ORDER G. P. Mathur, J. - The petitioner Ram Pratap Yadav, has filed this writ petition for quashing of the order dated 16-1-1989 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to as the D.I.O.S.) and for a writ of mandamus commanding him to treat the appointment of the petitioner as valid and to pay him his entire arrears of salary and future salary. The DIOS had refused to grant financial sanction to the appointment of the petitioner as a teacher in C.T. grade in Nehru Inter. College, Bichhia Railway Colony, Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to as the institution) by his order dated 16-1-1989. 2. The case of the petitioner as set out in the writ petition, in brief, is that Nehru Inter. College, Bichhia, Gorakhpur, is recognised by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. and the salary of teachers is paid in accordance with the provisions of U.P. High Schools and Intermediate College (Payment of Salary of Teachers and Other Employees) Act. 1971. The petitioner was appointed as ad hoc teacher in CT grade on 8-8-1984 as one Sri Mahesh Chandra Ghildyal, a regular teacher in CT grade in the institution, went on long leave with effect from 1-8-1984. As Shri Ghildyal went on extending his leave the appointment of the petitioner was also extended from time to time and approval was granted by the DIOS by orders dated 29-9-1984, 26-6-1985, 7-8-1985 and 12-12-1986. Shri M. C. Ghildyal resigned from the service of the institution on 1-8-1988 and the Committee of Management of the institution notified a clear permanent vacancy on the post of teacher in CT grade to the DIOS through a letter of its manager dated 16-8-1988. The case of the petitioner further is that as more than two months had elapsed and the DIOS had not made any appointment in the vacancy caused by the resignation of Shri M. C. Ghildval, the Committee of Management passed a resolution on 22-10-1988 appointing the petitioner as an ad hoc Assistant Teacher in CT grade in the college with effect from 1-11-1988 and an appointment order was issued to the petitioner by the Manager of the College on 24-10-1988 asking him to join duty on 1-11-1988. The manager of the committee of management of the institution sent copies of the resolution dated 22-10-1988 and the appointment order dated 24-10-1988 to the DIOS requesting him to accord approval to the appointment of the petitioner as ad hoc teacher in CT grade. The DIOS however sent a letter dated 16-1-1989 to the Manager/Principal of the institution refusing to accord financial approval to the appointment of the petitioner and he also rejected by the same letter the proposal sent by the Committee of Management. It is this order which is impugned in the present writ petition. 3. On 12-4-1989 when this writ petition was heard for admission the learned Standing Counsel was given time to file counter- affidavit. A counter-affidavit has been filed by one Raj Nawal Chaturvedi, Asstt. Supervisor in the office of the DIOS, Gorakhpur, on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. The case set up by respondents 1 and 2. in brief, is that the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis by the committee of Management in the short vacancy created as Shri M. C. Ghildyal, a teacher in the CT grade, had gone on leave. The appointment of the petitioner was initially approved by the DIOS up to 20-5-1985 only. Subsequently the appointment of the petitioner was approved by the DIOS on 26-6-1985 for the period 20-5-1985 to 30-6-1985. The appointment of the petitioner was again approved for the period 8-7-1985 to 20-5-1986 and then from 8-7-1986 to 20-5-1987. Thereafter the petitioner worked in stop-gap arrangement in the leave vacancy of Smt. Saroj Srivastava with effect from 8-7-1987 to 30-4-1988 and then again from 1-5-1988 to 30-10-1988. Thus the petitioner had not remained in continuous service of the college nor did he continue on the post after the resignation of Shri M.C. Ghildyal and no approval to that effect was ever granted by the DIOS. The case of respondents 1 and 2 further is that the strength of the institution. according to prescribed norms, was only 18 CT grade teachers whereas 19 CT grade teachers were already working. In these circumstances after the resignation of Shri M. C. Ghildyal the 19th post was to lapse and was not to be filled in. The case of respondents 1 and 2 further is that the strength of the institution. according to prescribed norms, was only 18 CT grade teachers whereas 19 CT grade teachers were already working. In these circumstances after the resignation of Shri M. C. Ghildyal the 19th post was to lapse and was not to be filled in. It is also pleaded that even on merits after occurrence of the permanent vacancy in CT grade the appointment could be made only by the DIOS and not by the Committee of Management. Since there were only 18 sanctioned posts of teachers in CT grade tin the institution according to the strength of students and the prescribed norms and as 18 teachers were already working, there was no question of making any further appointment. It was due to this reason that the DIOS informed the manager of the institution by his letter dated 16-1-1989 that it was not possible to accord financial approval to the appointment of the petitioner. 