JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—This bunch of writ petition has been filed by persons who claim to have been appointed as teaching as well as non teaching staff in various aided and recognized intermediate colleges of District Kushi Nagar in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The provision of Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (herein after referred to as the Act of 1921), Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 (herein after referred to as the Act of 1971) and U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 (herein after referred to as the Act of 1982) are applicable to the employees of the institutions involved in these petitions. 2. Most of the writ petitioners seek to challenge the Order dated 27.7.2007 of the State Government holding therein that the earlier Orders dated 24.2.2003 and dated 17.2.2004 by which 46 teaching and non teaching staff (i.e. the petitioners) of various Intermediate Colleges of Kushi Nagar were directed to be adjusted against vacancies in other recognized intermediate colleges, were illegal and inoperative in the eyes of law, in view of the fact that there is no provision for adjustment of teaching and other staff appointed in one institution in an another, more so when the initial appointment in the parent institution itself was found to be illegal/or against non existent vacancy. 3. Initially an attempt was made to challenge the order dated 27.7.2007 on the ground that the said order has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice. On being confronted that the orders dated 24.2.2003 and 17.2.2004 were manifestly illegal as ad hoc teachers and other staff appointed in one recognized institution cannot be adjusted against any vacancy in another institution as it is neither permissible under the Act of 1921 nor under the Act of 1971, the government order dated 27.7.2007 has, therefore, correctly recorded the legal position, the counsel for the petitioners readily accepted the legal position. 4. 4. This Court may only record that even if the order dated 27.7.2007 has been passed in violation of the principle of natural justice yet since it is admitted to the writ petitioners that the orders dated 24.2.2003 and 17.2.2004 which have been cancelled under the said order were per se illegal, this Court will not interfere with the order dated 27.7.2007 on two settled principles of law namely : (a) Setting aside of the order dated 27.7.2007 would result in restoration of illegal orders dated 17.2.2004 and dated 24.2.2003. Time and again the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court has held that equitable jurisdiction is not to be exercised for setting aside of an order which would result in restoration of an illegal order. It is settled legal proposition that writ Court should not quash the order if it revives a wrong and illegal order. [Vide Gadde Venkateshwara Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, AIR 1966 SC 828 ; Maharaja Chintamani Saranath Shahdeo v. State of Bihar and others, (1999) 8 SCC 16 ; Mallikarjuna Mudhagal Nagappa and others v. State of Karnataka and others, (2000) 7 SCC 238 ; and Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan and another, JT 2003 (6) SC 20.] (b) Since one view is possible in the admitted fact of the case namely that the order dated 24.2.2003 and dated 17.2.2004 were per se illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act of 1921 and the Act of 1982, no purpose would be served by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that if in given set of facts only one view is possible than affording of an opportunity of hearing is only an empty formality. In State of U.P. v. Om Prakash Gupta, AIR 1970 SC 679 , the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed that Courts have to examine whether the non-observance of any statutory provision or principle of natural justice have resulted in deflecting the course of justice. In State of U.P. v. Om Prakash Gupta, AIR 1970 SC 679 , the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed that Courts have to examine whether the non-observance of any statutory provision or principle of natural justice have resulted in deflecting the course of justice. In S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan and others, AIR 1981 SC 136 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where from admitted or undisputed fact, only one conclusion is possible and under the law only one course is permissible to be adopted, the Court should not enforce the observance of principles of natural justice for the reason that it would amount to issuing a futile writ. 5. In A.K.Kraipak and others v. Union of India and others, AIR 1970 SC 150 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under : “The aim of rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice. These rules can operate only in the areas not covered by any law validly made. In other words, they do not supplant the law of the land but supplement it...... Whenever a complaint is made before the Court that some principles of natural justice had been contravened, the Court has to decide whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just decision on the facts of that case.” 6. Therefore, to what extent the principles of natural justice should be applied in a give case, depends upon the facts and circumstances of that case. In case where the principles of natural justice have not been strictly applied but if even after their observation the result could have been the same, enforcing the observance of such principles would be a futile exercise. (Vide Khem Chand v. Union of India and others, AIR 1958 SC 300 ; and Laxmi Shankar Pandey v. Union of India and others, AIR 1991 SC, 1070). 