JUDGMENT : RAVI S. DHAVAN, J. 1. The Petitioner, Mahesh Chandra Sharma claims, he has been appointed and functioning as a teacher in L.T. grade on the vacancy caused when another teacher in the same grade retired on 30 June, 1989. The Petitioner's contention is that he had been appointed on this vacancy on ad hoc basis u/s 18 of Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Boards, Act, 1982. A copy of his appointment letter dated 15 July, 1990 is appended as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. He further claims that he joined his services in pursuance of the appointment letter 1 August, 1990 and since then he has been teaching. 2. While, there is no letter approving the appointment of the Petitioner as a L.T. grade teacher on record, he relies on a communication between the Accounts Officer, Office of the District Inspector of Schools, Aligarh, addressed to the District Inspector of Schools, dated 28 December, 1990 (Annexure-4 to the petition), to the effect, that the post on which a teacher had retired be accorded sanction. There is a difference between according approval on an appointment and the sanction of a post. 3. When the matter came-up before the District Inspector of Schools, after Petitioner had filed an earner petition, in which there were general directions in a bunch of writ petitions, that the District Inspector of Schools will examine the representations before him, the latter gave a decision, to the effect, that there is surplus staff in the Institution and that there was no approval on the appointment of the Petitioner. 4. The contention on behalf of the Petitioner is that the arithmetic placed on record by the District Inspector of Schools in the impugned order dated 26 April, 1993 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) is incorrect. It may be and yet may not be. If there are more teachers at the institution than the sanctioned strength, then, the question of granting approval on the appointment of the Petitioner may not arise. The Petitioner contends in his writ petition that there is still need fore more teachers and this is on record. This is another matter. If additional strength of teachers is required, it is he duty of the District Inspector of Schools to examine it. The Petitioner contends in his writ petition that there is still need fore more teachers and this is on record. This is another matter. If additional strength of teachers is required, it is he duty of the District Inspector of Schools to examine it. An issue on the strength of the teaching staff and appointments made in reference to the sanctioned strength, the matter is one for examination of the Commission u/s 19 read with sub Clause (f) of Section 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982. 5. u/s 19 of the aforesaid Act, the Commission or the Board may require the management of the institution to furnish such information or return regarding matters referred to u/s 9. In the context of this case, Clause (f) of Section 9, refers to the Commission obtaining periodical returns or other information regarding strength of teaching staff and the appointments, and other incidental matters. Thus, if the facts examined by the District Inspector of Schools are incorrect, the Petitioner may apply to the Commission for examination of strength of the staff. On the result of this enquiry, the services of the Petitioner in the institution may or may not continue. 6. Thus, the Court is of the view that in the context of this case as there could be a statutory visitation by the Commission no writ can be issued on this alternate remedy. 7. Thus, the petition is dismissed in limine.