HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 4516 of 2024 Court No. - 18 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Uday Veer Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 & 4 and Mr. Pankaj Patel, learned counsel for respondent no. 5. Bereft of unnecessary details the facts as set forth by the learned counsel for the petitioners are that the petitioners claim to have been appointed as Assistant Teachers in the respondent no. 5 i.e Institution on 18.09.2019. As they were not paid the salary from the State Exchequer, they staked their claim for being paid salary. Their claim has been rejected by means of the order impugned dated 17.04.2021 on the ground that an amendment has been made in the Rules on 04.12.2019 and at the time of appointment of the petitioners, as per the amended rules, the approval had not been taken. Argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that once the amendment in the rules has only come into force on 04.12.2019 and the appointment of the petitioners is dated 18.09.2019 consequently, there cannot be a case on the part of the respondents that an approval in terms of the amendment dated 04.12.2019 should have been there at the time of the initial appointment done way back in the year 2019 and thus the order impugned reflects patent non application of mind to relevant facts of the instant case. On the other hand, Dr. Uday Veer Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 1 & 2 and Mr. Prashant Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Krishna Madhav Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Patel Smt. Pooja And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Civil Sectt. Lko And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) Kr. Singh, counsel for respondent nos. 3 & 4, an on the basis of averments contained in the counter affidavit has justified the order impugned. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the averments made in paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit to contend that even at that stretch of time i,e in the year 2019, there was a requirement of an approval of the appointment by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari and no such approval had been granted by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. Although, a perusal of the order impugned would indicate that the aforesaid ground as has been taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit more particularly paragraph 15 has not been taken in the impugned order. It is settled proposition of law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors- AIR 1987 SC 851 that the grounds which are not contained in an order cannot be supplemented by means of an affidavit. Thus, in case any ground which does not find place in the order impugned has been taken by the respondents then the said grounds obviously cannot be considered by this Court. A perusal of the order impugned, as already indicated above, would indicate patent non application of mind on the part of the respondents while considering the case of the petitioners inasmuch as there was no occasion for the respondents to have considered the amendment of 04.12.2019 in the rules more particularly when the appointment of the petitioners is of 18.09.2019. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 17.04.2021, a copy of which is annexure 1to the writ petition is quashed. The matter is remitted to the respondent no. 3 i.e Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ambedkar Nagar to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law and the relevant rules. Let such an order be passed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. December 9, 2025 Mayank WRIA No. 4516 of 2024 2 (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench