Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:36580 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3164 of 2025 Petitioner :- Vineeta Jaisawal And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. 1. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3. 2. The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition inter-alia with the following prayer:- "i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding/directing the Respondent No. 2 to ensure the payment of salary to the petitioners for the post of Assistant Teachers since their initial joining in the institution in question forthwith or within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court." 3. The facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that there is an institution known as Saraswati Purva Madhyamik Balika Vidyalaya, Atrauliya, District Azamgarh (hereinafter referred as institution). The aforesaid institution is recognized and in the grant-in-aid list of the State Government and the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Services of Teachers) Rules 1978 and the Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Ministerial Staff and Group D Employees) Rules 1984 are applicable on it. The institution in question is being managed by duly elected/constituted Committee of Management, i.e., by the respondent no.4. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher after following formalities as required in law. Subsequent to the same, papers and documents were forwarded by the Management before the authorities namely respondent no.3-Finance and Account Officer, in the office of District Basic Education Officer, Azamgarh for financial approval in the year 2010 itself. It is further argued by counsel for the petitioners that when the District Basic Education Officer does not communicate his decision with regard to grant the approval to the selection of the petitioners within one month from the date of receipt of the papers, i.e., from 05.10.2010 the Manager had issued the appointment letters to all the petitioners under deeming Clause of Rules 10 (2) (III) of 1978 Rules. It is further argued that after joining various letters were written not only by the management but also by the petitioners before the authorities specially respondent no.3 for payment of salary to the petitioners since no action has been taken hence present writ petition. 5. On the other hand it is argued by learned Standing Counsel that in case petitioner will submit a fresh representation before the respondent no.2, he will take a decision in the matter expeditiously. 6. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. 7. In the facts and circumstances, the petitioners are permitted to submit a fresh representation ventilating all his grievances before the respondent no.2-District Basic Education Officer, Azamgarh along-with certified copy of this order within a period of three weeks from today. If such a representation is made, the respondent no.2 is directed to pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a further period of three months. 8. With the aforesaid observations, present writ petition is disposed of finally. Order Date :- 12.3.2025 saqlain Digitally signed by :- SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad