P. K. JAIN, J. Heard Sri P. N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. l. 2. Petitioner alleged in his petition that on retirement of one Sri Raghu Nath Prasad Dubey on 30-6-86 permanent vacancy of lecturer occurred in Janta Intermediate College, Barasathi, District Jaunpur. The vacancy was notified by the College Management to the Secondary Education Service Commission, Allahabad through the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur, in July, 1986 but the Commission failed to recommend the name of suitable candidate for appointment. Since the teaching work was suffering and no one was qualified to be promoted, the Committee of Management advertised the post for making direct recruitment under Section 18 (1) (TV) of the U. P. Secondary Educational services Com mission Act. The petitioner having requisi te qualifications and teaching experience applied for appointment to the said post and the Committee of Management by resolution dated 15-8-89 resolved to ap point the petitioner as lecturer in Psychol ogy. Pursuant to the said resolution the Manager of respondent No. 2 issued ap pointment letter dated 17-9-89 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition ). The petitioner joined his duties in the forenoon of 17-9-89. Necessary information was sent by the Manager to respondent No. 1 with regard to ad hoc appointment of the petitioner. The District Inspector of Schools, respondent No. 1, was under statutory obligation to pay the salary of the petitioner but for no reasons the respondent No. 1 is not paying salary to the petitioner. The petitioner prays that by issuing a writ in the nature of man damus, directions may be given to the respondent No. 1 to pay salary to the petitioner from 17-9- 89 and to continue to pay future salary from month to month. 3. Respondent No. 1 contested the writ petition mainly on the ground that issuing of letter of appointment and joining of the petitioner is wholly collusive and not in ac cordance with rules and there was no legal appointment and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to the relief claimed by him. 4. Since the parties have exchanged counter and rejoinder affidavits and the parties counsel have been heard at length, the petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage. 5. 4. Since the parties have exchanged counter and rejoinder affidavits and the parties counsel have been heard at length, the petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage. 5. As regards the controversy about the legality of ad hoc appointment of the petitioner on ad hoc basis, the procedure for ad hoc appointment is provided in the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order 1981. Paragraphs (4) and (5) are relevant in this regard. Sub- para (2) of paragraph 4 provides that "every vacancy in the post of a teacher in Lecturers Grade may be filled by promotion by the senior-most teacher of the institution in the trained graduate (L. T.) grade. Recourse to direct recruitment can be had only when there is vacancy by promotion under paragraph 4 of the said order. Paragraph 5 (1) provides that "where any vacancy cannot be filled by promotion under paragraph 4, the same may be filled by direct recruitment in ac cordance with clauses (2) to (5 ). " Clauses (2) to (5) of Paragraph 5 provide procedure which is to be followed for ad hoc appoint ment by direct recruitment. The procedure laid down in these clauses is that the management shall inform the District In spector of Schools about the details of the vacancy and such Inspector shall invite ap plications forms the Local Employment Ex change and also through public advertise ment in at least two newspapers having ade quate circulation in Uttar Pradesh. Every application referred to in clause (2) shall be addressed to the District Inspector of Schools and shall be accompanied by a crossed postal order worth ten rupees pay able to such Inspector and by a self-ad dressed envelope bearing postal stamp for purposes of registration. The District In spector of Schools shall cause the best can didates selected on the basis of quality point specified in Appendix. The compilation of quality points may be done on remunerative basis by the retired Gazetted Government servants under the personal supervision of such Inspector. In case more than one teacher of the same subject or category is to be recruited for more than one institution, the names of the selected teachers and names of the institutions shall be arranged in Hindi alphabetical order. In case more than one teacher of the same subject or category is to be recruited for more than one institution, the names of the selected teachers and names of the institutions shall be arranged in Hindi alphabetical order. The candidate whose name appears on the top of the list shall be allotted to the institution the name whereof appears on the top of the list of the institution. This process shall be repeated till both the lists are exhausted. 6. Before the petitioner can be held to be entitled to the salary claimed by him, it shall have to be shown by him that he was appointed after following the procedure mentioned above, specially when the ap pointment of the petitioner itself is being challenged by the respondent No. 1 and the allegation is that the entire record of ap pointment is fake and collusive. As already pointed out above, the management is re quired to sent details of the vacancy to the Inspector of Schools before any ad hoc ap pointment by direct recruitment is made. After such information is received by the District Inspector of Schools, the applica tions are to be invited by such Inspector of Schools from the local Employment Ex change and also through public advertise ment in atleast two newspapers having ade quate circulation in Uttar Pradesh and every such application shall be addressed to the District Inspector of Schools and shall be accompanied by a crossed postal order worth ten rupees payable to such Inspector. Bare reading of the allegations made in the writ petition as also in the rejoinder af fidavit would show that this mandatory pro cedure was not followed while making ap pointment of the petitioner by direct recruitment. In Para 4 it is alleged that the Committee of Management advertised the said post for making direct recruitment whereas in paragraph 5 of the Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 the advertisement was required to be made by the Inspector of Schools and the applications were also re quired to be invited by the Inspector of Schools from the Local Employment Ex change. The Committee of Management had no authority to advertise the post and invite the applications. The requirement is that advertisement shall be made in atleast two newspapersi having adequate circula tion in Uttar Pradesh. 7. The Committee of Management had no authority to advertise the post and invite the applications. The requirement is that advertisement shall be made in atleast two newspapersi having adequate circula tion in Uttar Pradesh. 7. Neither in the petition nor in the rejoinder affidavit this requirement is shown to have been fulfilled. It is no where stated in the petition that advertisement was made in two newspapers having ade quate circulation nor the names of any such paper were disclosed in the petition. In the rejoinder affidavit also only this much is stated that respondent No. 2 (the Commit tee of Management) advertised the said "acancy and regular ad hoc appointment was made by respondent No. 2. There is no disclosure of the name of papers in which advertisement was made nor the date on which such advertisements were made is disclosed. The applications appear to have been received by the Management in violation of the clause (3) of paragraph 5 of the Removal of Difficulties Order 1981 and there is no averment that the application was accom panied by crossed postal order worth ten rupees payable to the District Inspector of Schools. 8. The procedure for selection provided in clause (4) of paragraph 5 is also not alleged to have been followed in making selection of the petitioner. The respondent No. 1 has emphatically denied in the counter-affidavit the allegations of appoint ment in accordance with law and following the procedure laid down by the Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981. 9. The petitioner has failed to, prima facie, establish that his appointment to the post of lecturer on ad hoc basis was made after following the procedure for selection of ad hoc appointment by direct recruit ment. Once it is found that the appointment of the petitioner was made on ad hoc basis in violation of the procedureprovided in para graph 5 of the Removal of Difficulties Order the petitioner cannot be granted relief for payment of salary. Once it is found that the appointment of the petitioner was made on ad hoc basis in violation of the procedureprovided in para graph 5 of the Removal of Difficulties Order the petitioner cannot be granted relief for payment of salary. In a Full Bench decision, Radha Raizada and others v. Committee of Management, Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter College and others, reported in (1994) 3 UPLBEC 1551 , it was observed in para 42 that "when a teacher is appointed on ad hoc basis in accordance with the paragraph 5 of the First Removal of Difficulties Order there is no further requirement of approval of prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools for such appointment. However, it goes without saying that if a Management without following the procedure indicated above make an ad hoc appointment the Dis trict Inspector of Schools possess general power under the Payment of Salaries Act to stop payment of salary to such teacher. " 10. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is finally dismissed at the admission stage. The interim stay order dated 19-7- 91 is vacated. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .