JUDGMENT Yashoda Naadan, J. - Admittedly, the petitioner was, during a certain period, the commencement and the length of which is in dispute, employed as a teacher of Mathematics in Tulsi Das Intermediate College, Gorakhpur. According to the admitted case of the parties, in the issue of "Dainik Jagran" dated 11-9-1976, an advertisement appeared, calling for applications to fill in a number of teaching posts m the institution. Copy of the advertisement has been filed as Annexure "1" to the counter-affidavit filed by the principal of the college, Sri Ganga Saran Pandey, on behalf of Authorised Controller thereof. 2. According to advertisement, two Science Teachers were needed with Mathematics as one of their subjects. The advertisement disclosed that the posts mentioned therein were to be filled in for a period of six months and the appointments were to be made on a temporary basis. The applicants were required to send their applications by 20-9-1975, and to appear for interview on 21-9-1975 at 10 a. m. at the College. The petitioner claims that in response to the advertisement, he applied for appointment for any one of the two posts of Teachers of Science with Mathematics as a subject, appeared for an interview before a Selection Committee on 21-9-1975 and having been duly selected by the Selection Committee, was appointed as one of the two Teachers in Mathematics at the College with effect from 1-10-1975. 3. According to the petitioner, the Principal of the College was interested in the appointment of Prem Krishna Shukla and consequently in disregard of the panel prepared by the Selection Committee and the directions of then an Authorised Controller of the College, while seeking approval of the District Inspector of Schools for appointment of the selected teachers, omitted from the list the petitioners name and instead entered the name of Prem Krishna Shukla. It is alleged that though the petitioner had joined service of the College as a Teacher on 1-10-1975, the Principal of the College did not allow him to sign the attendance Register and told him that after approval to his appointment had been obtained from the District Inspector of Schools, he would be allowed to sign the register with back dates. The petitioner asserts that he continued to serve the institution throughout till 30 6 1976 but when he appeared to join the institution on its reopening after the summer vacation on 8-7-76 he was prevented from doing so by the Principal of the College, even though he was legally continuing in the service of the institution. Several representations were made by the petitioner to different authorised Controllers, who were looking after the management of the College as also to the District Inspector of Schools. 4. Having failed to secure satisfactory relief from the authorities concerned, he has invoked the power of this Court under Article 220 of the Constitution by means of this writ, petition, and prays for a suitable writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to make payment of the salary to the petitioner from 1-10-1975 to 3-2-1976 and from 21-5-1976 onwards. He has also prayed for a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the working of the petitioner as L,. T. Grade Teacher in Mathematics in the college where he was employed Relief of a general character has also been prayed for, subsequently, during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner applied for amendment of the writ petition by addition of the relief seeking issuance of a suitable writ, order or direction declaring him a perm ament Teacher of the institution. 5. Counter-affidavits have been file by Ganga Saran Pandey, the Principal of the College on behalf of the Authorised Controller, who was functioning at the time when the affidavit was filed as well as one on behalf of the District Inspector of Schools. All the relevant allegations contained in the writ petition and the Supplementary affidavit have been controverted in the counter affidavit. According to the allegations contained in the counter-affidavit of Sri Ganga Saran Pandey, in December 1957, two new posts were created for appointment of Mathematics Teachers in the College, and the petitioner and one Sri Mukti Nath Misera were selected for appointment to these two posts. Their names were sent to the District Inspector of Schools for approval, who by means of letter dated 4-2-1976 accorded approval to appointment of the petitioner as well as Sri Mukti Nath Misra with effect from the date of their appointment till 20-2-1976. Their names were sent to the District Inspector of Schools for approval, who by means of letter dated 4-2-1976 accorded approval to appointment of the petitioner as well as Sri Mukti Nath Misra with effect from the date of their appointment till 20-2-1976. According to the counter-affidavit of the Principal, by means of letter dated 4-2-1976 issued under the.signature of the then Authorised Controller, the appointment of the petitioner having been approved by the District Inspector of Schools, he was asked immediately to submit a joining report. The stand taken by the Principal on behalf of the Authorised Controller is that the petitioner continued in service of the College as a Teacher of Mathematics till 20-5-76 when the College closed down for summer vacation, and then he never joined the service of the College One Akhalesh Mani Tripathi, an employee in the office of the District Inspector of Schools has filed an affidavit on his behalf and has substantially supported the stand taken by the Principal on behalf of the Authorised Controller. Rejoinder affidavits have been filed, by the petitioner in which the allegations contained in the petition have been reiterated and the statements contained in the counter-affidavits have been disputed and denied. 