JUDGMENT A. H. JOSHI, J. :-Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Affidavit opposing the application is already filed. In view of this, application is heard by consent of parties. Parties are described in this order in regard to their status in Writ Petition. 2. This is an application for modification clarification of stagnant and order dated 18-1-2006 passed in Writ Petition No.349 of 1996. 3. This Court had decided the Writ Petition No.349 of 1996 by judgment and order dated 20-1-2006, and has passed the order as follows: "8. We, therefore, direct the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to pay to the Petitioner the salary to which he is entitled, for the period he has worked as a lecturer in the Junior College run by Respondent No.1 - Municipal Council, if the same is not already paid to him. We further make it clear that the petitioner will only be entitled to the salary which is payable to and ad hoc teacher by the Municipal Council." (Quoted from page 8 of Civil Application Paper Book) 4. By present application, the original Respondent No.1 is seeking modification/ clarification. The prayer for modification reads as follows: H( a) Clarify/modify the judgment dated 10-01-2006 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No.349/1996 to the effect that the petitioner was entitled for a salary on part time scale as approved by the respondent no.4, the Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur for the period for which the petitioner has worked as a part time teacher for Mathematics in the Junior College run by the Respondent No.1 Municipal Council, Gondia." (Quoted from page 4 of Civil Application Paper Book) 5. The foundation of prayer of modification which is as sought, as is seen in the application can be ad verbatim referred to as below :- H5.The Respondent No.2 submitted the proposal for grant of approval to the Respondent No.4, the Deputy Director. The Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur vide order dated 24-12-1996 granted approval to the appointment of the Petitioner as part time lecturer on the part time scale of Rs.20002750 for the period from 28-7-1995,3-101995 and 8-11-1995 to 30-4-1996. A copy of the said order dated 24-12-1996 issued by the respondent no.4. Deputy Director is annexed as Annexure-R-2 to the present application. 6 . 7 . 8 . "9. A copy of the said order dated 24-12-1996 issued by the respondent no.4. Deputy Director is annexed as Annexure-R-2 to the present application. 6 . 7 . 8 . "9. It is submitted that perusal of the appointment order dated 22-11-1994 which is annexed as Annexure-E to the petition, a copy whereof is also annexed here as Annexure-R-3 would indicate that the a appointment of the petitioner was subject to the approval of the respondent no.4. the Deputy Director of Education. Nagpur. It is submitted that since the petitioner was appointed in the junior college to teach Mathematics subject only, there was no fall time work load available for the petitioner, and therefore considering this aspect, the respondent no.4, the Deputy Director had granted approval to the appointment of the petitioner on the part time scale of Rs.10001750/-. And accordingly, as stated supra, the respondents no.1 and 2 had/have already made the payment to the petitioner on the part time scale, for the entire period during which the petitioner actually worked as such in the junior College." (Quoted from page 2 & 3 of Civil Application Paper Book] 6. The application for modification is opposed by filing affidavit-in-reply. In the reply what is urged is as follows :- "3 . The bare perusal of these appointment letters In-disputedly shows that, the petitioners was appointed as full time lectures on pay scale of 2008-60-2300-3.3-75-3200. The petitioner has actually worked as a fun time teacher for the entire period as is shown in the statement above. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to receive salary from the respondent No.1 & 2 as payable to full time lecture in the above said pays scale. 4 . 5 . 6 . "7. As to Para 9: It is specifically submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a full time Lecturer/teacher in junior college in pay scale ofRs.2300 to 3200 and the petitioner is entitled to receive salary as per this pay scale only. The approval or non-approval from the respondent no.4 shall not affect the entitlement of salary to the petitioner as approval or non-approval is a matter between. respondent nos.1. 2 & 4 and petitioner has nothing to do in this matter. All other contents of this para are hereby denied. 8. The approval or non-approval from the respondent no.4 shall not affect the entitlement of salary to the petitioner as approval or non-approval is a matter between. respondent nos.1. 2 & 4 and petitioner has nothing to do in this matter. All other contents of this para are hereby denied. 8. As to Para 10 : - In view of aforesaid submissions there is absolutely no necessity to clarify/modify the judgment dtd.10-10-2006 passed by this Hon 'ble Court in Writ Petition no.349/96. It is respectfully submitted that on perusal of the averments and record available before this Hon'ble Court, if this Hon'ble Court comes to the conclusion that the judgment 20-1-2006 is required to clarified, then it is humbly prayed that it be clarified that, the petitioner is entitled for salary applicable to the full time lecturer/teacher of junior college as per appointment letters (Annexure 1 to 5) ... " (Quote from page 13, 14 & 15 of Civil Application Paper Book] 7. Perused the record of Writ Petition No.349 of 1996. It is seen that copies of three orders of appointment pertaining to year 1994-1995 are on record. First order is dated 28-7-94, true translation whereof is at page 26-A of Paper Book of said Writ Petition. 