Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:6115 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6075 of 2021 Petitioner :- Salik Ram Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy. Basic Education Lko. And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Balram Yadava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar,Prashant Kumar Singh Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, the writ petition is being finally decided. Instant petition has been filed seeking following main reliefs :- "i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 7.1.2021, passed by opp-party no.5, as contained in Annexure No.2 to the writ petition. ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the opp-parties to make the payment of salary of the post of Headmaster to the petitioner with effect from 01.04.2017, till date." Case set forth by the petitioner is that the petitioner had been appointed as Headmaster in the respondent no.7/Institution on temporary basis in terms of Rule 20 of Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1978'). The respondent no. 7/Committee of Management had sought a prior approval from the Basic Shiksha Adhikari vide its letter dated 18.03.2017, a copy of which is Annexure No. 2A to the petition. Admittedly, no approval was granted to the petitioner but despite that the petitioner was appointed on 01.04.2017 on temporary basis. When he was not paid salary, he approached this Court by filing Petition No. 21195 (S/S) of 2020 which required the respondents to consider the grievance of the petitioner. In pursuance thereof, by means of the impugned order dated 07.01.2021, a copy of which is Annexure No. 2 to the petition, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. Admittedly, in terms of Rule 20 of the Rules, 1978, there had to be a previous approval of District Basic Education Officer for an appointment. Admittedly, no previous approval had been given by the District Basic Education Officer as categorically provided under Rule 20 of the Rules, 1978. Apart from this, the respondents while rejecting the claim of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 07.01.2021 have also considered the dispute prevailing in the Committee of Management, Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there was no dispute between in the Committee of Management and consequently, there was no occasion for the respondents to have rejected the claim of the petitioner for payment of salary. Nevertheless, even if there was no dispute the fact of the matter remains that there was no previous approval of the District Basic Education Officer for appointment of the petitioner which thus entails the appointment of the petitoiner with effect from 01.04.2017 to be not in accordance with Rules, 1978. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 29.1.2025 Mohit Singh/- Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench