The Act of 1993 and its Regulations of 2014 are binding on all institutions, including minority institutions governed by the Act of 1921, and prescribe qualifications for teachers, which must be adhered to for appointments.

JUDGMENT :

Saurabh Lavania, J.

1. This is an appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of Court, 1952, against the judgment and order dated 13.04.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 27704 (S/S) of 2016, Syed Shakeb Ashraf and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others.

2. The question involved in the present appeal is that:-

"What would be the qualification of an Assistant Teacher for teaching the students of primary and upper-primary classes (classes I to VIII) in an institution (recognized and aided institution) on which Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (in short "Act of 1921") including Regulation made therein the U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 (in short "Act of 1971") U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 (in short "Act of 1972") and U.P. Junior High School (Payment Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978 (in short "Act of 1978") and other Acts and Rules made thereunder are applicable?"

3. The appellants/petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 15.11.2016 of Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Faizabad (hereinafter referred as "BSA")/respondent no. 4 approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 27704 (S/S) of 2016, wherein the judgment under appeal has been passed by the learned Single Judge.

4. The BSA vide order dated 15.11.2016 declined to approve the appointment of the appellants/petitioners on the two main grounds to the effect that (i) the appointment of the appellants/petitioners is in violation/contravention of the provisions of the U.P. Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment & Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 (in short "Rules of 1978") and (ii) the management has appointed the appellants/petitioners beyond the sanctioned strength.

5. The appellants/petitioners assailed the order dated 15.11.2016 passed by Basic Shiksha Adhikari, before the Writ Court.

6. With respect to the first ground of disapproval of appointment of the appellants as Assistant Teacher, resulting in denial of salary, in the order dated 15.11.2016, the appellants in the writ petition have asserted that the institution namely AIT College, Jaganpur is a minority institution and was initially Junior High School and was receiving grant in aid and the same was upgraded to the High School Standard vide Secondary Education Boards order dated 05.06.1986 and after up-gradation the institution came within the purview of Act of 1921 and Regulations made thereunder and all the appointments after up-gradation would be governed by the Act of 1921 and regulations and other Acts or Rules made thereunder would not apply and according to the Act of 1921 the qualification of the appellants/petitioners with respect to the post of Assistant Teacher, on which they were appointed by the management, exists and as such they are entitled to the payment of salary from the State Exchequer.

7. With respect to the second ground of disapproval of appointment of the appellants as Assistant Teacher in the order dated 15.11.2016, the appellants in the writ petition have asserted that in the impugned order the BSA has mentioned the strength of students upto 8th class for the year 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 has 437, 340 and 348. Whereas the chart in this behalf was submitted before the BSA vide letter dated 20.10.2016. The strength of the students in institution from 6 to 10th in the respective academic session shown in the chart is 953, 801 and 826 respectively. Similarly the BSA in the impugned order has incorrectly mentioned 14 working teachers in the institution, while only 13 teacher at present are working and 7 new teachers including the petitioners have been appointed in place of the teachers who were working in the institution and have retired. Thus the total strength of teachers comes to 20 in number, which is the sanctioned strength according to post creation order dated 17.06.1989.

8. The learned Single Judge in the judgment under appeal has taken note of and deci