JUDGMENT M.L. Bhat, J. - The petitioner's appointment as a teacher in grade is said to have been disapproved by the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) by his order dated 19.5.1988 with effect from 4.1.1988. That order is challenged in this writ petition and it is prayed that the respondent be directed to approve the appointment of the petitioner as teacher in C. T. grade of the institution in question with effect from 2.1.1988. 2. Radha Raman Inter College, Daraganj, Allahabad, the institution in question, is said to be a recognised institution and is governed by the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and the U.P. Intermediate Education Service Commission Act and the rules and regulations framed thereunder one Chandra Pal Shukla was appointed as a teacher in C.T. grade against a clear vacancy on the post which was sanctioned in the institution in accordance with the provisions of law. The said Chandra Pal Shukla was promoted from C.T. grade to L.T. grade . Consequent upon his promotion his post in the C.T. grade, which is a clear vacancy, fell vacant. The petitioner applied for the appointment as teacher in C.T. grade against the said post. Some other persons had also applied for being appointed as C.T. grade teacher in the said institution. The petitioner was duly selected by the selection committee and was appointed as their in C.T. grade on the sanctioned post in the institution on temporary and adhoc basis with effect from 2.1.1988 and he was given the appointment letter in this regard on 31.12.1987, a copy where of is annexed as Annexure 2 to this petition. In pursuance of this letter the petitioner is said to have joined die institution as C.T. grade teacher on 2.1.1988. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that till date he is working in the institution as C.T. grade teacher on adhoc basis without any break in service. A copy of the certificate issued by the Principal to this effect is annexed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. The management of the institution had by their letter No. 430 dated 12.2.1988 recommended the name of the petitioner for approval to the respondent No. 1. The management had mentioned that on account of Mr. Chandra Pal Shukla's promotion to L.T. grade post, the post of C.T. grade had fallen vacant. The management of the institution had by their letter No. 430 dated 12.2.1988 recommended the name of the petitioner for approval to the respondent No. 1. The management had mentioned that on account of Mr. Chandra Pal Shukla's promotion to L.T. grade post, the post of C.T. grade had fallen vacant. Therefore, the petitioner was appointed on adhoc basis by this selection Commission on vacant post with effect from 2.1.1988. The management requested for approval of the petitioner's appointment. A copy of the said recommendation is annexed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition. 4. It is stated that the respondent No. 1 has refused to approve the appointment of the petitioner as C.T. grade teacher on the ground that two posts of C.T. grade teachers in the institution are already surplus therefore there was no need to approve the appointment of the petitioner. A copy of the order of the respondent No. 1 dated 19.5.1988 impugned in this writ petition is annexed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. The said order is said to be illegal and erroneous. It is averred that the respondent No. 1 has no jurisdiction to treat die post as surplus/excess post. The respondent No. 1 has usurped the powers of the Deputy Director. The Committee of Management is said to have submitted a reply to the impugned order dated 19.5.1988 by their letter dated 25.5.1988 refuting the contention of the respondent No. 1 in respect of two posts in C.T. grade being surplus/excess. This contention of the respondent No. 1 was termed by the Committee of Management as incorrect and without any basis. They stated that one post of C.T. grade was available in the institution and the petitioner has been duly appointed against that post, A copy of the letter is annexed as Annexure 6 to the writ petition. 5. The petitioner submitted that there is no provision in law whereby the respondent No. 1 required to give approval to the appointment or sanction or reduce the number of existing posts in the institution. As such the impugned order is said to be illegal and erroneous. The petitioner submitted that he is entitle to receive the salary with effect from 2.1.1988 month by month upto the end of Session of 1987-88 as the respondents have not paid any salary for this period. 6. As such the impugned order is said to be illegal and erroneous. The petitioner submitted that he is entitle to receive the salary with effect from 2.1.1988 month by month upto the end of Session of 1987-88 as the respondents have not paid any salary for this period. 6. On the commencement of the academic session of 1988-89 Committee of for Management is said to have again remind the respondent No. 1 vide their letter dated 29.6.1988 to regularise the appointment of the petitioner. They have also stated that there is no surplus/excess post in the C.T. grade in the institution. Therefore, objection made by the respondent No. 1 would not hold good and the petitioner's appointment was liable to be approved. This letter was not replied by the respondent No. 1. The petitioner has relied on the decision given in writ petition No. 22726 of 1987 decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 15.12.1987 whereby in similar II circumstances the writ petition was allowed. A copy of this order annexed as Annexure 7 to the writ petition. The petitioner claims the relief on the aforesaid grounds in the writ petition. 7. One A.K. Singh has filed counter affidavit on behalf of die respondent No. 1. He has justified the impugned order dated 19.5.1988 and stated that there are two posts in excess of the prescribed standard in the institution. It is admitted that Sri Chandra Pal Shukla was appointed on adhoc basis in L.T. grade. Although the petitioner's appointment was made on the vacancy caused by promotion of the said Sri Chandra Pal Shukla but there were two posts already in excess, as such the f appointment of the petitioner was illegal and disapproved by the respondent no. 1. The rest of the paras of the writ petition are not specifically denied but are either nor f denied or admitted. 