JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri S.P. Giri, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 31.10.2005 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) and 26.6.2006 (Annexure-14 to the writ petition) whereby his request for grant of salary in the scale of Rs. 1400-2300 has been rejected by the authorities concerned. 3. The brief facts as per the version of the petitioner are that he was appointed under the scheme of Second Indian Language to be imparted in selected 16 schools of eight districts vide Government Orders dated 24.9.1990 and 14.12.1990. The appointment was made by the order of Principal dated 10.12.1990 directing the petitioner to impart education in Gujarati Language. So far payment of honorarium, salary etc., it was mentioned therein that the same would be in accordance with the directions issued by the Government and the said appointment was temporary. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to para 3 of the Government Order dated 14.12.1990 which provides that the teachers appointed under the above scheme would be entitled for L.T. grade scale, i.e., 1400-2300 besides allowances as admissible from time to time. He submits that he was however paid wages only at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month, i.e., Rs. 50 per day from December, 1990 till April, 1991. Thereafter, he made grievance for payment of salary in the scale of Rs. 1400-2300 as per the Government Order dated 14.12.1990 but the same was not accepted. The petitioner was paid only honorarium and that too stopped in 1998 where against he made representation on various dates pursuant whereto the respondent No. 4 vide his letter dated 18.9.2000 requested the respondent No. 2 for sanction of grant so that the language teachers be paid their honorarium. A similar letter also sent by the respondent No. 3 on 5.1.2001. The respondent No. 4 also sent reminder on 17.01.2003 and 09.08.2004. However, when the above correspondence did not yield any result, the petitioner approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 48165 of 2004 which was disposed of vide judgment dated 10.11.2004 permitting the petitioner to make a fresh representation within one month before the Director of Education (Secondary) U.P., Lucknow and he was required to decide the same in accordance with law. It is pursuant to this judgment the Director of Education has passed order dated 31.10.2005 observing that the petitioner’s demand for payment of salary in the scale of Rs. 1400-2300 was untenable and, therefore, has to be rejected. With respect to the payment of honorarium, he, however, observed that due to non sanction of funds by the State Government, the same could not be paid and as and when the Government sanction the same, it would be paid to petitioner. Thereafter it appears that the petitioner represented the matter again to the Director of Education for reconsideration but the same has also been rejected vide order dated 26.6.2006. These are the two orders passed by Director, Secondary Education dated 31.10.2005 and 26.06.2006 where against the present writ petition has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was appointed in accordance with the special scheme of the State Government enforced vide Government Orders dated 24.9.1990 and 14.12.1990. He is working for the last more than 19 years and, therefore, he is entitled for payment of wages and in view of para 3 of the Government Order dated 14.12.1990 is entitled for payment in the scale of Rs. 1400-2300. 6. However, I find no force in any of the above submissions. 7. A perusal of the aforesaid Orders which have been issued by the Director of Education, U.P., Lucknow, it is evident that a scheme for teaching Second Indian Language was adopted and to start with it was sought to be implemented in eight districts, namely, Kanpur, Agra, Varanasi, Jhansi, Ghaziabad, Lucknow, Allahabad and Dehradoon wherein 16 secondary schools were selected for the said purpose. A perusal of the letter dated 24.09.1990 issued by the Director of Education, U.P., Lucknow shows that the procedure of appointment of teachers under the said scheme was to be informed later on so that the teachers appointed in accordance with the said procedure be given the scale of Rs. 1400-2300. A perusal of the letter dated 24.09.1990 issued by the Director of Education, U.P., Lucknow shows that the procedure of appointment of teachers under the said scheme was to be informed later on so that the teachers appointed in accordance with the said procedure be given the scale of Rs. 1400-2300. Para 2 of the Order dated 24.09.1990 is reproduced as under : ^^2- ;kstukUrxZr pqus x;s fo|ky;ksa esa d{kk 6 ls 10 rd