JUDGMENT K. C. Agrawal, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by as many as six persons claiming to have been appointed, as teachers in the public Balika Inter College, Baramadpur, Mohammadabad, district Azamgarh which is a Girls Intermediate College and aided by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education. The petitioners have alleged that in pursuance of an advertisement made by the Regional Inspectress Government School they applied for appointment as teachers in various subjects noted in the writ petition to the Regional Inspectress. The applications made by them were forwarded by the R.I.G.S. to the Committee of Management for being placed before the Selection Committee which had been nominated by the R.I.G.S. According to them, the Selection Committee met on 19th April, 1981 and having found that the petitioners were suitable for being appointed on the posts for which they had applied, the Committee recommended to the Committee of Management for their appointment. Upon the recommendations being made to the Committee of Management, it appointed the petitioners by order dated 20th April, 1981. In pursuance of which the charge was taken on 21-4-81. On 21-4-81 itself a letter a was received from the R.I.G.S. intimating the Committee of Managing Committee that in pursuance of the prohibition imposed by the Radiogram dated 7th April, 1981 issued by the State Government, no committee of Management was entitled to appoint any teacher in its School. The petitioners, however, continued in the college and were also confirmed in due course. As their bills for payment of salary to them were not accepted by the respondent No. 2, the petitioners filed the present writ for a direction to the respondents for payment of salary. 2. A counter-affidavit has been filled by respondent No. 2 disputing the correctness of the averment that the petitioners had been selected on the 19th April, 1981. In the counter-affidavit reliance has been placed on the registered letter dated 13th April, 1981 which had been sent by respondent No. 2 to the Committee of Management prohibiting fresh appointments as principals, Head Masters and teachers in the Schools. The allegation made in the counter-affidavit is that no selection took place on 19th April, 1981 and that the petitioners had not been selected on the aforesaid date. 3. The allegation made in the counter-affidavit is that no selection took place on 19th April, 1981 and that the petitioners had not been selected on the aforesaid date. 3. The first question that was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that as the Radiogram dated 7th April, 1981 prohibiting the appointments to be made in the College and Schools came to the knowledge of the Committee of Management after the selection had already taken place on 19th April, 1981, the Radiogram was ineffective and could not invalidate the appointments which had been made under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act. In this regard, counsel also urged that as the Radiogram had not been given the publicity which was required to be made, the same had no effect till it had not been in the knowledge of the Committee of Management. It is difficult to accept the petitioners argument. The Radiogram dated 7th April, 1981 came into force with immediate effect when it was issued by the Government. It was clearly mentioned in the Radiogram that no appointments would be made after the aforesaid date. If, therefore, any appointment had been made in contravention of the said directions contained in the Radiogram, the same would be invalid. 4. So far as the argument relating to the publicity is concerned, it is pointed out that there is no provision of law which required the publication of the Radiogram to be made for being brought to the knowledge of all concerned. The Radiogram became effective with immediate effect when it was issued by the Government. Moreover, in the present case, the letter had been sent by the respondent to the Committee of Management on 13th April, 1981. True it is that there is a dispute between the parties with regard to the receipt of the letter by the Committee of Management, but considering the matter in its entirely, we are of opinion that the Committee of Management was in the knowledge of the Radiogram of the State Government and it is to undo of the said Radiogram that the whole thing was rushed into. There is substance in the case taken in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner s had not been appointed in accordance with law and their appointments were shown to have been subsequently made for the purpose of undoing the Radiogram dated 7th April, 1981. There is substance in the case taken in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner s had not been appointed in accordance with law and their appointments were shown to have been subsequently made for the purpose of undoing the Radiogram dated 7th April, 1981. In this regard, it is also worthy of notice that in the month of April, no teaching classes take place in the Schools. Accordingly, to us, it appears that there was no need to appoint the petitioners as teachers and since there was no need, the whole thing appears to be suspicious. In this connection, we must refer to a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 6933 of 1981, Dr. Ramji Dwivedi v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 1st March, 1982, [Now Reported in 1982 UPLBEC 137 (DB)] where the court was called upon to consider the validity of the Radiogram. It held the same to be valid having been issued in pursuance of the executive powers under Article 162 of the Constitution and Section 9(4) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. 5. For the reasons given above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.