JUDGMENT S.K. Dhaon and D.S. Sinha, JJ. - The averments are these. On 6th August, 1986, one Smt. Annapurna Srivastava, who was a lecturer in the Bhagauti Prasad Kanya Mahavidyalay, Gorakhpur was appointed as Principal of some Institution. A substantive vacancy arose. On 3rd July, 1987, the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer on the ad hoc basis in the vacancy caused by the exist of Smt. Annapurna Srivastava. The letter of appointment indicated that the term of appointment of the the petitioner was to enure till a candidate was approved by the Commission or till a teacher from the reserved pool category was appointed on the post held by the petitioner. So far neither the Commission has approved any candidate nor a recommendee of the Commission has joined the post held by the petitioner. Some reserved pool teacher was appointed but she did not join. The petitioner is still working we the not being paid her salary. 2. On 15th October, 1987, the standing counsel was granted three weeks time to file counter - affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 1, 2 and 3. no counter - affidavit having been filed, on 29th February 1988. This Court granted three weeks time and no more to the standing counsel to file a counter - affidavit. No counter - affidavit has been filed. We are not inclined to grant any further time for filing a counter - affidavit. 3. In the absence of any counter - affidavit, the averments made in the writ petition have to be treated as correct. The legal position is this. The petitioner is entitled to be treated as a lecturer on ad hoc basis and paid accordingly if the following conditions continue to exist: (1) No teacher is approved for appointment by the Commission and no recommendee of the Commission joins the post held by the Commission; (2) No teacher of the reserved pool category has been appointed on the post held by the petitioner; (3) The services of the petitioner have not been terminated in accordance with law. If these conditions continue to exist and if the petitioner is still teaching the respondent No. 3 shall ensure the payment of salary to the petitioner, both past as well as future. If these conditions continue to exist and if the petitioner is still teaching the respondent No. 3 shall ensure the payment of salary to the petitioner, both past as well as future. She shall see that the payment of arrears of salary is made within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified of the order of this Court before her by the petitioner. 4. We, however, make it clear that if any of the averments made by the petitioner in the writ petition are found to be incorrect then we will take proceedings against the petitioner for having committed contempt of this Court and shall dismiss the petition. 5. With there directions the writ petition is disposed of finally. 6. A certified copy of this order may be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charge within three days.