ds Nk=@Nk=kvksa ds fy, mDr Hkk"kkvksa esa f’k{k.k dh O;oLFkk dh tk;sxhA bl ;kstukUrxZr tks Nk=@Nk=k;sa lfEefyr gksaxs] mUgsa fofHkUu izdkj ds izksRlkgu iqjLdkj fn;s tk;saxs] ftlds fy, vyx ls vkns’k kh?kz gh izlkfjr fd, tk;saxsA Hkk"kkvksa ds f’k{k.k gsrq pqus x;s fo|ky;ksa esa ,d lgk;d v/;kid Lukrd osrudze ¼1400&2300½ esa fu;qDr fd;k tk,xk ftldh fu;qfDr dh izfdz;k vkfn ds lEcU/k esa funsZ’k Hkh kh?kz gh fuxZr fd, tk;saxsA** 8. It is not disputed that the direction laying down procedure for appointment under order dated 24.09.1990 was not issued. In the subsequent letter dated 14.12.1990, which was also issued by the Director of Education, it was mentioned that the teachers who were not appointed in accordance with the Rules shall not be entitled for the scale of Rs. 1400-2300. A perusal of para 3 thereof is reproduced as under : ^^3- lEcfU/kr fo|ky;ksa esa Hkk"kk v/;kidksa dh fu;qfDr furkUr vLFkkbZ rnFkZ :i ls fu;ekuqlkj dh tk;sxh ftUgsa Lukrd osrudze ¼1400&2300½ vuqeU; gksxkA rnFkZ :i ls fu;qDr bu v/;kidksa dh kklu }kjk le;≤ ij ?kksf"kr vU; HkRrs vuqeU; gksxsA pwWafd fo|ky;ksa esa nwljh Hkkjrh; Hkk"kkvksa ds f’k{k.k dk;Z 2 vDVqcj] 1990 ls izkjEHk djus ds kklu ds vkns’k FksA vr% mDr frfFk dks ;fn rnFkZ fu;qfDr dj yh x;h gS rc osru dk Hkqxrku fd;k tk;sxkA 2 vDVqcj] 1990 ds iwoZ dk osru fdlh Hkh vè;kid dks ns; u gksxkA** 9. The first two lines clearly mention that in the concerned schools the language teachers appointed purely on temporary basis in accordance with Rules shall be entitled for scale of Rs. 1400-2300. The first two lines clearly mention that in the concerned schools the language teachers appointed purely on temporary basis in accordance with Rules shall be entitled for scale of Rs. 1400-2300. When this Court enquired from the learned counsel for the petitioner as to what was the procedure followed for his appointment, he stated that he moved an application on his own before Principal of the College and thereupon the Principal issued an order dated 10.12.1990 directing him to join the institution and impart education in language but with respect to payment of wages/honorarium it says that it would be in accordance with the directions issued by the State Government. In the absence of any procedure followed in making appointment of the petitioner, the stress laid down by the petitioner to the above two orders that he ought to have been given salary in the scale of Rs. 1400-2300 cannot be accepted inasmuch as the above pay scale was admissible to a teacher who was appointed in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the rules. Admittedly, the institution being a Government institution, the salary was to be paid by the State Government. The appointment could not have been made in utter violation of Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. It was incumbent upon the authority concerned before making appointment to advertise the post and make appointment giving opportunity of consideration for employment to all other eligible persons which procedure admittedly was not followed in the case in hand. 10. Besides, it also appears that till the procedure for appointment is laid down and followed, the Director of Education permitted by letter dated 24.01.1991 purely stop gap arrangement for imparting education in the Second Indian Language by engaging language teachers on daily wage basis at the rate of Rs. 25 per day. Subsequently, the Director of Education vide his letter dated 09.08.1991 permitted payment of Rs. 25/- per lecture and for those who were imparting education in Class-6th and 7th at the rate of Rs. 50/- per day. It is according to this order the petitioner was paid wages at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month in the financial years 1992-93 to 1997-98. This fact has not been disputed by petitioner. 25/- per lecture and for those who were imparting education in Class-6th and 7th at the rate of Rs. 50/- per day. It is according to this order the petitioner was paid wages at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month in the financial years 1992-93 to 1997-98. This fact has not been disputed by petitioner. It is not stated anywhere in the writ petition that the said decision was not communicated by the Director that for purely stop gap appointment, wages would be paid to the person concerned on daily wage basis. The Director of Education has further observed in his order that no ad hoc appointment in accordance with Rules has been made in the institution concerned and the petitioner was also not appointed in accordance with the said procedure. 