V. M. SAHAI, J. ( 1 ) KAMLA Balika Inter College, Basni, Varanasi, is a recognised and aided institution. On 14. 12. 1981 the Regional Inspectress of Girls School, Varanasi, passed an order, sanctioning three posts of Lecturers of Sanskrit, History and Sociology. The management sent requisition to the commission to fill the post of Lecturer Sociology on 25. 2. 1983 but the commission made no selection. The management notified the vacancy on 11. 8. 1990 on the notice board and invited applications for making ad hoc appointments on the post of Lecturer Sociology. The petitioner applied and she was selected. The management passed a resolution on 27. 1. 1991 for appointing her as Lecturer Sociology for short time on ad hoc basis and issued an appointment letter on 28. 10. 1991. She joined on 29. 10. 1991. The papers were forwarded to the Regional Inspectress of girls School for granting financial approval to the appointment. It is claimed that no order was passed by the Regional Inspectress of Girls School. The post of Regional Inspectress of Girls school was re-designated as Deputy Director of Education (Secondary) and powers of the regional Inspectress of Girls School were vested in District Inspector of Schools-II (in brief dios ). Since she was not being paid her salary, she made representation before the DIOS. The last representation was made on 18. 10. 2000. She was informed by the DIOS on 2. 11. 2000 that the petitioners ad hoc appointment has already been disapproved on 23. 9. 1996 by the Deputy director of Education (Madhyamik), Vth Region, Varanasi. A copy of the order dated 23. 9. 1996 has been filed as Annexure-6 to this petition. The disapproval was granted because the management could not fill the ad hoc vacancy after ten years of its creation and the appointment of the petitioner was made without following the procedure of advertising it in the newspapers. The petitioner has challenged the order passed on 23. 9. 1996 by the Deputy Director of Education (Madhyamik), Vth Region, Varanasi and order passed on 2. 11. 2000 by the DIOS by means of this petition. The petitioner has challenged the order passed on 23. 9. 1996 by the Deputy Director of Education (Madhyamik), Vth Region, Varanasi and order passed on 2. 11. 2000 by the DIOS by means of this petition. ( 2 ) SRI Ashok Khare the learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Mukesh Kumar for the petitioner has vehemently urged that once a post is created, it would not lapse and it is the sweet will of the management to fill the post whenever it wants to fill it and appoint any person at any time. The learned counsel has placed reliance on two single Judge decisions of this Court in Vogendra nath Singh v. DIOS, Jaunpur, 1991 UPLBEC (1) 484 and Markanday Singh v. State of U. P. and others, 1997 (1) AWC (NOC) 2. 115. He also relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in mumtaz Ahmad v. Deputy Director of Education, Allahabad, 2000 (1) ESC 437. He urged that if the commission had not appointed any Lecturer in Sociology on the vacancy for which the requisition had been sent to the commission, the management could fill it by direct recruitment under U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 (in brief Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 ). ( 3 ) ON the other hand, Sri M. C. Chaturvedi the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has urged that provisions of Regulation 20 are still in force by virtue of Section 32 of U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 (in brief U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 ). It has to be given full effect where the management fails to advertise the vacancy or send a requisition to the commission within a period of three months from the date of occurrence of vacancy. In such a situation, the vacancy would be deemed to be surrendered under regulation 20 of the Regulations and the management could not fill it unless it was created and sanctioned afresh by the Director. He further urged that the management could not make direct recruitment on substantive vacancy itself and ad hoc appointment could only be made by the digs after advertisement in two newspapers having wide circulation in the State and in accordance with the provisions of Removal of Difficulties Order. 1981. He further urged that the management could not make direct recruitment on substantive vacancy itself and ad hoc appointment could only be made by the digs after advertisement in two newspapers having wide circulation in the State and in accordance with the provisions of Removal of Difficulties Order. 1981. The appointment of the petitioner was contrary to the provisions of Removal of Difficulties Order. 1981, therefore, no right would accrue to the petitioner on the basis of appointment made by the management. ( 4 ) SECTION 10 of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 provides the procedure of selection by direct recruitment. It lays down that the management shall determine the number of vacancies existing or likely to fall vacant during the year of recruitment and notify it to the Board in such a manner and through such officer or authority, as may be prescribed. Section 11 provides that the Board shall notify the vacancy and hold examinations and take necessary interview of candidates and prepare a panel of candidates found most suitable for appointment. The panel prepared by the board is required to be forwarded to the officer or authority who shall intimate the management of the institution the names of selected candidates and the management is required to issue appointment letter to such selected candidate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of intimation. Section 16 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in intermediate Education Act, 1921 or Regulation made thereunder, every appointment of teacher shall after the commencement of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 be made by the management only on the recommendation of the Board. Sub-section (2) provides that any appointment made