7. Therefore, this Court at the very outset records that the order dated 27.7.2007 does not warrant any interference. 8. (Vide Khem Chand v. Union of India and others, AIR 1958 SC 300 ; and Laxmi Shankar Pandey v. Union of India and others, AIR 1991 SC, 1070). 7. Therefore, this Court at the very outset records that the order dated 27.7.2007 does not warrant any interference. 8. After the matter had reached the aforesaid stage, the petitioners came up with the contention that even if the order of the State Government dated 24.2.2003 and dated 17.2.2004 directing their adjustment in other recognized institutions are held to be illegal, yet their initial appointment on teaching posts and on non teaching post in the parent institution was not illegal in any manner and, therefore, their claim to continue and to be paid salary from the parent institution be examined by this Court irrespective of the order dated 17.2.2004 and dated 24.2.2003. 9. It is in this background that the Court shall now proceed to examine the case of the petitioners individually, so far as they claim their appointment to be legal and valid and pray for salary from the State exchequer. 10. Before this Court adverts to the facts of the connected writ petitions individually, it would be worthwhile to notice the legal principles of law under which the appointment of the petitioners is to be examined. Legal Principles : 11. Petitioners before this Court in all these connected writ petitions claim appointment in recognized and aided Intermediate Colleges. The appointments can be broadly categorized into four categories. (a) Ad hoc appointments on the post of L.T. Grade teacher against substantive vacancies. (b) Ad hoc appointments as Assistant Teacher against short term vacancies. (c) Appointments as teacher in attached primary sections of the Intermediate College. (d) Appointments on Class III and Class IV post in recognized Intermediate Colleges. 12. All appointments subject matter of these petitions on teaching post are subsequent to the Full Bench judgement of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Km. Radha Raizada v. Committee of Management, Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter College, 1994(2) ESC 345 (All)(FB). The Full Bench of this Court in detail has examined the provisions of the Act of 1921 as well as those of the Act of 1982 which admittedly regulate the mode and manner of appointment of L.T. And C.T. Grade teachers in recognized intermediate colleges. Radha Raizada v. Committee of Management, Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter College, 1994(2) ESC 345 (All)(FB). The Full Bench of this Court in detail has examined the provisions of the Act of 1921 as well as those of the Act of 1982 which admittedly regulate the mode and manner of appointment of L.T. And C.T. Grade teachers in recognized intermediate colleges. The Full Bench has dealt in detail with the provisions applicable qua ad hoc appointments to be made against short term vacancies as well as against substantive vacancies. In respect of Ad hoc appointment against substantive vacancies in paragraph 42 it has been laid down as follows : “In view of these provisions the ad hoc appointment of a teacher by direct recruitment can be resorted to only when the condition precedent for exercise of such powers as stated in paragraph 18 of the Act are present and only in the manner provided for in paragraph 5 of the Removal of Difficulties Order. This view of mine finds support in a number of decisions namely, Rang Bahadur Singh and others v. District Inspector of Schools, Saharanpur, 1991 (2) UPLBEC, 1079 and Lalta Prasad Yadav and others v. State of U.P., 1988 UPLBEC, 345. When a teacher is appointed on ad hoc basis is in accordance with the paragraph 5 of the First Removal of Difficulties Order, there is further no requirement of approval or 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 makes an ad hoc appointment the District Inspector of Schools possess general power under the Payment of Salaries Act to stop payment of salary to such teacher.” 13. It is not in dispute between the parties that under paragraph 5 of Removal of Difficulties Order, an advertisement is required to be published by the District Inspector of Schools in newspapers for inviting applications. Names of eligible candidates are also to be called from employment exchange. After awarding quality point marks to the applicants the best candidate is to be recommended by the District Inspector of Schools for being offered appointment in the institution by the management. 