JUDGMENT E. S. Varma, J. 1. Opposite parties nos. 3 to 8 in writ petition No. 1585 of 1983 are Assistant Teachers in the institution run by the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that the said teachers have been absenting themselves from the institution and have not been attending to teaching work from various dates. According to the petitioner the said opposite parties did not inform the reason for their absence to the Manager or the Principal of the College. On 2-2-1983, opposite parties 3 to 8 addressed a letter to the Deputy Director of Education in which they complained that the Principal of college on 31-1-1983 misbehaved with Shri Basudeo Verma, Opposite party no. 7. Opposite party no. 1 vide his letter dated 7-2-1983 intimated this fact to the Manager of the College. A true copy of the said letter is Annexure 3 to the writ petition. By Annexure 4, opposite party no. 1 required the Manager of the College to make an inquiry at his level and to intimate the result of the inquiry to him by post. A true copy of the letter is Annexure 4 to the writ petition. After the receipt of the said letter, the Manager of the College made an inquiry into the allegations levelled by Shri Basudeo Verma against the Principal of the College and by communication dated 9-2-1983, opposite party no. 1 was informed of the result of the inquiry. A true copy of the said letter is Annexure 5 to the writ petition. A perusal of Annexure 5 indicates that the Manager of the College reported to the District Inspector of Schools that the allegations of the teachers in regard to the misbehaviour of the Principal of the College were unfounded. The report further indicates that on 31-1-1983 opposite party no. 7 Shri Basudeo Verma came to the college at about 12 o 'clock in the noon and the Principal told him that while singing the Attendance Register he may indicate the time of his coming. On this opposite party no. 7 misbehaved and used abusive language against the Principal. The Manager also reported that opposite parties nos. 3 to 5, 7 and 8 did not attend the college from 3-2-1983 to 9-2-1983 and that they have not attended the college and have also not applied for leave of absence Indicating reasons for their absence. On this opposite party no. 7 misbehaved and used abusive language against the Principal. The Manager also reported that opposite parties nos. 3 to 5, 7 and 8 did not attend the college from 3-2-1983 to 9-2-1983 and that they have not attended the college and have also not applied for leave of absence Indicating reasons for their absence. The petitioner has also stated that in respect of the allegations levelled by opposite parties 3 to 8 addressed to opposite party no. 1 investigation was made by the Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate, Rae Bareli and they felt satisfied that there was no truth in the allegations made by opposite parties 3 to 8 in their representation dated 2/2/1983. The said opposite parties also reported to opposite party no 1 that there was danger to their lives and they were not attending the college and were reporting to opposite party no. 1 for purposes of their attendance being noted in his office. Opposite party no 1, after taking into account the representation of opposite parties 3 to 8 and having received the reports of the Manager of the college, the Supreintendent of Police and the District Magistrate, Rae Bareli, intimated the said opposite parties that the investigation of the said three authorities indicated that there was no truth in the allegation of there being any danger to the lives of opposite parties 3 to 8 in attending their duties at the college. Opposite party no. 1, therefore, directed opposite parties nos. 3 to 8 to report for duty at the college on 7-3-1983 so that further loss may not be caused to the students in their teaching. A perusal of the record also indicates that opposite party no. 2 required opposite party no. 1 to permit opposite parties nos. 3 to 8 to mark their attendance in the office of opposite party no. 1 till adequate arrangements for safety of opposite parties were made. Opposite party no. 2 also directed opposite party no. 1 that if opposite parties nos. 3 to 8 attend his office than they may be paid their salary for the period also. The petitioner's case is that opposite parties nos. 3 to 8 are absconding from duty and have not been attending to their duties in the College and for this reason they are not entitled to the salary which they claim. 2. 3 to 8 attend his office than they may be paid their salary for the period also. The petitioner's case is that opposite parties nos. 3 to 8 are absconding from duty and have not been attending to their duties in the College and for this reason they are not entitled to the salary which they claim. 2. In this petition the petitioner has challenged the order passed by opposite party no. 1 dated 18-3-1983, Annexure 1 to the writ petition whereby opposite party no. 1 has directed the petitioner to pay the salary payable to opposite parties 3 to 8 failing which the payment of salary shall be made in accordance with the provisions of the U. P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and others Employees) Act, 1971 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). Annexure 1 also informs the petitioner that if the salary was not paid within ten days then the account relating to payment of salary shall be operated by opposite party no 1 in accordance with section 5 of the Act. The petitioner has challenged this order, Annexure 1 by means of this petition. While admitting the writ petition this court stayed the operation of the order Annexure 1 to the writ petition. The prayer in this writ petition is that opposite parties 3 to 8 are not entitled to their salary as they are absconding from their duty and on account of their conduct, the interest of the institution is being jeopardised as there is no teaching work done in the institution. It is, therefore, prayed that the order, Annexur 1 to the petition, dated 18-3-1-1983 be quashed and the college may not be required to pay salary to opposite parties 3 to 8. Writ Petition No 5207 of 1983 has also been filed by Committee of Management of Dadaur Inter College, Dadaur, District Rae Bareli. In this petition, it has been stated that opposite parties 3 to 8 in writ petition No. 1585 of 1983 were not attending to the teaching work in the college with effect from 3-2-1983 and had been absenting themselves from work. It has been stated in the petition that on account of their being absent from the duty, the petitioner sought permission to appoint teachers in place of opposite parties 3 to 8. It has been stated in the petition that on account of their being absent from the duty, the petitioner sought permission to appoint teachers in place of opposite parties 3 to 8. The District Inspector of Schools by his orders Annexurs 9 and 10 to the petition, restrained the petitioner from making further appointments in place of opposite parties 3 to 8. In this petition it has been prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued to the District Inspector of Schools, Rae Bareli commanding him to accord approval to the appointment of the candidates selected by the Committee of Management of the College. This petition was also admitted and the operation of the orders Annexures 8, 9 and 10 to the petition was stayed. 3. By an order of this court these two writ petition Nos. 1585 and 5207 of 1983 were directed to be heard together. 4. Mr. B. C Saxena appears on behalf of the petitioners in both the writ petitions. In writ petition No. 1585 of 1983 it was strenuously contended that if the petitioners were not attending to their duties and were absconding, opposite party no. 1 has no jurisdiction to direct the petitioner to make payment of salary in terms of the Act. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that if opposite parties nos. 3 to 8 were not discharging their duties as teachers, they are not entitled to salary. I have heard MR. B. C. Saxena on this aspect at some length but we find ourselves unable to agree with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 3 of the Act provides that notwithstanding any contract to the contrary, the salary of a teacher or other employee of an institution in respect of any period after the thirty-first day of March, 1971, shall be paid to him before the expiry of the twentieth day or such earlier day as the State Government may by general or special order in that behalf appoint. Sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Act provides that where the salary of teacher or other employee of an institution is not paid in accordance with sub-section (1) of section 3 due to any default on the part of the management the Inspector may, without prejudice to any other provisions of the Act, pay or cause to be paid within ten days from the date mentioned in that subsection such salary from the moneys credited to the account mentioned in subsection (1) of section 4 of the Act. Section 5 of the Act provides the procedure for payment of salary in case of certain institutions. We have examined the arguments of Mr. B. C. Saxena and we find no merit in his contention. Given the fact that opposite parties 3 to 8 are absconding from duty and are not attending the teaching job, it is open to the petitioners to initiate disciplinary proceedings against them. Regulation No. 36 of the Regulations framed under the Act lays down the procedure for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the teachers If opposite parties nos. 3 to 8 were absconding and were guilty of Insubordination and they neglected the discharge of their duties, they could be suspended and proceeded with depart mentally but unles opposite parties 3 to 8 are dismissed or they are suspended, their salary cannot be withheld. Unless the said teachers are dismissed there would be no vacancy to justify the making of fresh appointments. If the delinquent teacher is suspended, he will be entitled to subsistence allowance and will not be entitled to full salary. Unless the delinquent teachers are suspended or are dismissed from service, the payment of salary to them cannot be withheld. Mr. Saxena made an impassioned appeal that the teachers who were not cooperating with the working of the institution should not be allowed payment of salary as that would result in spoiling the discipline of the institution. In our opinion, this contention is not tenable. The difficulty in the way of the petitioner is that the teachers against whom charges are levelled are still holding their appointment in the institution. No departmental proceedings have so far been taken against them. Their appointment has neither been terminated nor have they been suspended. In view of these facts it cannot be said that opposite parties nos. 3 to 8 are not entitled to salary payable to them. No departmental proceedings have so far been taken against them. Their appointment has neither been terminated nor have they been suspended. In view of these facts it cannot be said that opposite parties nos. 3 to 8 are not entitled to salary payable to them. As long as they are teachers in the institution and their appointment subsists, they are entitled to their salary. If the said teachers misbehave or do not discharge their duties properly, it is always open to the Management of the College to suspend such teachers or dismiss them from service after departmental inquiry. Unless this is done there is no basis on which payment of salary to the said teachers can be refused. We are, accordingly of the view that writ petition No. 1585 has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. 5. Writ petition No. 5207 of 1983 is also liable to be dismissed on the ground that unless the appointment of opposite parties nos. 3 to 8 in Writ petition No. 1585 of 1983 is terminated and there is vacancy in the institution, it is not open to the petitioner to make fresh appointments We have already held above that opposite parties 3 to 8 in Writ petition No. 1585 of 1983 are still teachers of the institution. They have neither been suspended nor have their services been dispensed with and they are entitled to the salary payable to them. If the appointment of such teachers continues, the Management of the College has no power to appoint fresh teachers. Mr. Saxena lays great emphasis On certain provisions of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order, 1981. By reference to this order, it was submitted that there was vacancy in the institution and to fill up that vacancy, the petitioners could make appointments. The vacancy referred to in clause (2) of the order refers to vacancy of a teacher caused by grant of leave to him or on account of his suspension duly approved by the District Inspector of Schools or otherwise. By reference to the word 'otherwise' Mr. B. C. Saxena submitted that since opposite parties nos. 3 to 8 were not attending the institution, there will be deemed to be vacancy in the itstitution. It is not possible for us to subscribe to this view. By reference to the word 'otherwise' Mr. B. C. Saxena submitted that since opposite parties nos. 3 to 8 were not attending the institution, there will be deemed to be vacancy in the itstitution. It is not possible for us to subscribe to this view. The word 'otherwise' mentioned in clause (2) of aforesaid order has to be read Ejusdem generis with that has been stated earlier. The vacancy referred to in clause (2) of the said order is a vacancy on account of suspension or on account of leave of absence. In the instant case opposite parties nos. 3 to 8 are still in service. They have neither been suspended nor dismissed from service. In this situation, the petitioners are incompetent to make fresh appointment of teachers. In our view, the District Inspector of Schools was justified in directing the petitioners not to make any appointment to the posts of teachers in place of opposite parties nos. 3 to 8. Obviously, the reason why opposite party no. 1 restrained the petitioners from making fresh appointments was that the appointment of opposite parties nos. 3 to 8 had not been terminated. Since opposite parties nos. 3 to 8 still hold their appointment as teachers of the institution, the petitioners had no jurisdiction to appoint fresh teachers in their place and they were rightly restrained by opposite parties from making further appointment. writ petition No. 5207 of 1983 has no merit and it also deserves to be dismissed. 6. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in these two writ petitions. For the reasons stated above, Writ petitions Nos. 1585 and 5207 of 1983 are dismissed. Costs of this Court shall, however, be borne by the parties. Petitions dismissed.