8. Text of the order of page 26-A reveals that the petitioner was appointed to teach Mathematics. The order at page 26-A was modified by order dated 16-8-1994, English translation whereof is at page 27-A. By this order, the petitioner was appointed as full time Lecturer on an assumption that work load of subject mathematics for 11th and 12the stand combined stall justify a full time post and this appointment was subject to approval. 9. The Order of appointment at Page 27 - A ws again modified by the Order dated 2211-1994, English translation whereof is at page 28-A, and it was clarified that the appointment was made in the scale 2000-3200 "on assumption that the adequate work load of required Clock hours for teaching 11th & 12th standard students may be complete for full time appointment, and subject to approval:. 10. The condition No.3 in the order dated 20-7-94 as well as order dated 22-111994 as to approval, which is more or less similar in spirit reads as follows :- "3. 10. The condition No.3 in the order dated 20-7-94 as well as order dated 22-111994 as to approval, which is more or less similar in spirit reads as follows :- "3. After approval is received from the Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, you will get the salary and allowance sanctioned from time to time. 4. In case approval of the concerned Department is not received, the Municipal Council shall not pay the compensation of the work done." (Quoted from page 18-A of Writ Petition (No. 349/96) paper book) 11. It is not in dispute that :- (a) The Junior College rune by the Municipal Council in the academic year 19941995, was ran without any grant in aid, from the Government, and therefore, there was no occasion approval or rejection of approval for full time appointment. (b) The petitioner was paid the salary and allowances as spelt out in the first order in the scale of Rs.400-2600 for academic year 1994-1995. 12. In the next academic year, the petitioner was issued an order dated 25-8-1995 of appointment for the period ending by 20-101995 on the assumption as to availability of work load, and subject to approval. The vernacular occupy of order is at page 19 and its English translation is at page 19-A. 13. The said order was modified providing the period of service till 30-4-1996 on the same condition English translation whereof is at page 20-A. This order also contains game condition as to approval, which is quoted in para No.18 above. 14. The writ petition was opposed by Respondent No.1 and the Respondent No.4 Deputy Director of Education who as well filed an affidavit and clarified its stand that the petitioner's appointment was approved on part time basis, and he cannot be granted pay scale, and arrears as full time teacher as claimed by him. The copy of approval is brought on record before this Court is Writ Petition along with affidavit filed for and on behalf of Respondents No.1 & 2, which is at page 48 Annexure -R 4A. The narration contained in the order of approval reads as follows: "92. Shn. A. V. Deshpande M.Sc. 1st Class (Maths) B.Ed. Maths Part time pay scale 1000-1750 from 28-7-95 to 30-10-95 and form 8-11-95 to 30-4-96." 15. By filing a rejoinder in said writ petition, the petitioner has attempted to justify his demand, answering as follows. "2. The narration contained in the order of approval reads as follows: "92. Shn. A. V. Deshpande M.Sc. 1st Class (Maths) B.Ed. Maths Part time pay scale 1000-1750 from 28-7-95 to 30-10-95 and form 8-11-95 to 30-4-96." 15. By filing a rejoinder in said writ petition, the petitioner has attempted to justify his demand, answering as follows. "2. I say that I have not received my salary as a full-time Lecturer in the scale of Rs.2000-3200/- for the period from 16-894 to 31-10-96 in spite of the fact that a s per Clause 8 in the order at Annexure- I dt.138-96, I was appointed as Lecturer in the scale of Rs.2000-3200/- on the basis of approval granted by the Dy. Dir. of Education, Nagpur, vide his letter dt.5-896. I say that as a matter of fact, I have worked as a full-time lecturer in the scale of Rs. 2000-3200/- from 16-8-94 to 31-10-96. In fact the work-load was more than the maximum work-load of a full-time lecturer throughout this period. I say that after the instant writ petition was filed. I was informed by Shri. K. R. Shrivastava Head Clerk in the Respondent No.2 Junior College that the Deputy Director of Education. Nagpur Region. Nagpur. has granted approved to my appointment as Lectuere in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3200/ - for the academic session 1995-96 till 31st October. 1996. I was also informed by Shri. L. 1. Vaidya. Principal of Respondent No.2. Jr. College that such approval has been received form the Deputy Director or Education Nagpur Region. Nagpur. I was also informed by both these persons that in view of this. I shall received by guilty arrears for the Sessions 1995-96 upto 31st October. 