11. In view thereof and particularly considering the fact that the appointment of petitioner was not in accordance with Rules and admittedly the Constitutional provision under Article 16(1) of the Constitution was never followed at all, I find no error in the impugned orders passed by the respondent No. 2 whereby he has declined the request of petitioner for payment of salary in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300. 12. Reliance is placed by petitioner on a Single Judge decision of this Court in Smt. Anita Tyagi v. State of U.P. and others, 2009(8) ADJ 562 . Therefrom it is evident that this Court did not consider the question as to when an incumbent would be entitled for payment of salary in a particular scale. Therein the entitlement of salary of that petitioner was not in dispute and on the contrary the Director of Education admitted that Smt. Anita Tyagi was entitled for payment which could not be paid due to lack of budgetary allocation from the State Government. It is in these circumstances, this Court directed the respondents to pay such amount which was due to the petitioner as per orders of the Director of Education. Besides, the aforesaid judgment pertains to appointment of Assistant Teacher (Sanskrit) under the Triple Language Scheme in an unaided recognised institution where different provisions are applicable and not those orders as are being relied on in the case in hand. 13. Here in the case in hand, the petitioner is claiming salary in the scale of Rs. Besides, the aforesaid judgment pertains to appointment of Assistant Teacher (Sanskrit) under the Triple Language Scheme in an unaided recognised institution where different provisions are applicable and not those orders as are being relied on in the case in hand. 13. Here in the case in hand, the petitioner is claiming salary in the scale of Rs. 1400-2300 under the Orders dated 24.09.1990 and 14.12.1990 issued by respondent No. 2 though it is evident from the record that he was never appointed even on ad hoc or temporary basis in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rule as provided by the said orders. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute that the appointment of teachers in a Government Secondary Schools is governed by the statutory rules under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and that being so in the absence of any procedure otherwise, it was incumbent upon the respondents to make appointment of a teacher strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Rules and any appointment made otherwise is dehors the Rules conferring no right upon the incumbent concerned. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioner for directing the respondents to continue him in service also cannot be accepted. 14. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the fact that for the period the petitioner has worked subsequently, i.e., 1998-99 and onwards but has not been paid even honorarium/daily wage only on the ground of non budgetary allocation by the Government, it cannot be said that the respondents are justified in not making such payment to the petitioner only for the reasons attributable to the respondents. Therefore, to that extent, in the interest of justice I direct the respondents to make payment of such amount of honorarium/daily wage admissible to petitioner for the period of 1998-99 and onwards for which he has actually worked, within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 15. Therefore, to that extent, in the interest of justice I direct the respondents to make payment of such amount of honorarium/daily wage admissible to petitioner for the period of 1998-99 and onwards for which he has actually worked, within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 15. The respondents however are further directed not to continue any illegal appointment in the institution concerned and in case the requirement of appointment of language teacher is there, the respondents shall proceed to make appointment in the institution concerned and other similarly placed institutions in accordance with Rules since adhocism and illegality in the matter of appointments to the post violating constitutional provision under Article 16(1) has to be deprecated in a case where the authorities with impunity are flouting the said provision. This Court is under a constitutional obligation to check such attitude of the authorities and compel them to act only in accordance with law and not otherwise. 16. The Registrar General of this Court is directed to send a copy of this order to Secretary, Secondary Education and Director of Education, U.P., Lucknow for compliance and to submit report of compliance to this Court within four months through Registrar General. 17. With the aforesaid observations/directions this writ petition is disposed of. ————