009 directing the Director of Education, Basic, Uttar Pradesh Lucknow to pass reasoned and speaking order. In response to the said mandate, the Director of Education (Basic), Uttar Pradesh Lucknow passed an order dated 17.2.2010 recognising the services of those teachers and employees, who were being paid salary after obtaining the reports and documents from the Asstt. Director of Education, Basic, Gorakhpur; District Basic Education Officer, Siddharth Nagar and Manager/ Principal of the institution and accordingly cancelled the earlier order dated 31.3.2007 by which the salary was approved by the Asstt. Director of Education, Basic, Gorakhpur. 8. The order dated 17.2.2010 was challenged by the petitioners in Writ Petition No.12216 of 2010, wherein interim order was accorded on 11.3.2010 permitting the petitioners to continue and be paid salary till further orders. Inspite of the aforesaid order, once the salary was not released, the petitioners preferred contempt application. Director of Education, Basic, Gorakhpur. 8. The order dated 17.2.2010 was challenged by the petitioners in Writ Petition No.12216 of 2010, wherein interim order was accorded on 11.3.2010 permitting the petitioners to continue and be paid salary till further orders. Inspite of the aforesaid order, once the salary was not released, the petitioners preferred contempt application. In response to the order dated 6.8.2012 passed by the Contempt Court the salary was released in favour of the petitioners-opposite parties. Later on the said writ petition was allowed on 30.07.2012 on the ground of non-adherence to principles of natural justice. The order dated 17.2.2010 passed by the Director of Education, Basic, Uttar Pradesh was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Director of Education, Basic to pass appropriate order. In compliance to the Writ Court order, the Director of Education, Uttar Pradesh Lucknow, after giving opportunity to all the stake holders, passed an order dated 12.09.2012 derecognising the services of petitioners-opposite parties and other employees, stating them to be illegally appointed and the salary was also stopped since August, 2012. The said order was impugned in the Writ Petition No.13353 of 2013 in which learned Single Judge has passed the judgment dated 27.09.2023, which has been assailed in the present special appeal. 9. It is averred that the minimum qualification of Head-Master and Asstt. Teacher is provided under unamended Rule 4 of the Rules, 1978, (which were applicable at the relevant time), which for ready reference is reproduced as under:- “4. Minimum qualification-(1) The minimum qualifications for the post of Assistant Teacher of recognised school shall be Intermediate Examination of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh or equivalent examination (with Hindi and a teacher's training course recognised by the State Government or the Board such as Hindustani Teaching Certificate, Junior Teaching Certificate, Basic Teaching Certificate, or Certificate of Training). (2) The minimum qualifications for the appointment to the post of Head-master of a recognised school shall be as follows: (a) A degree from a recognised University or an equivalent examination recognised as such; (b) A teacher's training course by the State Government or the Board, such as Hindustani Teaching Certificate, Junior Teaching Certificate, Certificate of Training or Basic Teaching Certificate; and (c) Three years teaching experience in a recognised school.” 10. Rule 5 of the Rules, 1978 deals with eligibility for appointment and specially bars any appointment as Headmaster or Assistant Teacher in substantive capacity in recognized schools unless- (A) He possesses the minimum qualification prescribed for such posts; (B) He is recommended for such appointment by the Selection Committee. 11. Rule 7 of the Rules, 1978 prescribes for advertisement of vacancy, which is as follows:- “7. Advertisement of vacancy.--(1) No vacancy shall be filled, except after its advertisement in at least newspapers one of whom must have adequate circulation all over the State and the other in a locality the school is situated.] (2) In every advertisement and intimation under clause (1), the Management shall give particulars as to the name of the post the minimum qualifications and age-limit, if any, prescribed for such post and the last date for receipt of applications in pursuance of such advertisement.” 12. Rule 10 of the Rules, 1978 provides for procedure for selection, which for ready reference, is also reproduced as under:- “10. Procedure for selection.-(1) The Selection Committee shall, after interviewing such candidates as appear before it on a date to be fixed by it in this behalf, of which due intimation shall be given to all the candidates, prepare a list containing as far as possible the names, in order of preference, of three candidates found to be suitable for appointment. (2) The list prepared under clause (1) shall also contain particulars regarding the date of birth, academic qualifications and teaching experience of the candidates and shall be signed by all the members of the Committee. (3) The Selection Committee shall, as soon as possible, forward such list, together with the minutes of the proceedings of the Committee to the management. (4) The Manager shall within one week from the date of receipt of the papers under clause (3) send a copy of the list to the District Basic Education Officer. (3) The Selection Committee shall, as soon as possible, forward such list, together with the minutes of the proceedings of the Committee to the management. (4) The Manager shall within one week from the date of receipt of the papers under clause (3) send a copy of the list to the District Basic Education Officer. (5)(i) If the District Basic Education Officer is satisfied that- (a) the candidates recommended by the Selection Committee possess the minimum qualifications prescribed for the post; (b) the procedure laid down in these rules for the selection of Headmaster or Assistant Teacher, as the case may be, has been followed he shall accord approval to the recommendations made by the Selection Committee and shall communicate his decision to the Management within two weeks from the date of receipt of the papers under clause (4). (ii) If the District Basic Education Officer is not satisfied as aforesaid, he shall return the papers to the Management with the direction that the matter shall be reconsidered by the Selection Committee. (iii) If the District Basic Education Officer does not communicate his decision within one month from the date of receipt of the papers under clause (4), he shall be deemed to have accorded approval to the recommendations made by the Selection Committee.” ARGUMENTS OF STATE APPELLANTS 13. Shri Ratan Deep Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for State-appellants has submitted that in the present matter the teachers have been shown to have been appointed in the year 1997. At the time of their alleged appointment admittedly they were lacking the essential qualification as they were all untrained and the same was also contrary to the order dated 08.11.1974, which was issued by the Basic Shiksha Parishad, whereby specific direction was given for appointing trained teachers in the recognised institutions. He submitted that the institution in question was accorded temporary recognition in the year 1980. Clause 4 and 14 of the recognition order specifically provides:- ^^4- vçf'kf{kr v/;kidksa ds LFkku ij çf'kf{kr v/;kidksa dh fu;qfDr dh tk, 14- foHkkxh; vkns'kksa @ fu;eksa dks v{kj'k% ikyu fd;k tk,** 14. He has further placed reliance on the permanent recognition order of the institution dated 31.10.1984 (Paper Book p.322). Clause 4 and 14 of the recognition order specifically provides:- ^^4- vçf'kf{kr v/;kidksa ds LFkku ij çf'kf{kr v/;kidksa dh fu;qfDr dh tk, 14- foHkkxh; vkns'kksa @ fu;eksa dks v{kj'k% ikyu fd;k tk,** 14. He has further placed reliance on the permanent recognition order of the institution dated 31.10.1984 (Paper Book p.322). Clause 2 & 4 of the said order specifically states as follows:- ^^2- fo|ky; esa foHkkxh; fu;eksa ,oa vkns'kksa dh fdlh çdkj dh vogsyuk duus rFkk rF;ksa dks fNikus ij ekU;rk fujLr djus dk vf/kdkj foHkkx dks lqjf{kr gSA 4- foHkkx }kjk fu/kkZfjr U;wure ;ksX;rkvks ls foHkwf"kr v/;kidksa dh fu;qfDr fu;ekuqlkj dh tk, rFkk vçf{kr v/;kidksa ds LFkku ij çf'kf{kr v/;kidksa dh fu;qfDr dh tk,** 15. He submitted that from the aforesaid it is apparent that the institution had to follow the Rules prevailing at the time of recognition of the institution. The Rules of 1978 got notified on 13.02.1978. In Rule 4 (1) of the Rules, 1978, qualification is prescribed but the institution continued with the teachers not having the qualification prescribed as per Rule 4 (1) of Rules, 1978. 16. Learned counsel for the State-appellants further argued that the alleged appointments of Group-C and D posts were also contrary to the Rules, 1984. For the selection of Ministerial Staff as well as the Class-IV employees, neither any vacancy was advertised in the newspaper nor prescribed procedure for selection was adhered to. No selection committee was constituted nor any proceeding for interview was held. Moreso the appointments were made without preparation of any merit list and without getting approval of the competent authority prior to the appointment. They also got the salary only from the month of March, 2010 to July, 2012. Surprisingly, the Manager’s Return (MR) submitted by the Management did not accompany any order of sanction of posts. He submitted that as the salary had to be paid by the State exchequer, the Authority had every right to see whether the alleged appointments were made strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Rules, 1978 and the Rules, 1984. 17. He vehemently submitted that while issuing temporary and permanent recognition to the institution, rider was put for ensuring that the appointment of teachers must be as trained teachers. 17. He vehemently submitted that while issuing temporary and permanent recognition to the institution, rider was put for ensuring that the appointment of teachers must be as trained teachers. It, therefore, appears that a purported claim had been set up on the basis of some alleged appointment of the year 1977 and the claim had been cleverly set up to be prior to the invocation of Rules, 1978. The contention that the Rules, 1978 would not be applicable is unsustainable as while according temporary recognition in the year 1980 and the permanent recognition in the year 1984 specific clauses were incorporated for appointing trained teachers. On the one hand they got recognition and on the other hand they had not ensured the terms and conditions of the recognition. 18. He lastly submitted that in the facts and circumstances while passing the judgment and order, learned Single Judge has erred in law and even not touched the Rules applicable in the instant matter and without ascertaining from the record, indulgence was accorded to the petitioners, as such the impugned judgment is per se unsustainable. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF OPPOSITE PARTIES-PETITIONERS 19. Per contra, Mrs. Kamla Singh, learned counsel for the opposite parties-petitioners vehemently opposed the special appeal and submitted that there was absolutely no reason for raising the controversy after approximately three decades of appointment and continuous working of opposite parties-petitioners. She submitted that merely non-possession of trained certificate at the time of their initial appointment and due to this reason holding all of them ineligible in terms of Rules, 1978 is per se illegal as the appointment of Asstt. Teachers were made in the year 1977. 20. She further submitted that in writ proceeding, in response to the order passed by learned Single Judge detailed supplementary affidavit was filed, wherein it had been indicated that after completion of building and other infrastructure of the institution, the Committee of Management had decided to appoint Asstt. Teachers and non-teaching staff. Thereafter, the meeting of Committee of Management was convened on 18.6.1977. The agenda of meeting had also been appended along with the supplementary affidavit. Accordingly, it is claimed that the opposite parties-petitioner nos.1 to 4 were appointed on 29.6.1977 and they joined the institution on 1.7.1977 and 2.7.1977. Even the District Basic Education Officer vide order dated 6.7.1982 had temporarily approved the services of first petitioner as Head Master. The agenda of meeting had also been appended along with the supplementary affidavit. Accordingly, it is claimed that the opposite parties-petitioner nos.1 to 4 were appointed on 29.6.1977 and they joined the institution on 1.7.1977 and 2.7.1977. Even the District Basic Education Officer vide order dated 6.7.1982 had temporarily approved the services of first petitioner as Head Master. Admittedly after fulfilling the minimum required norms the institution was recognised. Initially temporary recognition was accorded on 4.6.1980 and permanent recognition was accorded on 31.10.1984. Therefore, at this belated stage, it cannot be presumed that the Asstt. Teachers and Group-C & D employees were not working in the institution. 21. In this backdrop, she further submitted that even before according permanent recognition, the services of petitioners were approved by the then District Basic Education Officer on 23.09.1985 on probation of one year i.e. from 02.07.1984 and after verifying the infrastructure and working strength of teachers and other employees, after making due enquiry, the institution was also taken on grant-in-aid list on 05.02.2007 and financial approval was accorded on 31.03.2007. While issuing the order dated 05.02.2007 for putting the various institutions on grant-in-aid list, direction was also issued to Asstt. Director of Education, Basic, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur for ensuring due enquiry of the institutions, which were to be put on grant-in-aid list. She submitted that only, thereafter, adequate notices were issued to the institutions including the institution in question for submitting details so that actual salary of teachers and other staff may be ensured w.e.f. 10.03.2007. 22. Mrs. Singh, learned counsel assertively submitted that exhaustive procedure was adopted while putting the institution on grant-in-aid list. Even at the said stage, due verification was again made and adequate information was submitted by the Manager of the institution. Only, thereafter, final approval was accorded on 31.03.2007. 23. She submitted that in most arbitrary manner, on the basis of some complaint, the appointments of entire teachers and non-teaching staff were cancelled and financial approval was withdrawn vide order dated 17.02.2010, which was subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No.12216 of 2010. Learned Single Judge vide order dated 11.3.2010 had accorded interim protection in favour of the petitioners and the direction was also issued for payment of salary. Later on the said writ petition was allowed and the matter was relegated. Learned Single Judge vide order dated 11.3.2010 had accorded interim protection in favour of the petitioners and the direction was also issued for payment of salary. Later on the said writ petition was allowed and the matter was relegated. She submitted that learned Single Judge has rightly appreciated the record and decided the writ petition. The order impugned does not suffer from any infirmity, which may warrant any interference in the instant appeal. ANALYSIS & REASONING 24. We have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at Bar and have gone through the impugned judgment and material placed on record. 25. Before examining the merits of the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, it would be apt to cite the provisions governing the appointment of teachers in the recognised basic schools. 26. The U.P Basic Education Act, 1972, [Act, 1972] was enacted for establishment of the Board of Basic Education and to deal with the matters connected therein. As per section (2), the definition Clause, the "Basic Education" means education up to the VIIIth Class imparted in schools other than high schools or intermediate college. "Junior Basic School" means a Basic School in which education is imparted up to Class-V. "Junior High School" means a basic school in which education is imparted to boys and girls or to both from Class-VI to Class-VIII. Section 3 contemplates setting of the Board of Basic Education. The function of the Board under Section 4 (1) is to organize, coordinate and control the imparting of basic education and teachers' training in the State in order to raise its standards and to co-relate it with the system of education as a whole in the State. 