4. A supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed by one Shri A. N. Tripathi, an officer assistant in the office of the DIOS, Gorakhpur, wherein it is averred that the Manager of the College himself had sent letters to DIOS on 27-8-1987 and 23-12-1988 where it was stated that the sanctioned strength of the teachers in CT grade was 18. Copies of these letters have been filed as SCA 1 and SCA 2 to the supplementary counter-affidavit. It is also averred that a departmental financial survey of the institution was conducted on 22-8-1986 and the report of the Principal mentioned that there are 45 sanctioned posts of teaching and non-teaching staff in the institution. The report further mentioned that there was one sanctioned post of Principal, six sanctioned posts of Lecturers. six sanctioned posts LT grade teachers and 18 sanctioned posts of CT grade teachers in the institution. 5. The petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit as well as supplementary rejoinder affidavit. In paragraph 3 of the rejoinder affidavit it is asserted by the petitioner that he was the 19th teacher to be appointed in the short-term vacancy caused by the long leave taken by Shri M. C. Ghildyal. It is also asserted by the petitioner that there were 19 sanctioned posts of Asstt. Teachers and in support thereof he has filed a photo-copy of the salary bill dated 25-1(- 1983 relating to 19 Asstt. It is also asserted by the petitioner that there were 19 sanctioned posts of Asstt. Teachers and in support thereof he has filed a photo-copy of the salary bill dated 25-1(- 1983 relating to 19 Asstt. Teachers in CT grade in the institution. The petitioner has also filed a certificate given by the Principal of the institution to the effect that he was regularly teaching in the institution since 1-11-1988 in the vacancy caused by the resignation of Shri M. C. Ghildyal. 6. I have heard Shri R.S. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri M. C. Dwivedi, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, with the consent of the parties this writ petition is being decided finally at the admission stage. 7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had been validly appointed as teacher in the CT grade in the institution in accordance with the provisions of Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and, had continuously worked as such since 1-11-1988 and, therefore, he was entitled to regular payment of salary. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the view taken by the DIOS that there were only 18 sanctioned posts of CT grade teachers in the institution was incorrect and, therefore, the order passed by him on 16-1-1989 was illegal and was liable to be quashed. The learned standing Counsel has contended that there were only 18 sanctioned posts of CT grade teachers in the institution and the appointment of the petitioner was even otherwise illegal as it had not been done in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Therefore, the DIOS had rightly passed the order dated 16-1-1989 refusing to grant financial approval to the appointment of the petitioner. 8. Before examining the rival contentions of the parties it will be useful to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. The State Legislature enancted the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 (U.P. Act 5 of 1982) to establish Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards for the Selection of the teachers in institution recognised under the Intermediate Education Act. 1921. Section 3 provides for establishment of the Commission and Section 12 provides for establishment of Secondary Education Selection Boards. 1921. Section 3 provides for establishment of the Commission and Section 12 provides for establishment of Secondary Education Selection Boards. Sub-clause (b) of clause (1) of Section 16 provides that every appointment of a teacher (other than a teacher specified in the Schedule) shall, on or after July 10, 1981, be made by the management only on the recommendation of the Board. Clause (2) of Section 16 provides that every appointment of a teacher in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be void. Towards the end of the Act there is a schedule which gives the category of teachers. The Principal of an Intermediate College, Lecturer of an Intermediate College, Headmaster of a High School and Trained Graduates Grade Teachers of Higher Secondary School are mentioned in the schedule. A teacher in CT grade is, therefore, a teacher other than a teacher specified in the Schedule. Section 18 provides for ad hoc appointment of teachers. It will be convenient to reproduce sub-clauses (1) and (2) of Section 18 of the Act which read as under :- "(1) Where the management has notified a vacancy to the Commission in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and (a) the Commission has failed to recommend the name of any suitable candidate for being appointed as a teacher specified in the Schedule within one year from the date of such notification, or (b) the post of such teacher has actually remained vacant for more than two months, then, the management may appoint, by direct recruitment or promotion, a teacher on purely ad hoc basis from amongst the persons possessing qualifications prescribed under the Intermediate Education Act. 1921 of the regulations made thereunder. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall also apply to the appointment of a teacher (other than a teacher specified in the Schedule) on ad hoc basis with the substitution of the expression `Board' for the expression "Commission". ........................." 9. It is not disputed from either side that the State Government has not established Secondary Education Selection Board so far, as provided by Section 12 of the Act. A question had arisen as to whether in the absence of constitution of Selection Boards the management had any right to make ad hoc appointment of teachers in CT grade. ........................." 9. It is not disputed from either side that the State Government has not established Secondary Education Selection Board so far, as provided by Section 12 of the Act. A question had arisen as to whether in the absence of constitution of Selection Boards the management had any right to make ad hoc appointment of teachers in CT grade. This question has been answered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case Ravindra Singh Niranjan v. District Inspector of Schools (1988 UP LBEC 223), wherein it was held as under at page 224 (Para 7) : "Section 18 of sub-section (I) read with sub-section (2) makes it clear that where the management has notified a vacancy to the Board in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Board fails to recommend the name of any suitable candidate for being appointed as a teacher other than teachers specified in the Schedule on ad hoc basis within one year or the post of a teacher has actually remained vacant for more than two months, then the management has been given power to make appointment on ad hoc basis from amongst the persons possessing qualifications prescribed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or the regulations made there under. (Para 8) It is not disputed that the Board has not yet been constituted. Consequently where the District Inspector of Schools does not make any ad hoc appointments as required by the order, then if the words 'District Inspector of Schools' is not read for the word 'Board' in sub-section (1) of Section 18, there would be no power left for appointment of an ad hoc teacher in the case of teachers other than teachers specified in the Schedule, namely, as in the present case, the appointment of a teacher in the C.T. Grade Section 18, Section 33 and the order have to be harmoniously construed in order to serve the purposes of the Act. Since the Board has not yet been constituted, the Word 'Board' in sub-clause (1) has to be read as District Inspector of Schools in view of the order passed under Section 33 of the Act till the Board is not constituted. Since the Board has not yet been constituted, the Word 'Board' in sub-clause (1) has to be read as District Inspector of Schools in view of the order passed under Section 33 of the Act till the Board is not constituted. Section 18 of the Act would be applicable in the case of an appointment of a teacher in the C.T. Grade where the District Inspector of Schools does not make an appointment under the order." It is, therefore, clear that the Committee of Management can make ad hoc appointments of teachers in CT grade under Section 18 of the Act. 10. Section 18 of the Act provides that where the Management has notified a vacancy to the Commission in accordance with the provisions of this Act (emphasis supplied) and the Commission the failed to recommend the name of any candidate for being appointed within one year from the date of such notification or the post of such teacher has actually remained vacant for more than two months then the management may appoint by direct recruitment or promotion a teacher on purely ad hoc basis. It, therefore, follows that for making an appointment of a teacher of CT grade the management has to notify the vacancy to the Selection Board and in its absence to the District Inspector of Schools (as held in the case of Ranvindra Singh Niranjan (1988 UPLBEC 223) (supra) in accordance with the provisions of this Act. 11. Section 35 of the Act gives power to the State Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act. The State Government has made the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules. 1983, in exercise of the aforesaid power. Rule 4 provides the elaborate procedure for determination and intimation of vacancies, Clause (ii of sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 provides that the management shall determine and intimate to the Commission, in the pro form a given in Appendix 'A' and in the manner hereinafter specified, the number of vacancies existing or likely to fall vacant during the year of recruitment. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 4 provides that when any time during the Sessions or after that requisition has already been sent in accordance with sub-rules (2), (3), (4) or (5) of this rule, the management shall notify the vacancy to the DIOS within fifteen days of its occurrence and the DIOS and the Deputy Director shall deal with it in the manner mentioned in sub-rules (3) and (4) within ten days of its receipt by them. Appendix 'A' has been given at the end of the Rules which is a requisition form for the recruitment of candidates for appointment to the post of teacher/head of institutions. A perusal of Appendix `A' shows that the management has to send complete details regarding the number of students reading in different classes and sections as well as number of teachers and the total number of sanctioned posts besides several other particulars and informations. This requiting form (Appendix 'A) has to be sent in quadruplicate. Therefore, a reading of Section 18, Rule 4 as well as Appendix `A' shows that the management has to notify the vacancy in a prescribed manner and in a prescribed form. The prescribed form must be given complete information on all the points mentioned in Appendix `A' including the number of students in different classes and sections in the institution as well as the number of teachers working and the total number of the sanctioned strength. 12. The averments made by the petitioner, in the writ petition clearly show that the management did not notify the vacancy to the DIOS in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In paragraph 5 of the petition it is stated that Shri M. C. Ghildyal resigned on 1-8-1988 and the committee of management of the institution notified a clear permanent vacancy or the post of CT grade teacher in the institution to the DIOS through a letter of its manager dated 16-8-1988, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 6 to the writ petition. A perusal of the said letter shows that the manager had merely informed the DIOS that Shri Mahesh Chandra Ghildyal, who was on leave from 1-8-1984 to 31-7-1988, had voluntarily 'submitted his resignation on 1-8-1988 and his resignation had been accepted by the committee of management. It was merely an intimation to the DIOS regarding the acceptance of the resignation submitted by Shri M. C. Ghildyal. It was merely an intimation to the DIOS regarding the acceptance of the resignation submitted by Shri M. C. Ghildyal. In my opinion, this letter dated 16-8-1988 sent by the manager to the DIOS cannot, in law, be accepted as notification of the vacancy" to the DIOS as required by Section 18 of the Act. Section 18 clearly provides that where the management has notified a vacancy to the Commission in accordance with the provisions of this Act..... the management may appoint a teacher on purely ad hoc basis. The Act as well as the rules provide an elaborate procedure for giving intimation to the Commission as indicated above. In the present case the provisions of Rule 4 were not at all followed nor any requisition form as provided in Appendix 'A' to the rules was sent to the DIGS in quadruplicate. The necessary details and particulars mentioned in Appendix `A' were not sent to the office of the DIOS. What the manager had done by his letter dated 16-8-1988 was merely to inform the DIOS that the resignation of Shri M. C. Ghildyal had been accepted on 1-8-1988. Therefore, in my opinion, the management did not notify the vacancy to the Commission (DIOS in the present case) in accordance with the provisions of the Act and therefore got no right to make appointment of a teacher on ad hoc basis. The procedure followed by the Committee of Management was not in accordance with law. The resolution passed by the Committee of Management on 22-10-1988 appointing the petitioner as a teacher in CT grade with effect from 1-11-1988 is also wholly illegal and it conferred no right upon the petitioner. 13. The reason given by the DIOS in his letter dated 16-1-1989.that there were only 18 sanctioned post of CT grade teachers in the institution and as such no financial approval could be granted to the appointment of the petitioner on the 19th post also appears to be legally correct. It is categorically stated in paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit and paras. 2 and 3 of the supplementary counter-affidavit that there were only 18 sanctioned posts of teachers in CT grade in the institution. It is categorically stated in paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit and paras. 2 and 3 of the supplementary counter-affidavit that there were only 18 sanctioned posts of teachers in CT grade in the institution. The respondents have filed copy of letters date 27-8-1987 and 23-12-1988 sent by the Manager of the institution to the DIOS (Annexure SCA 1 and SCA 2 to the supplementary counter-affidavit) which clearly show that the manager had himself written to the DIOS that there were only 18 sanctioned posts of teachers in CT grade in the institution. A departmental financial survey of the institution was also conducted in 1989 and the survey report also shows that there were only 18 sanctioned posts of teachers in the CT grade in the institution. This itself fully establishes that there were only 18 sanctioned posts of teachers in CT grade in the institution. The petitioner has in his rejoinder affidavit merely reiterated that there are 19 sanctioned posts of teachers in CT grade and that in the past salary bill of 19 teachers of CT grade was sanctioned by the DIOS. Even assuming that at some earlier stage the DIOS sanctioned the salary bill of 19 teachers in CT grade, it cannot lead to the inference that the number of sanctioned posts in CT grade was 19. If a mistake had been committed by the authority at an earlier stage he would not be debarred from correcting the said mistake at a later stage when full facts were brought to his knowledge. It appears (Sic) when. the proposal of the committee of management for giving financial approval to the appointment of,the petitioner was examined by the DIOS it was revealed there were only 18 sanctioned posts of teachers in CT grade and in cases approval was granted to the appointment of the petitioner, as requested by the Committee of Management, there would be 19 CT grade teachers in the institution. In these circumstances he rightly refused to grant the financial approval to the appointment of the petitioner. 