8. In his rejoinder affidavit the petitioner had made out a case that there was one post available in the C.T. grade in the institution which was vacant. 1. The rest of the paras of the writ petition are not specifically denied but are either nor f denied or admitted. 8. In his rejoinder affidavit the petitioner had made out a case that there was one post available in the C.T. grade in the institution which was vacant. It is stated ; that the institution in question came in the grant-in-aid list prior to 1911 and since then there are nine sanctioned posts in C.T. grade and all along nine teachers have been working in the C.T. grade.The post against which the petitioner was appointed had fallen vacant due to promotion of chandra Pal Shukla in L.T. grade . The institution in question is imparting education from class VI to Class XII and there are various sections in all the classes. The petitioner has filed a copy of the list of f students in each section, which is Annexure RA to the rejoinder affidavit, on the basis of the statistics supplied by the petitioner it is submitted that the impugned order is wholly erroneous and illegal and is liable to be set aside. On the basis of Annexure 2 it is canvassed that on 20.12.1988 as against nine sanctioned post in C.T. grade only eight teachers were functioning, one post was available in C.T. grade against which the petitioner was appointed.This contention is sought to be proved by Annexure RA 3 to the rejoinder affidavit also. The said Chandra Pal Shukla is said to have been working on adhoc basis in the L.T. grade . The respondent No. 1 is said to have directed one Ram Narain Pandey to work against the post of lecturer because be had been promoted on the post on adhoc basis and the vacancy caused by him is occupied by the said Chandra Pal Shukla. The other peas raised in the counter affidavit are denied. Right to continue on the post is asserted. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed before me. 10. From the facts brought on record it transpires that one Chandra Pal Shukla was appointed an adhoc basis in L.T. grade because the incumbent working in L.T. grade was promoted to the post of lecturer on adhoc basis. Chandra Pal Shukal spos 1 in C.T. grade had fallen vacant against which the petitioner was selected by tit selection committee. 10. From the facts brought on record it transpires that one Chandra Pal Shukla was appointed an adhoc basis in L.T. grade because the incumbent working in L.T. grade was promoted to the post of lecturer on adhoc basis. Chandra Pal Shukal spos 1 in C.T. grade had fallen vacant against which the petitioner was selected by tit selection committee. The Management committee under the law had an authority to make appointment which was to continue till the post is filled up by a candidate duly selected in accordance with law. The District Inspector of Schools was not required under law to approve the candidature of the petitioner on adhoc basis. The managing committee had the power to make appointment of a suitable candidate on adhoc basis till a candidate was available on regular basis for which a different procedure is to be followed. The Committee of Management even then had taken abundant precaution of asking the respondent No. 1 to grant approval and had sent representations also in this behalf. The respondent No. 1 had refused to grant approval, which was not at all required. The main ground on which the approval is refused petition to the C.T. grade teachers being in excess/surplus in the institution by two posts than the standard prescribed is also not tenable. There is nothing on record to show that any post of C.T. grade was in excess/surplus to the standard prescribed in the institution. The petitioner has, on the other hand, established that out of nine teachers only eight were functioning when the selection of the petitioner on adhoc basis was made. That being so, the contention of the respondent No. 1 cannot be accepted. 11. The petitioner has been working continuously since the date of his adhoc appointment but he has not been paid salary. This is reflected by the various communication of the committee of management addressed to the respondent No. 1 Non-payment of salary to the petitioner also is against law because the petitioner discharges functions under the orders of the competent authority i.e. the committee of Management and he is entitled to draw salary for the work done or which he may be doing in future. 12. The appointment of the petitioner is to continue only till a duly selected candidate joins the post or his service are terminated in accordance with the provisions of law. 12. The appointment of the petitioner is to continue only till a duly selected candidate joins the post or his service are terminated in accordance with the provisions of law. This has not been done. On the basis of the impugned order dated 19.5.1988 issued by the respondent No. 1 the petitioner cannot he be denied right to function as adhoc teacher nor can be denied payment of salary as admissible to him under law. The counter affidavit is cryptic and elusive. The plea raise by the petitioner that the respondent No. 1 has no power to disapprove the appointment of the petitioner is not replied. As stated earlier, the law does not require approval of the District Inspector of Schools in the matter of adhoc appointment made by the Management. Therefore the order dated 19.5.1988 is bad in law and violative of the petitioner's right. 13. The result is that the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 19.5.1988 is quashed and the respondents are directed to make payment of salary to the petitioner from the date of this appointment i.e. 2.1.1988 for the whole period during which he has discharged his functions and continue to pay him salary in future also month by month till he occupies the post on adhoc basis. It is further directed that the petitioner is entitled to hold the post on adhoc basis till a duly selected candidate in accordance with law joins the post or till his services are terminated in accordance with the provisions of law. There will be no order as to costs.