27. In exercise of powers conferred under section 19 of the Act, 1972, to carry out the purposes of the Act, three sets of Rules have been framed regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to the post of teachers. The "U.P recognized Basic schools (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and other Conditions) Rules, 1975, [Rules, 1975]" was framed to govern the recognized Basic Schools imparting education up to Class-V, not being an institution belonging to or wholly maintained by the Board or any local body. The "U.P recognized Basic schools (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and other Conditions) Rules, 1975, [Rules, 1975]" was framed to govern the recognized Basic Schools imparting education up to Class-V, not being an institution belonging to or wholly maintained by the Board or any local body. The Rules 1978 was framed to govern the service conditions of teachers of recognized Junior High School, i.e. an institution other than a High School or Intermediate College imparting education from Class-VI to Class-VIII (both inclusive). The "U.P Basic Education Teachers Service Rules, 1981, [Rules, 1981]" was framed to govern the service conditions of teachers of the Junior Basic Schools imparting instructions in Nursery and Class I to VIII established by the U.P Board of Basic Education. The academic/eligibility qualifications for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in a Nursery and Junior Basic Schools (I to V) established by the Board as per Rules, 1981 are as follows:- (i) Mistress of Nursery School Bachelors degree from a University established by law in India or a degree recognised by the Government equivalent thereto together with certificate of teaching (Nursery) from recognised training institution of Uttar Pradesh and any other training course recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto and teacher eligibility test passed conducted by the Government or by the Government of India. (ii) Assistant Master and Assistant Mistress of Junior Basic School (ii)(a) Bachelors degree from a University established by law in India or a degree recognised by the Government equivalent thereto together with any other training course recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto together with the training qualification consisting of a Basic Teacher's Certificate (BTC), two years BTC (Urdu) Vishisht BTC. Two year Diploma in Education (Special Education) approved by the Rehabilitation Council of India or four year degree in Elementary Education (B.EI.Ed.), two year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known) in accordance with the National Council of Teacher Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2002 or any training qualifications to be added by National Council for Teacher Education for the recruitment of teachers in primary education and teacher eligibility test passed conducted by the Government or by the Government of India and passed Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination conducted by the Government. 28. 28. In Rules, 1981, a Junior Basic School has been defined to mean a Basic School where instructions are imparted from Class-I to V; whereas a "Senior Basic School" means a Basic School where instructions are imparted from Class-VI to VIII. A ''Nursery school,'' on the other hand, means a school in which children ordinarily of the age up to 8 years are taught in the Class lower than Class-'I'. 29. In so far as Rules, 1975 governing service conditions of teachers of a recognized Junior Basic School (Class-I to V) is concerned, Rule 9 thereof provides that for appointment on a teaching post in any recognized school a person must possess such qualification as are specified by the Board in this behalf and previous approval to whose appointment has been granted by the District Basic Education Officer in writing. 30. Under Rules, 1978 pertaining to service conditions of teachers in a recognized Senior Basic School or Junior High School, (Class VI to VIII) the minimum qualification as provided in Rule 4 of the Original Rule has been quoted in the foregoing part of this judgment. 31. Rule 5 of the Original Rules, 1978 further puts a condition that no one shall be appointed as Assistant Teacher in substantive capacity in any recognized school; unless (a) he possess minimum qualification prescribed for such post; (b) he is recommended for such appointment by the Selection Committee. 32. The question that arises for consideration in the instant appeal is whether the services of the opposite parties-petitioner nos.1 to 4, who were appointed as untrained teachers in the year 1977 and have worked continuously since then, could be deemed to have come to an end after the institution was upgraded and came on grant-in-aid list with effect from 2007 because they were not trained Asstt. Teachers on the date of their appointment, even though they acquired necessary qualification and became trained teachers during service either after upgradation of the institution or it’s coming on grant-in-aid list in the year 2007. 33. When the Rules, 1978 were enacted, the minimum educational qualification prescribed for appointment of Asstt. Teacher was Intermediate only. The petitioner nos.1 to 4 were thus educationally qualified to be appointed as Asstt. Teacher in Junior High School. It may now be examined whether the untrained teachers could be appointed permanently and whether such appointments were illegal. 