SUDHIR NARAIN, J. Petitioners seek writ of mandamus commanding respondents to pay to the petitioners the entire arrears of their salaries and also to pay salary in future for the posts on which they were appointed in Madan Mohan Malviya Inter College, Bhatpar Rant, Deoria (hereinafter referred to as the institution ). 2. The institution is recognised under the provisions of U. P. Inter mediate Education Act, 1921. Salaries to the teachers and other employees of the institution are paid under U. P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries to Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971. 3. The version of the petitioner is that there were 7 lecturers in the institution and their posts fell vacant. Sarvashri Kapildev Mishra, Rajendra Mishra, Narendra, Nath Mishra, Gorakh Nath Singh, C. D. Singh, Mukh Nath Pandey and S. N. Mishra had been lecturers in Civics, Physics, English, Economics, Commerce, Sanskrit and Hindi in the College. Shri Kapildev Mishra retired on 1-7-1989, Shri Rajendra Prasad Mishra died on 22-2-1988, Shri Narendra Nath Mishra left the college on 1-9-1988, Sarvashri Gorakh Nath Singh, C. D. Singh and Mukti Nath Pandey retired from their posts on 1-7-1991 and Shri S. N. Mishra was re-adjusted as Lecturer in Geography. The vacancies on the posts held by the above named persons thus occurred in the institution. 4. The Committee of Management of the institution is alleged to have notified all the seven vacancies to the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission through the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria in the prescribed pro forma under Section 10 of the U. P. Secondary Education Service Com mission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 (Act Mo. 5 of 1982) on 25-4-1991. The Commission failed to recommend the name of any candidate for the seven posts of Lecturer in the institution within the period specified under U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982. 5. The Committee of Management resolved to fill the vacancies by direct recruitment. The posts were advertised in the newspaper on 23rd June, 1991. It was also notified by the Committee of Management on its notice board under the signature of the Manager. The Selection Committee selected the names of the petitioners Nos. 1 to 6 on 23rd July, 1991. 5. The Committee of Management resolved to fill the vacancies by direct recruitment. The posts were advertised in the newspaper on 23rd June, 1991. It was also notified by the Committee of Management on its notice board under the signature of the Manager. The Selection Committee selected the names of the petitioners Nos. 1 to 6 on 23rd July, 1991. The Committee of Management in its meeting resolved to appoint these petitioners to the posts of Lecturers in Civics, Physics, English, Economics, Commerce and Sanskrit respectively on 23rd July, 1991 and they are alleged to have joined the institu tion as Lecturers. 6. As regards petitioner No. 7 it is alleged that the selection for his candidature took place on 6-10-1991 by the Selection Committee and the Committee of Management resolved to appoint him to the post of Lecturer in Hindi. He was issued appointment letter on 10-10-1991 and he joined the institution on 15- 10-1991 as Lecturer in Hindi. 7. The Committee of Management forwarded the papers for financial sanction to the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria, respondent No. 1. He did not pass any order, petitioners made representations dated 17-3-1992 and 14-5-1992 to him but he did not pass any order. The petitioners have asserted in the writ petition that he verbally told them that as there was ban during the period they were appointed, no financial approval for their appointment could be given. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that there was no ban during the period the petitioners were appointed, and as such there is no justification lor respondent No. 1 not to accord financial sanction for payment of their salary to the post on which the petitioners have been appointed. It is necessary to examine the radiogram and the Government Order issued relating to the ban imposed in making appointments by the Committee of Management of Government aided institutions. 9. The Government issued a radiogram dated 26-6-1991 whereby recruit ments, appointments, process for each category of posts in all the depart ments of Uttar Pradesh Government, except U. P. Public Service Commission and High Court, was stayed. The relevant part of the radiogram is quoted hereunder : RADIOGAM CRASh To, A. U. M. UP-W ALL DIVNLCOMMR U. P. ALL PRINCIPALS. Secretaries/ Secretaries U. P. A. All Principals Head of Deptt. The relevant part of the radiogram is quoted hereunder : RADIOGAM CRASh To, A. U. M. UP-W ALL DIVNLCOMMR U. P. ALL PRINCIPALS. Secretaries/ Secretaries U. P. A. All Principals Head of Deptt. OPW Secy Public Service Commission, U. P. and S. Scy U. P. Subordinate Service, Selection Commission New W-Registrar, High Court. From : Secy. Personnel Department of Government of U. P. No. 20-1-91 KARMIC-2 dated 29-6-1991. Recruitment/appointment process for each category of post