6. During the hearing of this petition, two main questions of facts came up for consideration before us. Firstly, as to whether the petitioner joined service of the College on 31-10-1975 as alleged by him, or on 4-2-1976 as asserted on behalf of the Authorised Controller by the Principal of the College. The second important question that arose for consideration is as to whether the appointment of the petitioner was in a clear vacancy or he had been appointed in a leave vacancy and he was not entitled to the benefit of Section 16-GG of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act Section 16-GG has been introduced by U.P. Act No. 5 of 1977, which came into effect on 21-4-1977 replacing an earlier Ordinance to the same effect. We shall deal with the second question first because if it is found that the petitioner had been appointed in a clear vacancy, he became entitled to the relief of a direction to the opposite parties to treat him as a permanent Teacher as a result of the operation of Section 16-GG of the aforesaid Act. We shall deal with the second question first because if it is found that the petitioner had been appointed in a clear vacancy, he became entitled to the relief of a direction to the opposite parties to treat him as a permanent Teacher as a result of the operation of Section 16-GG of the aforesaid Act. In spite of the dispute raised by the Principal of the College, who has filed the counter-affidavit as already stated on behalf of Authorised Controller and the District Inspector of Schools, we hold on the basis of the evidence on record, and the facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioner had in fact been appointed in clear vacancy and not in a leave vacancy, in the first place, the advertisement of which a copy has been filed as Annexure to the counter affidavit of the Principal of the Collage, does not mention that any of the posts advertised therein were for filling up only a leave vacancy. It was stated only that all the four posts advertised were temporary and would last for a period or six months. This advertisement obviously and apparently was made in accordance with the power granted to the Committees of Management of Intermediate Colleges by the U.P. Secondary Education (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1975, which was issued on 18-8-1975 and enabled the committees of Management of Intermediate Colleges to fill in vacancies of heads of institution and Lecturers, which could not be filled in by promotion under paragraph 2(h) of that order on an ad hoc basis. Moreover we find that the letter dated 20-1-1976 addressed by the District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur, to the Authorised Controller of Tulsi Das Intermediate College informing him that apart from the petitioner and Mukti Nath Misra, one Radhey Shyam Tripathi had been approved for appointment also conveyed approval to the appointment of Nageshwar Nath Misra in the leave vacancy of Sri D. N. Singh up to 17-2-1976. The letter of approval makes it abundantly clear that while approval of the District Inspector of Schools was accorded in the case of one teacher specifically mentioning that it was in a leave vacancy in respect of the petitioner and other two teachers it was done without any such qualifications. The letter of approval makes it abundantly clear that while approval of the District Inspector of Schools was accorded in the case of one teacher specifically mentioning that it was in a leave vacancy in respect of the petitioner and other two teachers it was done without any such qualifications. The letter of appointment issued to the petitioner on 4-2-1976, a true copy of which is on record, also does not state that the petitioners appointment is in a leave vacancy. From the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Authorised Controller, it appears that during the pendency of this writ petition, the management advertised for filling in the post at one time held by the petitioner and this advertisement relates to a clear vacancy. This advertisement also in our opinion demonstrate satisfactorily that the petitioner was appointed not in any leave vacancy, but in a clear vacancy caused as a result of the earlier incumbent of the post having left the job. The District Inspector of Schools also in his reports to the Deputy Director of Education dated 15-1-1977 and 28-11-77 (Annexures R. A. 2 and R.A.3 to the rejoinder affidavit filed on 23-11-1977) expressed the same opinion. 7. It has been conceded in the counter-affidavit filed by the Principal of the College that the petitioner joined service on 4-2-1976 and continued to serve till 20-5-1976 on which date the College closed down for the summer vacation. As already stated, the petitioner had been appointed in an ad hoc capacity by the Authorised Controller, who was functioning at the relevant time as the Committee of Management in the exercise of the powers under the first Removal of Difficulties Order. Admittedly he continued and served the Institution till 20-5-1976. On 17-2-1976 the State Government in exercise of its power under Section 22 of the U.P. Secondary Education Laws (Amentment) Act, 1975 (U. P. Act no. 26 of 1976), issued under the U.P. Secondary Education (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order, 1976, hereinafter referred to as the Second Order, substituting