33. When the Rules, 1978 were enacted, the minimum educational qualification prescribed for appointment of Asstt. Teacher was Intermediate only. The petitioner nos.1 to 4 were thus educationally qualified to be appointed as Asstt. Teacher in Junior High School. It may now be examined whether the untrained teachers could be appointed permanently and whether such appointments were illegal. Before 10.03.1971 the services of Asstt. Teachers in Junior High School were governed by the provisions of the Education Code. 34. Chapter-V of Education Code dealt with recognised Junior and Senior Basic schools. It has two Sections ‘A’ and ‘B’. The former dealt with school for boys and later for girls. No qualification was prescribed for an Asstt. Teacher in boys school. But paragraph 196 in ‘B’ Section provided that no untrained teacher shall be appointed permanently in a recognized school. This did not apply to boys’ schools. As such there was no bar on permanent appointment for an untrained teacher in boys schools. The State Government had issued the order in 1971, which purported to revise the salary of Asstt. Teachers in junior high schools but it made obligatory for any untrained teacher appointed after the notification was issued to acquire training certificate within five years of his appointment otherwise he would be paid the initial salary only. There was thus no restriction on the management of a Junior Basic School in appointing an untrained teacher permanently. 35. Training became essential qualification under Rules, 1978. The appointment of petitioner nos.1 to 4, however, being prior to it and in accordance with law in force on the date of their appointment does not suffer from any defect. The provisions of Rules, 1978 were not retrospective, therefore, appointment of an untrained teacher prior to these Rules could not be held to be illegal only on that account. Ref. Rikh Pal Singh v. District Basic Education Board, Allahabad, 1990 UPLBEC 351 . These Rules did not in any manner effect the appointments made after the Government Order of 1971. An untrained teacher, therefore, could be appointed permanently between 1971 and 1978. 36. In similar facts and circumstances in Pati Ram Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (1999) 3 UPLBEC 2379 a learned Single Judge of this Court has considered the appointment of Asstt. An untrained teacher, therefore, could be appointed permanently between 1971 and 1978. 36. In similar facts and circumstances in Pati Ram Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (1999) 3 UPLBEC 2379 a learned Single Judge of this Court has considered the appointment of Asstt. Teacher in Boys Junior High School, which were made prior to G.O. dated 10.03.1971 and observed that the same stood governed by Education Code. Chapter-V, Section A of the Education Code provides for no training qualification. The G.O. dated 10.03.1971 brought a change. It raised no objection for appointment of an untrained candidate as permanent teacher but put up a condition that it should obtain training qualification within five years. In case it fails to do so, then it would continue an initial scale of pay. Learned Single Judge observed that for the first time Rules, 1978 prescribed ‘training’ as essential qualification for appointment and appointment of an untrained teacher on permanent basis between 10.03.1971 to year 1970 is valid and regular. 37. In Ram Sarup v. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 1978 SC 1536 , the Supreme Court examined whether the appointment of Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, who did not possess five years experience in the working of Labour Laws would be void and observed that it would not be void but merely irregular and the observations are:- "............. The appellant could not, therefore, be legitimately appointed to the post of Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer unless, amongst other things, he possessed five years' experience in the working of Labour laws as Labour Inspector, Deputy Chief Inspector for Shops or Wage Inspector, which he admittedly did not. ............. The question then arises as to what was the effect of breach of Cl. (1) of R. 4 of the Rules. Did it have the effect of rendering the appointment wholly void so as to be completely ineffective or merely irregular, so that it could be regularised as and when the appellant acquired the necessary qualifications to hold the post of Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer. We are of the view that the appointment of the appellant was irregular since he did not possess one of the three requisite qualifications but as soon as he acquired the necessary qualification of five years' experience of the working of labour laws in any one of the three capacities mentioned in Cl. We are of the view that the appointment of the appellant was irregular since he did not possess one of the three requisite qualifications but as soon as he acquired the necessary qualification of five years' experience of the working of labour laws in any one of the three capacities mentioned in Cl. (1) of R. 4 or in any higher capacity, his appointment must be regarded as having been regularised. The appellant worked as Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer from 1st Jan., 1968 and that being a post higher than that of Labour Inspector or Deputy Chief Inspector of Shops or Wage Inspector, the experience gained by him in the