in all the department of U. P. Government Except U. P. Public Service Commission and High Court is hereby stayed R. P. T. stayed. A. T. their present state till further orders. Reguest ensure compliance of the above Government Order at all levels. Matter is a top priority (.) Need personal attention. Most Collector Moradabad Office Dated 3-7-1991 No. 42 10. The Government again issued an order on 17th July, 1991 G. O. No. 28/2/91-Kar2/1991, dated 7th July, 1991 instruction that no appointment should be made either by direct recruitment or promotion till further orders. This order was further clarified by G. O. No. 3156/15-7-1/228/91, dated 30-7-91 that the G. O. is applicable with regard to appointment of Principal, Lecturers, L. T. grade teachers which are to be appointed through the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission. This was further clarified by another G. O. No. 31835-90-91-92, dated 31st August, 1991 that all the ad hoc appointments for any institution recognised by U. P. Secondary Education Board are stayed till further orders. 11. The ban was, however, lifted on certain conditions by G. O. dated 26th September, 1991. In para 5 of the said G. O. it was clarified that all the selection, appointment made prior to 26-9-91, during the period the ban was imposed, shall be treated as cancelled. This further refers to Government Order dated 29-5-1991 whereby selection and appointments were stayed. The ad hoc appointments were being made under the provisions of Section 18 of U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982. Section 18 was deleted by U. P. Secondary Education Service Com mission and Selection Board (Second Amendment) Act, 1992. This amend ment came into force with effect from 14th July, 1993. The powers to make all appointments were conferred on the District Selection Committee as provided under U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission (First Amendment) Rules, 1992. 12. Section 18 was deleted by U. P. Secondary Education Service Com mission and Selection Board (Second Amendment) Act, 1992. This amend ment came into force with effect from 14th July, 1993. The powers to make all appointments were conferred on the District Selection Committee as provided under U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission (First Amendment) Rules, 1992. 12. It is clear from the discussions made above that the ad hoc appoint ments for the period between 29-6-1991 to 26-9-1991 remained banned. The appointment for the period after 14th July, 1992 was to be made in accordance with the provisions of U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission (First Amendment) Rules, 1992. In between the period 26-9-19991 to 13-7-1992 there does not appear to be any ban for making ad hoc appointments in accordance with the provisions of Section 18 of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982. The powers of the Government to issue a Radiogram and orders imposing ban on appointments have been upheld by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Dr. Ratnji Dwivedi v. Stale of U. P. and others, 1983 UP LBEC 426, and it was held that under sub-section (4) of Section 9 the State Government enjoys power to make, modify or rescind any Regulation and with this power it can issue radiogram or orders banning appointments. 13. In Writ Petition No. 17308 of 1992, Durgesh Kumar v. State of U. P. and others a Division Bench of this Court held that the ban was legal even so far as appointments which are to be made under the provisions of U. P. Secondary Education Service and Selection Board Act, 1982. The Court held Radiogram dated 26th July, 1991, the order dated 12th July, 1991 and the order dated 30th July, 1991 valid and enforceable under law and no appointment should be made in violation of the Radiogram or the ban as imposed by them. 14. Petitioners Nos. 1 to 6 claim to have been appointed in pursuance of the selection held on 23rd July, 1991. They have been issued appointment letter on 26-7-1991. The State Government had issued a Radiogram on 29-6-1991. The appointments could not have been made after the Rediogram was issued. The ban was only lifted on 26th September, 1991. Petitioners Nos. Petitioners Nos. 1 to 6 claim to have been appointed in pursuance of the selection held on 23rd July, 1991. They have been issued appointment letter on 26-7-1991. The State Government had issued a Radiogram on 29-6-1991. The appointments could not have been made after the Rediogram was issued. The ban was only lifted on 26th September, 1991. Petitioners Nos. 1 to 6 cannot claim any right on the basis of the selection alleged to have been held on 23rd July, 1991. The Government Order dated 26-9- 91 itself clearly indicates that all the selections and appointments made during the period of ban shall be treated as cancelled. The effect of lifting of ban on appointments does not either revive the selection held or appointments made during the period of ban. It is not necessary to decide the question as to whether the petitioners were appointed after duly complying with the provisions of Section 18 of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982. 15. At preset ad hoc appointment by direct recruitment to the vacant post of Lecturers and Assistant Teachers in L. T. Grade has to be filled in accordance with provisions of U, P. Secondary Education Service Commission (First Amendment) Rules, 1992. 16. The version of the petitioner is that they were duly selected by Committee of Management following the procedure as provided under Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 and thereafter they were issued appoint ment letters and are working since the date of their appointment. They were appointed on ad hoc basis till a regularly selected candidate by the Commission joins the post. 17. The petitioners cannot claim any right to receive the salary from the Government under the provisions of U. P. High School and Inter mediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries to Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 when the process of selection and appointment was prohibited-under the Government Orders. 17. The petitioners cannot claim any right to receive the salary from the Government under the provisions of U. P. High School and Inter mediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries to Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 when the process of selection and appointment was prohibited-under the Government Orders. It will, however, be appropriate consider ing the facts and circumstances of the case that their case for ad hoc appoint ment may be considered by the District Inspector of Schools in accordance with the provisions of U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission (First Amendment) Rules, 1992 provided the petitioners were duly selected by the Committee of Management after the post was duly advertised by the Manage ment in the newspapers and further they are actually working from the date of appointment as alleged by the petitioners. 18. The petitioners Nos. 1 to 6 can make representation to the District Inspector of Schools alongwith certified copy of this order. On such represen tation being made he will examine the qualification and eligibility of each petitioners in accordance with Rule 9-A (2) of the Rules, 1992 and refer it to the Selection Committee as provided under Rule 9-A (3) of the Rules. In case the Selection Committee finds that the petitioners are eligible and qualified for ad hoc appointment, the District Inspector of Schools shall grant approval of their appointments. The petitioners shall be entitled to receive salary from the date the approval is granted by the District Inspector of Schools. In case the petitioners make representation as stated above, that shall be disposed of by the District Inspector of Schools possibly within three months. 19. As regards the case of petitioner No. 7 it is alleged that he was selected by the Selection Committee on 6-10-1991. He was issued appointment letter on 10-10-1991 and he joined the institution on 15-10- 1991. 20. In para 2 of the writ petition it has been stated that Sri S. N. Mishra was lecturer in Hindi but he was re-adjusted as Lecturer in Geography. The date on which he was re-adjusted has not been indicated. It is also not clear as to when the vacancy, occurring due to his re-adjustment, was notified to the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission and when the post of Lecturer in Hindi was advertised in the newspaper. These are questions of fact which require investigation. 21. The date on which he was re-adjusted has not been indicated. It is also not clear as to when the vacancy, occurring due to his re-adjustment, was notified to the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission and when the post of Lecturer in Hindi was advertised in the newspaper. These are questions of fact which require investigation. 21. In case petitioner No. 7 makes representation to the District Inspec tor of Schools, respondent Mo. 1, alongwith a certified copy of this order and judgment and a true copy of the writ petition, he shall examine as to : (i) Whether the post held by Sri S. N, Mishra had fallen vacant on his re-adjustment as Lecturer in Geography and was on what date ? (ii) Whether the vacancy was notified to the U. P. Secondary Educa tion Commission in accordance with law ? (iii) Whether duly constituted selection committee selected the name of petitioner No. 7 ? (iv) Whether Petitioner No. 7 is qualified for appointment to the post of lecturer on which he has been appointed. 22. In view of the above discussions writ petition is dismissed as against petitioners Nos. 1 to 6 subject to the observations made above. As regards petitioner No. 7 the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria is directed to decide the representation of petitioner No. 7 if he makes such a representa tion as directed above. In case any representation is made by petitioner No. 7 the same shall be disposed of by the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria within two months after giving opportunity of hearing to petitioner No. 7 and the Committee of Management of the institution in accordance with law and the directions made above. Petition dismissed. .