in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act shall be void. Section 18 empowers the management to make short-term ad hoc appointments where the vacancy after intimation to the Board remains vacant for more than two months. But since appointments could be made under Section 18 (2) in accordance with the procedure under Section 18 (8) of the Act. The Act, thus, provides both for direct recruitment and ad hoc appointments. The one under section 10 is made by the Commission/board and other by a selection committee under Section 18 (8 ). The management, thus has very nominal role in appointment by direct recruitment or ad hoc selection. The Act, thus, provides both for direct recruitment and ad hoc appointments. The one under section 10 is made by the Commission/board and other by a selection committee under Section 18 (8 ). The management, thus has very nominal role in appointment by direct recruitment or ad hoc selection. Since the establishment of the Commission was likely to take some time, the government issued Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 for ad hoc appointments. By second removal of Difficulties Order, 1981, provision was made for filing short term vacancy. The Act also empowered the State Government under Section 35 to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. In exercise of this power, the State Government made the Uttar Pradesh secondary Education Service Commission Rules, 1983, Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education service Commission Rules, 1995 and the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection board Rules. 1998. Rule 4 of Rules 1983 provides the determination and intimation of vacancies. It provides that the management shall determine and intimate to the commission the number of vacancies existing or likely to fall vacant during the year of recruitment and specify the number of reserved vacancies. The statement of vacancies is required to be submitted by the management to the Inspector by September 15 of the year of recruitment and the Inspector shall after clarification forward two copies of the same to the Deputy Director of Education by October 15 with a copy to the commission. The Deputy Director of Education is required to forward the statement of various categories of vacancies to the commission by November 15. Sub-rule (6) of the Rule 4 provides that where the management for any recruitment year fails to notify the vacancy or the vacancies by the date specified in a manner provided by the Rule, the commission may require the Inspector to notify the vacancy and where the commission requires the Inspector to notify the vacancy, and the vacancy is notified, the vacancy shall be deemed to have been notified by the management. Similar provisions were made in Rule 11 both in 1995 and 1998 rules. If Rule 4 of Rules 1983, Rule 11 of Rules 1995 and 1998 are read in juxtaposition, then it would reveal that the Government has attempted to curtail the power of management in matters of appointment of teachers. The power to appoint has been vested in Commission/board. Similar provisions were made in Rule 11 both in 1995 and 1998 rules. If Rule 4 of Rules 1983, Rule 11 of Rules 1995 and 1998 are read in juxtaposition, then it would reveal that the Government has attempted to curtail the power of management in matters of appointment of teachers. The power to appoint has been vested in Commission/board. The rules do not leave it to management to defeat the objective of the Act by not notifying the vacancy by providing that on failure of management, the vacancy could be notified by the inspector and such notification would be deemed to be notified by the management. The legislative intent is further clear from Section 18 of the Act which empowers the management to appoint an ad hoc teacher by direct recruitment only if the post remained vacant for more than two months after its notification under Section 10 (1) of the Act. But even such appointment could be made under sub-section (2) in accordance with procedure prescribed by sub-section (8 ). ( 5 ) THEREFORE, no appointment could be made by the management after coming into force of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982, either by way of direct recruitment or ad hoc except in accordance with section 16 (1) and Section 18 (2) read with Section 18 (8) of the Act. From the facts narrated earlier, it is clear that the post was created in December, 1981, the management sent requisition to commission in 1983 and notified the vacancy in 1990 and appointed petitioner ad hoc in 1991. Each step taken by the management was contrary to the Act and Rules framed thereunder. Even if it is assumed that the requisition to commission was within time, the ad hoc appointment could be made under Section 18 (2) of the Act in accordance with subsection (8) of the section by a selection committee for ad hoc appointment by direct recruitment. But the petitioner was appointed by a resolution passed by the committee of management on 27. 1. 1991. The petitioner was, thus, not a validly appointed ad hoc teacher who could claim any salary from the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. ( 6 ) SINCE the appointment of the petitioner was contrary to law, the Deputy Director of Education did not commit any error in disapproving the appointment of the petitioner. 1. 1991. The petitioner was, thus, not a validly appointed ad hoc teacher who could claim any salary from the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. ( 6 ) SINCE the appointment of the petitioner was contrary to law, the Deputy Director of Education did not commit any error in disapproving the appointment of the petitioner. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to decide any other argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed by the management in 1990. She claims to have been working since then. It is left open to the petitioner to seek her remedy against the management the respondent no. 4 for paying her salary, from their own resources. ( 7 ) SUBJECT to the observations made above the writ petition is dismissed. .