working of Labour Laws in the post of Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer must be regarded as sufficient to constitute fulfilment of the requirement of five years' experience provided in Cl. (1) of R. 4. The appointment of the appellant to the post of Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, therefore, became regular from the date when he completed five years after taking into account the period of about ten months during which he worked as Chief Inspector of Shops. Once his appointment became regular on the expiry of this period of five years on his fulfilling the requirements for appointment as Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer and becoming eligible for that purpose, he could not thereafter be reverted to the post of Statistical Officer. The order of reversion passed against the appellant was, therefore, clearly illegal and it must be set aside." (emphasis supplied) 38. In Dr. M.S. Mudhol & Anr. v. S.D. Halegkar & Ors., (1993) 3 SCC 591 , the Supreme Court observed that even though the first respondent did not have the requisite educational qualification to be selected for the post of Principal but as the default was on the part of the Director of Education in illegally approving the said appointment made in 1981 as a result of which the said respondent continued to work on the post for 12 years, it would be inadvisable to disturb him from the said post, particularly when the infraction of the statutory Rule regarding the qualification was not that grave taking into consideration all the other relevant facts. The observations of the Apex Court in the said judgment are as under:- "4. The contention of the respondents that M.Ed. IInd Division was equivalent to M.A. IInd Division is obviously fallacious. ................... The observations of the Apex Court in the said judgment are as under:- "4. The contention of the respondents that M.Ed. IInd Division was equivalent to M.A. IInd Division is obviously fallacious. ................... We have, therefore, no doubt that the 1st respondent did not have the requisite educational qualifications to be selected for the post of the Principal. 5. As regards the teaching experience, the 1st respondent's contention is that he had worked as a teacher for 9 years in a High School and Higher Secondary School which had upto 11 standards. According to him, he also worked as a Lecturer in History. His further contention is that the post of the School Inspector in Karnataka where he was working as such and that of the teacher were interchangeable. Hence the selection committee had taken into consideration his experience in both the capacities. These facts are not controverted before us and in any case today, he has the requisite experience of teaching as he has been teaching the 11th and the 12th class continuously for 12 years now, since 1981. It can, therefore, be said that at least as on date when his removal from the post of Principal is sought, he cannot be said to be disqualified on account of the lack of required teaching experience. 6. Since we find that it was the default on the part of the 2nd respondent, Director of Education in illegally approving the appointment of the first respondent in 1981 although he did not have the requisite academic qualifications as a result of which the 1st respondent has continued to hold the said post for the last 12 years now, it would be inadvisable to disturb him from the said post at this late stage particularly when he was not at fault when his selection was made. There is nothing on record to show that he had at that time projected his qualifications other than what he possessed. If, therefore, inspite of placing all his cards before the selection committee, the selection committee for some reason or the other had thought it fit to choose him for the post and the 2nd respondent had chosen to acquiesce in the appointment, it would be inequitous to make him suffer for the same now. Illegality, if any, was committed by the selection committee and the 2nd respondent. Illegality, if any, was committed by the selection committee and the 2nd respondent. They are alone to be blamed for the same. 7. Whatever may be the reasons which were responsible for the non-discovery of the want of qualifications of the 1st respondent for a long time, the fact remains that the Court was moved in the matter after a long lapse of about 9 years. The post of the Principal in a private school though aided, is not of such sensitive public importance that the Court should find itself impelled to interfere with the appointment by a writ of quo warranto even assuming that such a writ is maintainable. This is particularly so when the incumbent has been discharging his functions continuously for over a long period of 9 years when the court was moved and today about 13 years have elapsed. The infraction of the statutory rule regarding the qualifications of the incumbent pointed out in the present case is also not that grave taking into consideration all other relevant facts. In the circumstances, we deem it unnecessary to go into the question as to whether a writ of quo warranto would lie in the present case or not, and further whether mere laches would disentitle the petitioners to such a writ. (emphasis supplied)” 39. The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. M.S. Mudhol & Anr. (Supra) was followed by the Division Bench of this Court in Rajendra Prasad Srivastava v. District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur, Now Maharajganj, 1994 ACJ 781 and the observations