Once an institution is upgraded from Junior High School to Intermediate College, it loses its original identity and is governed by the provisions applicable to High Schools, disallowing appointments under previous rules.

JUDGMENT :

Irshad Ali, J.

1. Vide order dated 6.8.2025, the review application was allowed, which is being quoted below :-

" IA No.1 of 2024- Delay Application

1. Heard.

2. In paragraph-2 of the objection filed, objection has been raised, which has no merit. The reasons assigned in the affidavit filed in support of the application are sufficient. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The delay in filing the review application is condoed.

Review Application

1. Heard Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This review application has been filed for review of judgment and order dated 14.2.2023, passed in Writ-A No.2823 of 2004.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that at no point of time, correct facts were brought into the notice of the Court, neither the validity of the appointment was shown by the respondent/ petitioner, therefore, writ of mandamus cannot be issued for the payment of salary to the respondent/ petitioner from the State exchequer. He next submitted that once the institution has been upgraded to high school and intermediate, the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 are applicable, therefore, the appointment made under the U.P. Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment And Conditions Of Service Of Teachers) Rules, 1978 is not permissible in the eyes of law.

4. Sri Sharad Pathak, Advocate opposed the review application filed by the applicant on the ground that the Committee of Management was issued notice and did not turn up to file counter affidavit before this Court and in absence of the Committee of Management, the judgment was passed by this Court on 14.2.2023, therefore, the submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant is not sustainable in law.

5. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that after filing of Writ- A No.2823 of 2004, several other disputes came before this Court in the writ petition and special appeal and it was nowhere disclosed that in the writ petition filed by the petitioner, the Committee of Management was not represented, therefore, it is pure concealment of fact, therefore, the review application is maintainable.

6. I have heard the submission so advanced by both the parties. The respondent has concealed material fact in regard to appointment of the petitioner that will the Rules of 1978 are applicable and the institution has been upgraded to intermediate college, has obtained the order for payment of salary in the writ petition, therefore, the review application is maintainable. I am of the considered opinion that once the Committee of Management was not represented by any of the counsel before this Court in the writ petition (Writ-A No.2823 of 2004), therefore, by coming alongwith the relevant facts, the review application is maintainable and is hereby allowed

7. In the present writ petition, writ of mandamus has been prayed on the ground that the petitioner was appointed by the approval of the District Basic Education Officer dated 21.10.2003 on the post of Headmistress in the institution. Question arose that whether after upgradation of the institution as intermediate college, the appointment made with the approval of the District Basic Education Officer and selection committee appointed by him, is in accordance with law or no