1996. I was also informed that the Deputy Director of Education Nagpur Region, Nagpur had not granted approval to my appointment for the Sessions 1994-95 ..... " (Sub-paragraph are made for convenience) [Quoted from page 24 & 25 of Writ Petition No.349/96 Paper Book] 16. The chain of facts right from the appointment till approval disclose that the appointment was made on fall time basis on assumptions that the work load from 11th & 12th standard Science and maths would be for full time teacher, and was strictly subject to or contingent upon approval. 17. In the work load assessment, the Dy. The chain of facts right from the appointment till approval disclose that the appointment was made on fall time basis on assumptions that the work load from 11th & 12th standard Science and maths would be for full time teacher, and was strictly subject to or contingent upon approval. 17. In the work load assessment, the Dy. Director of Education had approved a part time post with a pay scale of application to part time post. These facts have come on record and were admitted by the petitioner. Yet, as is seen from petitioner's rejoinder filed in the writ petition dated 27-4-1997 which is at page 24 to 27, the petitioner is claiming full salary post, based on : (1) oral assurance by the Head Clerk of the Office of the Respondent No.2; as well by Principal of the School, and (2) that he has worked on full time basis, and has actually worked as such. 18. The record of Writ Petition does not disclose that any evidence is brought on record by the petitioner to demonstrate the plea of the writ petitioner that he has actually worked on a full time teacher for which full time work load was available by which he can overcome the conditions of appointment and of approval. Even if it is assume that the petitioner has undertaken some extra hours of teaching, however, it has to be against work load, which is sanctioned or capable of sanction/approval in view of availability of other teaching staff. Allotment of work load on mutual convenience or request of voluntary extra work does not render a teacher who undertakes extra hours of teaching to be a full time employee. 19. It is seen that in the background as to what has come on record of writ petition described in foregoing paragraphs, this ?Court has heard petitioner's writ petition. This Court has found and has recorded in paragraph 7 of the Judgment as follows: "7 . We, therefore, find no legal impediment in the way of the petitioner in claiming salary for the period he has actually served in the junior College fun by Municipal Council, Gondia, as a Lecturer to teach mathematics. " [Quoted from page 8 of the Civil Application Paper Book] 20. Based on the said finding, this Court has given direction in para 8 of the Judgment and Order of W.P. No.349 of 1996. 21. " [Quoted from page 8 of the Civil Application Paper Book] 20. Based on the said finding, this Court has given direction in para 8 of the Judgment and Order of W.P. No.349 of 1996. 21. It appears that taking the shelter of the words 'ad hoc teacher' appearing in para 8, the petitioner has claimed full salary. Since it was not paid, he has filed the contempt petition. Admittedly, full salary, treating the petitioner as full time lectuere, has been deposited, and the petitioner has withdrawn the same. 22. We find that the appointment order was explicitly clear on the point of its nature. 23. From all above, it was duly borne out that the petitioner was entitled only such for salary and allowances as was admissible. The salary authorised to the petitioner was and is as a part time teacher and not more that one for which approval was granted. 24. The petitioner is estoppe from claiming any thing more than what he was entitled as per the conditions of Order of appointment. 25. The petitioner has tried to take undue advantage of method of one work i.e. 'ad hoc teacher' appearing in para 8 of the Order passed by this Court. In fact, the finding, recorded in para 7 that the petitioner is entitled to claim salary for the period he was actually served in the Junior College, Gondia as a Lecturer to reach maths, has to be the foundation of the Order. The words 'ad hoc teacher' are construed by the petitioner to mean that he is entitled to salary of full time teacher. 26. It is well mooted doctrine that in absence of availability of the vacancy in any public employment, nobody can get a post, which is not availability, and sanctioned, nor can he get the salary for the post for which he has to title to hold. 27. It has to be kept in mind that the applicant (Respondent No.2 in Writ Petition) is a statutory body, and it has to act according to law. The petitioner is not entitled to be appointed and to the salary and allowances for the post over which he would never be appointed. 28. 27. It has to be kept in mind that the applicant (Respondent No.2 in Writ Petition) is a statutory body, and it has to act according to law. The petitioner is not entitled to be appointed and to the salary and allowances for the post over which he would never be appointed. 28. In this situation, this Court has to simply clarify and order that the words' ad hoc teacher' appearing in para 8 of judgment dated 10th January, 2006 in Writ Petition No.349 of 1996 be substitute by words "to the petitioner strictly in conformity with the approval order dated 24-12-1996" and we do order accordingly. We direct that the Judgment and order passed by as it Writ Petition No.349 of 1996 dated 10-1-2006 be corrected accordingly. Ordered accordingly.