are:- "It is true that the appointment of the appellant was in violation of Regulation 4 of Chapter III and was as such, illegal, but he has worked in the institution from 1971 to 1978, when his service was terminated. But this order of termination was stayed by this Court, on account of which he continued to work upto the time when his writ petition was dismissed in August, 1991. It will be highly unfair to remove a person from service after about 20 years, on the ground that his initial appointment was illegal. Division Bench of this Court in Committee of Management v. District Inspector of Schools, 1990 (1) UPLBEC 189 has held that it will be unfair and unjust to unsettle the career of an employee who has worked for about eight years. Division Bench of this Court in Committee of Management v. District Inspector of Schools, 1990 (1) UPLBEC 189 has held that it will be unfair and unjust to unsettle the career of an employee who has worked for about eight years. In Smt. Rani Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors. 1990 All CJ 243 another Division Bench did not permit the appointment of Head mistress to be put to an end after five years, even though there was infirmity in making her appointment. Supreme Court in Dr. M.S. Mudhol v. S.D. Halegkar (supra) has observed that it would be undesirable to disturb a principal after 12 years on the ground that he was not eligible at the time of his appointment, because it would be inequitous to make him suffer after such a long time." 40. In Ram Swarup v. State of Haryana & Ors. (Supra), Hon’ble the Apex Court held that appointment of an employee, who did not have five years experience as required on the date of appointment but continued to work for nine years was not void but only irregular, therefore, it did not suffer from any defect. In Smt. Shanti Devi Verma v. Deputy Director of Education, 1982 UPLBEC 365 , the High Court held that lack of prescribed qualification at the time of appointment if not obtained by fraud, then it did not render the appointment void and the teacher could obtain necessary qualification after appointment. 41. In the instant matter, the petitioner nos.1 to 4 claimed to be appointed as Asstt. Teachers in the year 1977. Their services were affirmed by the then District Basic Education Officer, Siddharth Nagar vide order dated 23.03.1985. It is claimed that they continued to teach till their superannuation. Vide order impugned their services were not recognised only on the ground that they did not possess the minimum qualification of training. The record reflects that they all acquired the qualification later on. Therefore, they possessed the minimum qualification of training in view of Rules, 1978. 42. While passing the order dated 12.09.2012 (impugned in the writ petition) the appellants-respondents had taken an objection that the opposite parties-petitioner nos.1 to 4, who were working as Head Master and Asstt. Teachers were not inhering the qualification in view of Rules, 1978. Admittedly the institution was not recognized. 42. While passing the order dated 12.09.2012 (impugned in the writ petition) the appellants-respondents had taken an objection that the opposite parties-petitioner nos.1 to 4, who were working as Head Master and Asstt. Teachers were not inhering the qualification in view of Rules, 1978. Admittedly the institution was not recognized. The temporary recognition was accorded in the year 1980; the permanent recognition was accorded in the year 1984 and the institution was put on grant-in-aid list in the year 2006. Even the financial approval was also accorded in the year 2007. While making an enquiry at the said stage, no such objection was raised, contrarily the approval was accorded on the basis of their working in the institution, which was also one of the relevant consideration. Therefore, at this belated stage, raising an objection that the procedure had not been adopted at the stage of their initial engagement in the light of Rules, 1978 qua Asstt. Teacher is unsustainable. At their initial inception and later on while successive exercises, which had been carried out by the Authorities, no such objection was raised. We are surprised that in case they were not working in the institution, as to under what circumstances in absence of teachers (temporary and permanent) recognition was accorded to the institution and later on the same was also put on grant-in-aid list. Similarly the objection that for appointment of opposite party-petitioner no.5, who was working as Clerk and opposite party-petitioner nos.6 to 8, who were working as Peon at the initial stage of their appointment, the Rules, 1984 were not followed, the said objection can also not be accepted. 43. While passing the order (impugned in the writ petition), the order putting the institution on grant-in-aid list was withdrawn. We are surprised that why the management has not questioned the said order and only the petitioners had put up their case for salary and continuity of their services. 44. The Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma and another Vs. Chandra Shekhar and another, 1993 Supp. (2) SCC 611, came to the conclusion that the results of the examination of the qualification that was required to be possessed on the date of interview had not been declared for no fault of the applicants, but were announced immediately before the date of interview. Chandra Shekhar and another, 1993 Supp. (2) SCC 611, came to the conclusion that the results of the examination of the qualification that was required to be possessed on the date of interview had not been declared for no fault of the applicants, but were announced immediately before the date of interview. This did not dis-entitle the applicants as being disqualified and the Supreme Court upheld their selection and appointment in spite of that infirmity. The minority view of the third Hon'ble Judge even though agreed with the conclusion but held the applicants to be ineligible on the date when the application was to be filed. The minority view held that such practice should be discouraged as a person not qualified on the date of the application, cannot be subsequently given any benefit. However, since the conclusion was in favour of the applicants, their appointments were upheld. 45. The Supreme Court in the case of Roshni Devi Vs. State of Haryana and others, (1998) 8 SCC 59 , again came across such a case where it passed an order in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and upheld the appointment. CONCLUSION 46. We have carefully examined the record and find that the writ petition was instituted in the year 2013 and since then the matter is pending consideration without any interim order. Even the pleading has not been set up before learned Single Judge that all the petitioners continued to work in the institution and in absence of any pleading qua their working in the institution, learned Single Judge has erred in law while setting aside the order dated 12.09.2012 and holding the petitioners to be treated as permanent incumbent of the institution and also holding that they were also entitled for arrears of salary from July, 2012 till the date of their retirement. The said finding of fact could not be substituted by learned Single Judge on his own accord without returning the concrete finding on the same. In absence of any pleading and material on record, we are unable to accord arrears with effect from July, 2012. 47. However, we corroborate the other reasoning recorded by learned Single Judge to the effect that petitioner nos.1 to 5, those were working as Head Master and Asstt. In absence of any pleading and material on record, we are unable to accord arrears with effect from July, 2012. 47. However, we corroborate the other reasoning recorded by learned Single Judge to the effect that petitioner nos.1 to 5, those were working as Head Master and Asstt. Teachers and were appointed in the institution much prior to the invocation of Rules, 1978 and petitioner nos.6 to 8, who were also appointed in the institution prior to invocation of Rules, 1984, the rightful claim cannot be denied merely on the ground that the petitioner nos.1 to 5 were lacking the training, whereas the record amply demonstrate that the financial approval was accorded by the competent authority way back on 4.5.2007 and admittedly all the petitioners were fulfilling the eligibility as required at the relevant point. 48. Surprisingly the entire case has been set up by the appellant-respondents that the Rules of 1978 were applicable at the time of initial engagement of petitioner nos.1 to 5 in the institution. The said objection is unsustainable as on the basis of Manager’s Return (MR) the temporary and permanent recognition of the institution was accorded in the year 1980 and 1984 respectively and later on financial approval was also accorded in the year 2007. The said approval could not have been accorded in the absence of actual strength of teacher and other employees in the institution. On one hand while according temporary and permanent recognition the appellants-respondents had considered the working strength in the institution and on the other hand at the belated stage the objection has been raised that the petitioners’ induction in the institution was dehorse the Rules, 1978 and the Rules, 1984. Both the things cannot move simultaneously. Therefore, we find that the reasoning assigned by learned Single Judge does not require any interference. But we are not in a position to return any concrete finding at this belated stage whether the petitioners were working in the institution since then. 49. We, therefore, approve the finding returned by learned Single Judge qua the petitioners’ initial engagement in the institution as admittedly the petitioners were paid salary in response to the financial approval accorded in the year 2007 and in the light of the order passed by the Writ Court from 2010 to 2012. 49. We, therefore, approve the finding returned by learned Single Judge qua the petitioners’ initial engagement in the institution as admittedly the petitioners were paid salary in response to the financial approval accorded in the year 2007 and in the light of the order passed by the Writ Court from 2010 to 2012. But so far as payment of salary to the petitioners with effect from July, 2012 till their superannuation, only for this limited purpose, the matter is relegated to the Authority to ascertain entire working since 2012. In case they have worked in the institution, they will be entitled to salary but if it is found that they were not working in the institution, they will not be entitled for the salary from July, 2012 till their superannuation on the principle of ‘no work no pay’. 50. It is made clear that in either of the case, the opposite parties-petitioners shall certainly be entitled for all consequential benefits qua their initial engagement in the institution being found in accordance with law. Accordingly, the order impugned passed by learned Single Judge is modified to the above extent. 51. With the above observations and directions, the appeal stands partly allowed.