JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel Sri Gyanendra Srivastava, Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla for respondent nos.2 and 3, Sri Vikas Singh for respondent no.4.

2. In the present writ petition, the following main reliefs have been sought:-

"(A) A writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to treat the petitioner having been approved by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Sitapur and to allow him all benefits arising out of appointment on the post of Clerk including payment of salary etc.

(B) A writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Accounts Officer of District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Sitapur to pass salary bill in respect of the petitioner without any objection treating the petitioner to have been duly approved by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Sitapur.

(B)(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 21.11.1998 passed by the opposite party no.2, B.S.A., Sitapur which is annexed as CA-1 with the counter affidavit."

3. After filing of the counter affidavit by the opposite party no.2, the order dated 21.11.1998 has been challenged by amending the writ petition.

4. By the order dated 21.11.1998, under issue, the respondent no.2 District Basic Education Officer, Sitapur, (hereinafter referred to as "BSA"), cancelled the selection process/interview wherein the petitioner was selected for the post of Clerk, the effect of which is that the BSA disapproved the appointment of the petitioner made by respondent no.4-Manager, Sri Dharwal Devi Vidya Mandir, Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Dharauli, District Sitapur, (in short "Institution") on the post of "Clerk". The main ground for cancellation of selection process/interview and disapproving the proposal of appointment of the petitioner made by the Institution on the post of Clerk is that the "'Type Test", as required under Rule 4 of the Rules of 1984 namely the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High School) (Recruitment and Condition of Service of Ministerial Staff and Group 'D' Employees) Rules, 1984, was not held during the selection process.

5. Brief facts of the case are to the effect that the respondent no.4 sent the relevant documents vide letter dated 15.06.1998 to the respondent no.2-BSA. It was with regard to seeking permission to fill up the vacancy of Clerk, which came into existence on account of death of one Sri Mahesh Prasad, who was working on the post of Clerk in the Institution. Thereafter, vide letter dated 24.08.1998, BSA accorded the permission and in furtherance thereof, an advertisement dated 24.09.1998 was published in daily newspaper "Dainik Jagran" for making recruitment on the post of Clerk in the Institution. Pursuant to the advertisement dated 24.09.1998, petitioner along with other candidates applied for the post in issue i.e. Clerk. The selection was held on 25.10.1998 by the duly constituted Selection Committee comprising of Manager, Principal and nominee of BSA. The petitioner was selected in the selection process and thereafter relevant documents including the select list was sent for approval of BSA vide letter of respondent no.4 dated 28.10.1999.

6. Thereafter, in absence of any response from the BSA on the select list within one month, the Committee of Management of the Institution approved recommendation of Selection Committee and appointment order dated 29.11.1998 was issued by the respondent and pursuant to the same the petitioner joined on the post of Clerk on 03.12.1998.

7. After considering the relevant documents, respondent no.2-BSA cancelled the selection process/interview held for selecting the candidate for the vacant post of Clerk in the Institution, the effect of which is that the BSA disapproved the appointment of the petitioner and the decision was duly communicated to the respondent no.4 vide letter dated 21.11.1998, Annexure No.1 to the Counter Affidavit dated 05.05.1991 filed on behalf of opposite p