JUDGMENT

Rajan Roy, J.

Heard Shri Manoj Kumary Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State, Shri Prashant Arora, learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 3 and 4 and Shri Jai Narain Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 5.

2. By means of this writ petition the petitioners have sought a writ of certiorari thereby quashing the order dated 31.12.2019 passed by the Basic Siksha Adhikari, Amethi contained in Annexure No. 26 to the writ petition. A writ of mandamus has also sought to the Basic Siksha Adhikari to issue formal order of approval of appointment of the petitioners on the post of Assistant Teacher (Basic) and to release their salary w.e.f. 07.12.2017 and also to pay their salary along with arrears of salary from the said date with all admissible allowances and increments as and when they fall due.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that a vacancy of Assistant Teacher (Basic) fell vacant in the Institution of opposite party no. 5 on 30.06.2012. Another vacancy on the post of Assistant Teacher (Basic) fell vacant on 31.03.2017. On 18.04.2017 information about these vacancies was sent to the Basic Education Officer, Amethi seeking permission for advertising the same. A reminder was sent on 11.05.2017 and when nothing happened the Committee of Management has filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition No. 12099(M/S) of 2017 which was disposed of on 29.05.2017. The said writ petition was disposed of with directions to the Basic Education Officer to consider and decide the representation of the Committee of Management within a period of six weeks. The said representation was rejected by the Basic Education Officer on 09.08.2017 vide Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition. This order was challenged by the Committee of Management by means of Writ Petition No. 20786 (M/S) of 2017, in which an order was passed on 05.09.2017 directing the B.S.A. to look into the matter in the light of the law declared by this Court in Writ - A No. 58220 of 2016 and the order dated 19.08.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 18830 (M/ S) of 2017. In pursuance to the aforesaid the Basic Education Officer realizing the error in his order dated 09.08.2017 withdrew the same vide another order dated 08.09.2017 and asked the Committee of Management to furnish information in Form- 1 to 5, inter alia, as to whether the Management was disputed, details of Teachers working in the Institution subject wise and vacancies in respect thereof and other relevant information along with resolution of the Committee of Management so that the request for being permitted to fill up the post be considered. This letter is annexed as Annexure No. 9 to the writ petition.

4. The petitioners and the opposite party no. 5- Committee of Management claim that they responded to this letter vide letter of the Manager dated 10.09.2017 contained in Annexure No. 1, however, learned counsel for the B.S.A. says that this letter was never received in the Office of the Basic Education Officer and there is no proof of its receipt in the said Office. He also pointed out that even otherwise only some information is mentioned in the said letter of the Manager dated 10.09.2017, but, there is no resolution of Committee of Management annexed therewith nor details of the Teachers working subject wise, therefore, even otherwise, it is not in accordance with demand dated 08.09.2017. According to the petitioners and opposite party no. 5, as the B.S.A. did not respond, therefore, they proceeded to advertise the vacancy on 26.09.2017 in two daily Hindi News Papers i.e. 'AAj' and Voice of Musafir'. These advertisements are annexed as Annexure No. 11 and 12 to the writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the B.S.A. has pointed out that even this advertisement is not in terms of Rule 7(2) of the U.P. Recognized Basic School (Junior High School) (Recruitment and Conditions of Services of Teachers) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ru