HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 50676 of 2015 Court No. - 52 HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. The writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and to quash the impugned order dated 07.07.2015 passed by respondent no.1. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to give the petitioner the benefit of regular salary from 2006, from the date, the other Assistant Teachers appointed with the petitioner are getting that benefit. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the arrears of salary to the petitioner from 2006 upto till date on the basis of the regular salary from which the petitioner is entitled from 2006." Placing the brief facts of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed by the Selection Committee which met on 03.04.1999. The selection took place in the presence of the observer as sent by the District Basic Education Officer. The appointment of the petitioner was approved by the District Basic Education Officer on 31.12.1999, after which the appointment letter was issued by the Committee of Management of Sardar Ballabh Bhai Patel, Purva Madhyamik Vidyalay, Katari, Tilakpur, Basti, respondent no.4. The said institution was thereafter Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi, Anil Singh Bishen Counsel for Respondent(s) : Awadhesh Kumar, C.S.C. Vashisht Dhar Mishra .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) brought under grant in aid list in the year 2006. The name of petitioner was also sent along with name of other teaching and non teaching staff for getting the benefit of grant-in-aid. The teachers who were appointed along with the petitioner and held the qualification of B.Ed, L.T. and Moallim were also granted the benefit of grant-in-aid and, accordingly, the salary was paid. The petitioner was denied the benefit as he has education qualification of B.A., B.P.Ed, therefore, he filed Writ A No.22587 of 2014 (Vashisht Dhar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. And 3 Others), which was disposed of vide order dated 21.04.2014 whereby the Court directed the Secretary, Basic Education, to take appropriate decision on the representation of the petitioner regarding payment of salary. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the impugned order has been passed rejecting the application of the petitioner. The aforesaid order has been challenged on the following grounds:- After coming of the institution in grant-in-aid list, the other teaching and non teaching staff were getting the benefit of grant-in-aid except the petitioner. The teachers who were appointed along with the petitioner and had the qualification of B.Ed, L.T. and Moallim were granted the benefit of grant-in-aid and salary was being paid accordingly. The petitioner has been wrongly denied the benefit of getting the proper salary on the presumption that he is a certificate holder of B.P.Ed. The petitioner claims parity with the other teachers who were having B.Ed, L.T. and Moallim Certificate for the benefit of being paid the salary. Therefore, the order impugned is arbitrary, illegal and bad in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside. In support of his submission, regarding entitlement of payment of salary, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgement passed in Special Appeal No.258 of 2015 (Nand Lal vs. State of U.P.), as decided on 25.02.2020. Learned Standing Counsel submits that petitioner is claiming parity with the persons holding the qualification of B.Ed, L.T. and Moallim but the qualification of the petitioner is B.P.Ed, which is not covered under the Rule 4(1) of the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior WRIA No. 50676 of 2015 2 High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978, (in short 'Rules of 1978'). He further submits that the judgement as relied upon by the petitioner is not applicable in the facts of the present case as it refers to selection on the post of Assistant Teacher (Games), wherein relying upon the qualification for physical teachers as given under the National Council for Teacher Education (Determination of Minimum Qualification for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations, 2001, the petitioner therein has been treated as qualified for being appointed as Assistant Teachers (Games). In view of the above, the writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. March 25, 2026 Rahul. WRIA No. 50676 of 2015 3 (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad