JUDGMENT S.K. Dhaon and R.P. Singh, JJ. - The principal relief claimed is that appropriate direction or writ may be issued to the respondents to treat the petitioner in the service of the Y. D. Post Graduate College, Lakhimpur Kheri as a lecturer in Chemistry. A further direction is claimed that the respondents may be asked to pay the petitioner his salary for the period subsequent to 30th November, 1986. 2. It appears that the Management of the institution concerned resolved to appoint the petitioner as a lecturer in Chemistry and sought the approval of the Vice-Chancellor of the Kanpur University. This approval was given by the Vice-Chancellor and a communication to that effect was sent by the University to the principal of the institution on 8-4-1985. It was made clear in the said communication that the appointment of the petitioner was to ensure till the Commission constituted under the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980 had not selected a candidate or till 30-6-1985 whichever event was to occur earlier. 3. The petitioner's case is that he continued to teach in the institution concerned even subsequent to 20-6-1985 and he was paid his salary etc., till 3-11-1986. Thereafter, he was informed that in view of some direction issued by the Director of Education, he was not entitled to get any salary for the period subsequent to 30-11-1986. This is evident from a communication dated 2-1-1987 sent by the principal of the institution to the petitioner, a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure-A 4 to the writ petition. 4. Under the directions of this court, the petitioner was directed to serve the Committee of Management of the institution concerned and its Principal. An affidavit of service has been filed. In it, it is stated that the Committee of Management as well as its Principal has been served. Learned Counsel has brought to our notice an endorsement made by some official on the copy of the notice sent by this court. This shows that the Committee of Management duly received the notice. The Vice-Chancellor of the Kanpur University is represented before us through Sri Radhey Shyam. The Director of Education is represented by the Standing Counsel. Neither the Committee of Management nor its principal has put in appearance in this petition. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Director of Education. The Vice-Chancellor of the Kanpur University is represented before us through Sri Radhey Shyam. The Director of Education is represented by the Standing Counsel. Neither the Committee of Management nor its principal has put in appearance in this petition. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Director of Education. Learned Counsel for the University states that no occasion for filing a counter-affidavit arises as no relief has been sought against the University. 5. A perusal of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Director of Education indicates that on 24-1-1987 the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission recommended the name of Dr. Pradeep Kumar to be appointed as a lecturer in Chemistry in the institution concerned on the post held by the petitioner. 6. Under Section 16 of the aforementioned Act, the petitioner could be appointed as an ad hoc teacher and normally the appointment was to cease till 20th June following the date of such an ad-hoc appointment or till such date as the Commission has not recommended same body else and the recommended of the Commission had not joined on the post held by the petitioner. 7. In view of the decisions of this Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 18 of the Secondary Education Services Commission Act, the provisions whereof are analogous to those contained in Section 16 of the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980, the following position has emerged "(1) The petitioner is entitled to be treated as a lecturer in Chemistry in the institution concerned and to be paid on that posts till some one else is recommended for appointment on the post held by the petitioner by the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission and the recommended of the Commission had joined the post held by the petitioner. (2) The service of the petitioner has not been terminated in accordance with law." 8. As already indicated, the position that emerged from the exchange from the exchange of affidavit is that till 23-1-1987, no recommendation had been made by the Commission. It is also apparent that the petitioner continued to work as a lecturer in the college concerned till 23-1-1987. Therefore, in any view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to his salary etc., with effect from 1-12-1986 to 23-1-1987. It is also apparent that the petitioner continued to work as a lecturer in the college concerned till 23-1-1987. Therefore, in any view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to his salary etc., with effect from 1-12-1986 to 23-1-1987. Furthermore, the petitioner is entitled to continue as a lecturer in the institution concerned till the recommended of the Commission, joins the post held by the petitioner. If the institution has taken work from the petitioner subsequent to January 23, 1987 and continue to take work from him him even now, the petitioner will be entitled to his salary for the period under which work is taken from him as a lecturer. 9. No other order is necessary. 10. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of finally. 11. A copy of this order may be given to the learned Counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges, within a week.