14. It is averred in paragraph 1 of the petition that the salary of teachers and other employees of the institution is paid under the U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salary of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971. This averment has not been controverted in the counter-affidavit. 14. It is averred in paragraph 1 of the petition that the salary of teachers and other employees of the institution is paid under the U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salary of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971. This averment has not been controverted in the counter-affidavit. Sub-section (c) of Section 2 of the Act defines "maintenance grant" which means such grant- in-aid of an institution, as the State Government by general of special order in that behalf, direct to be treated as maintenance grant appropriate to the level of the institution. Sub-section (e) of Section 2 Mined "teacher" of an institution which means a Principal Headmaster or other teacher in respect of whose employment maintenance grant is paid by the State Government to the institution. Sub-section (g) of Section 2 defines "salary" of a teacher or employee which means the aggregate of the emoluments including dearness or any other allowance, for the time being payable to him at the rates approved for the purpose of payment of maintenance grant: Section 3 of the Act provides for payment of salary within a particular time and Section 5 provides a procedure for payment of salary to the teachers. The definition of the word "teacher' clearly shows that he should be a person in respect of whose employment, maintenance grant is paid by the State Government to the institution. It is for this reason that a fixed number of posts of teachers of lecturers are created in an institution by the Director of Education. If some one is appointed as a teacher over and above the sanctioned number of posts he could not be recognised as a teacher as defined in Section 2(e) of the Act and the State Government is under no obligation to pay salary to him. In the present case the total number of sanctioned posts of the CT grade teachers were only 18 and the petitioner had been appointed as the 19th teacher. The DIOS therefore, rightly refused to accord financial approval to his appointment in the institution. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Sita Ram Yada v. District Inspector of Schools, (1990 (1) UP LBEC 41), in support of his contention that the petitioner should be paid salary by the education authorities. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Sita Ram Yada v. District Inspector of Schools, (1990 (1) UP LBEC 41), in support of his contention that the petitioner should be paid salary by the education authorities. In this case the teacher concerned Sita Ram Yadav had not been paid salary after 30th June, 1986, although he continued to teach in the institution even beyond June, 1986. The payment of his salary had been stopped by the DIOS on the ground that approval for his appointment had been given as ad hoc teacher for the period 8-7-1985 to 30-6-1986. It was held that a teacher appointed on ad hoc basis is entitled to continue to work as ad hoc teacher till a candidate selected by the U.P. Secondary Education Commission takes over from him irrespective of the last terminus date of approval. This case is, therefore, entirely distinguishable on facts. It was not the case of the respondents that the appointment itself of the teacher concerned was illegal. In the present case the stand of respondents 1 and 2 is that the appointment of the petitioner as ad hoc teacher is illegal as there is no sanctioned post. Therefore, the authority cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not hold the petitioner. 16. Lastly the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that Shri Rishi Chandra Gupta was the junior-most teacher in CT grade and, if at all, he should have been removed. This plea was not raised either in the writ petition or in the rejoined affidavit filed by the petitioner. It is asserted for the first time in the supplementary rejoinder- affidavit filed on the date of the hearing of he writ petition that Rishi Chandra Gupta was the 19th teacher in CT grade in the institution. Since this plea was not raised either in the writ petition or in the rejoinder affidavit and as Shri Rishi Chandra Gupta has not been made a party to the writ petition, this plea cannot be entertained at the stage of hearing. 17. For the reasons mentioned above the writ petition fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.