the words "not exceeding six months" for the words "not extending beyond June 30, 1976". There is nothing on record to show that after May 20, 1976 and before 17-2-1976 the Management of the College terminated petitioners service. By operation of law consequently the petitioner must be deemed to have continued in any event in the service of the College up to 30-6-1976. There is nothing on record to show that after May 20, 1976 and before 17-2-1976 the Management of the College terminated petitioners service. By operation of law consequently the petitioner must be deemed to have continued in any event in the service of the College up to 30-6-1976. The petitioners claim is that he continued in service of the College till the date of presentation of the petition in this Court and there was no order passed by the Authorised Controller to the contrary though he was prevented from signing the Attendance Register of the College by the principal. In support of his claim he has filed copies of various representations made by him not only to the Authorised Controller but also to the District Inspector of Schools complaining against the high handed action of the Principal in preventing him from signing the Attendance Register even though he was attending the College regularly and remained in service thereof. The fact that such representations has been made is not disputed, in fact it appears that as a consequence of the representations made by the petitioner and Mukti Nath Misra the Authorised Controller after giving opportunity to the two teachers and the Principal of leading evidence and producing material before him clearly held in his order dated 26-11-1976 that the petitioner had been in service of the College since 1st October, 1971 and was entitled to his salary and the Principal was acting in an unauthorised fashion. This order of which a true copy has been filed as annexure no. 13 to the writ petition reveals that the Authorised Controller, who was for all purposes acting as the Committee of Management, as late as 16-11-1976 treated the petitioner as continuing is service of the College. We further find, that in his communication dated 21-1-1976 to the District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur, the then Authorised Controller Sri Nageshwar Nath Upadhyaya stated that petitioner and Sri Mukti Nath Misra had not been paid their salaries on account of the unauthorised acts of the Principal of the College. Along with this communication the Authorised Controller appears to have sent the Pay Bills of the two teachers mentioned above, including the petitioner, and made a request that their salaries be paid forthwith. A true copy of this letter of the Authorised Controller to the District Inspector of Schools had been filed as annexure no. Along with this communication the Authorised Controller appears to have sent the Pay Bills of the two teachers mentioned above, including the petitioner, and made a request that their salaries be paid forthwith. A true copy of this letter of the Authorised Controller to the District Inspector of Schools had been filed as annexure no. 14 to the writ petition. Under the circumstances, there is no escape from the conclusion that at least till 16th Nov. 1976 the Management of the College treated the petitioner as continuing in service of the College. It has to be been in mind that it was the Authorised Controller and not the Principal of the College who was exercising the powers of the Committee of Management under the U.P. High School and Intermediate Education Act. There is other satisfactory evidence on record to establish that the petitioner continued to serve the Institution even after January, 1977 Annexure no. 15 to the writ petition is a document dated 4-4-1977 issued under the signatures of the District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur, by which a number of teachers including the petitioner were assigned duties as invigilators at the examinations held by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. in the year 1977. This document reveals that the petitioner who is described as a teacher of Tulsi Das Inter College, Corakhpur was deputed to discharge invigilation work during the examination at Saint Andrews Intermediate College, Gorakhpur. Annexure no. 16 is a true copy of a letter under the signature of Sri I. N. Balanchield, Superintendent of the High School and Intermediate Examination, held at Saint Andrews Intermediate College. Gorakhpur. It is addressed to the Principal of the College of Tulsi Das Memorial later College, Gorakhpur and states that Sri Mukti Nath Misra, Satish Chandra Chaubey and two teachers of Tulsi Dass Memorial Inter College, who had been deputed for invigilation duty for the Boards examination, 1977 at Saint Andrews College had been relieved from duty as such in the afternoon of 30th April, 1977. The authentici.y of neither of the two documents mentioned above had been challenged in the counter affidavits. The conclusion therefore, is inevitable. that the petitioner continued as teacher of Tulsi Das Memorial Intermediate College at least till 30-4-1977. Section 16-GG to the extent relevant for our purpose is in the following terms : "16-GG........................Expl." 8. The authentici.y of neither of the two documents mentioned above had been challenged in the counter affidavits. The conclusion therefore, is inevitable. that the petitioner continued as teacher of Tulsi Das Memorial Intermediate College at least till 30-4-1977. Section 16-GG to the extent relevant for our purpose is in the following terms : "16-GG........................Expl." 8. The petitioner was admittedly appointed at ad hoc basis to "Start with and we have already found -that the appointment was in a clear vacancy. There is no dispute that he possesses requisite qualifications for appointment as a teacher in L. T. grade. We have also held that the petitioner was continuing in service of the College on and after 30-9-1976. Even assuming as claimed by the respondents that the petitioner was appointed as a teacher of the college on 4-2-1976 all the conditions required from his being deemed to have been appointed in substantive capacity under the provisions quoted above are satisfied. Section 16-GG came into force with effect from 1st April, 1977 and consequently the petitioner by operation of law and in view of the findings recorded by us be deemed to have been appointed in substantive capacity with effect from that date. On 31-3-1978 me period of protection prescribed in the Regulations framed under the U.P. High School and Intermediate Education Act being one year, he automatically acquired the status of a confirmed and permanent teacher. The petitioner consequently is entitled to the declaration that he became a permanent teacher of Tulsi Das Memorial Intermediate College, Gorakhpur on 31-3-1978. 9. The other controversy between the parties is with regard to the date on which the petitioner entered the service of the College. While the petitioner claims that he is a teacher with effect from 1-10-1975, the Principal of the College representing the Authorised Controller asserts that he joined the College only after approval had been granted for his appointment as a consequence of the letter issued to him on 4-2-1974. The petitioners contention throughout has been that there are interpolations ions contained in the letter dated 4-2-1976, which were made after the document had been signed by the Authorised Controller, the original letter of the Authorised Controller has been produced before us and though we express not final opinion on the question, it does appear that some additions have been made in writing after the type written portion of the letter. The question as to on what dale the petitioner entered the service of the college has a bearing on the prayer of the petitioner for the payment of the salary due to him. There is no controversy that the petitioner has not been paid his salary in case it was payable to him for the period between 1st October, 1975 and 4th February, 1976. The petitioner has received no salary for the period after 20-5-1976 also. Evidence has been led by both the parties in support of their rival claims. Under Section 4 of the U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act 1976 the District Inspector of Schools has power to inspect or caused to be inspected any Institution or call for such information or records (including register book of accounts and vouchers from its management and with regard to the payment of salaries to its teachers and employees as also to give direction to the management for the observance of such cannons of property as he thinks fit. In a situation such as the present, where a teacher of a College claims his salary has been withheld in disregard of the provisions of the Act mentioned above, there is thus power in the District Inspector of Schools to examine the matter and to take steps to get it rectified. The then Authorised Controller by means of his letter dated 21-1-1977 to which a reference has already been made, requested the District Inspector of Schools to arrange for the payment of pay bill of the petitioner Satish Chandra Chaubey. This letter in our mind was sufficient to call for action by the District Inspector of Schools under Section 4 of the U.P. High schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971. Instead of deciding the highly disputed question of fact in these proceeding as to when the petitioner joined the service of the College and the period during which he continued to serve it and for which he is entitled for payment of salary, we leave it to the District Inspector of Schools to decide the question after due inquiry and giving the petitioner an opportunity of establishing his claim. We make it clear that any period during which though the petitioner continued in the service of the respondent no. We make it clear that any period during which though the petitioner continued in the service of the respondent no. 2 but was in an unauthorised fashion prevented by the Principal from functioning as teacher shall not be deemed to be broken service for the put pose of the Explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 16-GG of the Act. The Principal of the College, it is needless to say, is not the committee of management of the Institution, which alone had power to bring about an end to the relationship of master and servant between the petitioner and his employer Institution. 10. In the result, this petition is allowed. A direction will issue to the opposite parties to treat the petitioner as a permanent teacher of the College in the L. T. grade with effect from 31-3-1978. Direction will also issue to the District Inspector of Schools to decide in accordance with law the dispute regarding the period during which the petitioner continued in service of the College and the amount of salary which is pay able to him within the meaning of U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 and the proviso to Explanation of Section 16-GG (1) of U.P. Act No. II of 1921 as amended up-to date. 11. The petitioner will be entitled to his costs from the respondents.