S. P. SRIVASTAVA, J. The Writ Petition No. 14854 of 1992 was filed by Chandra Bhan Singh praying for a direction requiring the respondents to pay salary to him regularly as and when it fell due till the recommendee of the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission joined the post held by him in the L. T. Grade. It was also prayed that the respon dents be directed not to interfere in the working of the petitioner as a teacher in the L. T. Grade in Shri Krishan Gita Rashtriya Inter College, Lalganj, Azamgarh which is an institution recognised under the provision of the U. P. Intermediate Act and the regulation framed thereunder. 2. The petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition claims that he had been appointed on ad hoc basis on the post of Assistant Teacher in the L. T. Grade under the provisions contained in Section 18 of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection 1982. It is asserted that he was appointed on 30-6-91 on the said post pursuant to a resolution of Committee of Management of the same date. 3. In paragraph 5 of the aforesaid writ petition it has been stated that since the students were suffering in the institution the Management resolved to fill-up the post in question on ad hoc basis under Section 18 of the Act and for this purpose an advertisement was made on the notice board of the institution in question. 4. Writ petition No. 11746 of 1993 was filed by the petitioner of the earlier writ petition referred to above praying for a direction restraining the respondents No. 1 to 3 viz District Inspector of Schools, the State of U. P. and the Committee of Management of the College from paying the salary to the respondent No. 4 who had been appointed by the Committee of Management as an Assistant Teacher on 19-3-93. Shri Chandra Bhan Singh also prayed for the quashing of the appointment of the respondent No. 4 as the post of L. T. Grade teacher in question by stating that the post was validly held by him. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 as well as the Standing Counsel represent ing the other respondents and have carefully perused the record. 6. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 as well as the Standing Counsel represent ing the other respondents and have carefully perused the record. 6. Considering the assertions made in the writ petition and the ratio of the decision of this Court in the case of Akhilesh Narain Singh and another v. District Inspector of Schools, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32577 of 1991, decided on 21-12-95 as well as the decision of this Court in the case of Surendra Kumar Dixit v. District Inspector of Schools, Agra and others, reported in 1995 (26) ALR 601 and the provisions contained in the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 there can be no escape from the conclusion that the pro cedure adopted by the Committee of Management for filling up the vacancy in question was not at all in accordance with law and consequently the appointment in question being vitiated in law no liability for the payment of salary to the appointee could be deemed to have been imposed on the State as contemplated under the provisions of U. P. High Schools and In termediate Colleges (Payment of Salary of Teachers and other Employees) Act. As observed by this Court in its decision in the case of S. K. Dixit (supra) a judicial verdict is only declaratory of the law and the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Radha Raizada and others v. Committee of Management, reported in 1994 (3) UPLBEC 1551 must be held to have laid down the law which has been deemed to have been the law always and in the absence of anything in the aforesaid decision to indicate that the verdict rendered therein was to operate prospectively only it has to be taken to operate retrospectively. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, considering the implications arising under the Full Bench decision of this Court referred to hereinabove the provisions contained in U. P. High School and Intermediate College (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 in the absence of any statutory liability which may be doomed to have been cast on the State justifying the issuance of a writ of mandamus no ground at all has been made out for any interference by this Court. It may, however, be noticed that in case that the Management had allowed the petitioner to join the post and had taken work from them, the responsi bility for payment of salary rests on the Management and the petitioner, therefore, can avail the remedy against the society running the institution for recovering the arrears of salary in accordance with law. No writ even against the Management or the society can be issued for the purpose as the order of appointment relied upon by the petitioner cannot be deemed to be issued in exercise of any such right vesting in the Management which could be said to have the effect of casting any statutory liability on the society running the institution. 8. In view of my conclusion indicated hereinabove the writ petition No. 14854 of 1992 deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. So far as the writ petition No. 11746 of 1993 is concerned the basis of the relief claimed therein is the same order of appointment on which the claim in the earlier writ petition No. 14854 of 1992 is based. In the circumstances, therefore, the appointment of the petitioner having found to be vitiated in law casting no liability on the State in regard to the payment of salary to the appointee, no relief can be granted to the peti tioner in this writ petition as well. 10. This writ petition, therefore, has to fail and is accordingly dismissed. V. However, it may be observed that before releasing the payment of salary to Rajdeo Yadav, the respondent No. 4 in Writ Petition No, 11746/93, the respondent No. 1 the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh shall ensure that the appointment of Rajdeo Yadav is accordance with law and is not vitiated by any such infirmity which may disentitle the said appointee from claiming any salary in respect of the post in question taking into consideration the ratio of the decision referred to hereinabove. Petition dismissed. .