14. So far as the ad hoc appointment against short term vacancy is concerned, it has been held in paragraph 43 as follows : “43. After awarding quality point marks to the applicants the best candidate is to be recommended by the District Inspector of Schools for being offered appointment in the institution by the management. 14. So far as the ad hoc appointment against short term vacancy is concerned, it has been held in paragraph 43 as follows : “43. The management after intimating such vacancy to the District Inspector of Schools advertise such short term vacancy at least in two News Papers having adequate circulation in Uttar Pradesh in addition to notifying the said vacancy on the notice board of the institution and further the application may also be invited from the local employment exchange. Thus, the procedure provided for notifying the short term vacancy should be the same as contained in sub paragraph (2) of Paragraph 5 of the First Removal of Difficulties Order........After the procedure provided in Paragraph 2 of the Second Order has gone through no further approval of the the District Inspector of Schools in required for such appointment.” 15. It may be stated that Full Bench of this Court stands approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgement in the case of Prabhat Kumar Sharma and others v. State of U.P. and others, 1996 (3) UPLBEC 1959 (SC) wherein after noticing the judgment in the case of Km. Radha Raizada (supra) it has been held that if the procedure for ad hoc appointment as explained by the Full Bench has not been followed the appointment would be per se illegal. In such a situation the provisions of Section 16 of the Act of 1982 would be attracted and would render the appointment null and void. Reference may also be made to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Joint Director of Education, Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh and another v. Udai Raj Vishwakarma and another, 2007(2) ESC 1116 (All), wherein it has been held in paragraph 11 that subsequent to 1st July, 1994 the Committee of Management has no jurisdiction to make any appointment on ad hoc basis against substantive vacancy. In paragraph 12 it has been laid down that any short term vacancy has to be filled by the procedure prescribed under paragraph 2 of the Second Removal of Difficulties Order at the first instance by making an ad hoc promotion of a qualified senior teacher available in the next lower grade. In paragraph 12 it has been laid down that any short term vacancy has to be filled by the procedure prescribed under paragraph 2 of the Second Removal of Difficulties Order at the first instance by making an ad hoc promotion of a qualified senior teacher available in the next lower grade. It is only in case where no such qualified teacher is available for ad hoc promotion that direct recruitment can be resorted to. The management in that circumstance is obliged to intimate the vacancy to the District Inspector of Schools and further to advertise the same in two newspapers as has been laid down in the case of Km. Radha Raizada (supra). It has been explained that although no prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools is necessary in respect of such ad hoc appointments but such situation would arise only if it is established beyond doubt that all relevant papers as per the Removal of Difficulties Order were forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools after lawful selections for grant of financial approval, the power whereof flows from the provision of the Act of 1971. 16. Another Division Bench of this Court in the State of U.P. through the District Inspector of Schools, Aligarh v. Krishna Kumar Gaur, 2008(8) ADJ 137 : 2008(4) ESC 2610 (All) has held that even in respect of short term vacancies. Advertisement is required to be published in two newspapers having vide circulation in the State, in case of non compliance of the aforesaid conditions, the appointment would be illegal. To similar effect is the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Krishna Mohan Singh v. State of U.P., 2005 (2) ESC 1542, wherein advertisement in one newspaper was held to be insufficient and contrary to law, therefore, the appointment made in pursuance thereto was held to be illegal. 17. If initial appointment on ad hoc basis has been made against a short term vacancy and subsequently the vacancy stood converted into a substantive vacancy/permanent vacancy the ad hoc teacher appointed against short term vacancy has no right to continue against the substantive vacancy and his appointment would cease automatically. (Reference: Pramila Mishra v. Deputy Director of Education, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, 1997(2) ESC 1284 (All)(FB). (Reference: Pramila Mishra v. Deputy Director of Education, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, 1997(2) ESC 1284 (All)(FB). The same principle of law has been reiterated in the latest Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Surendra Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others, 2007 (1) ESC 188 (All) (DB). 18. So far as Class III and Class IV appointments in recognized Intermediate College are concerned, this Court has specifically laid down that no person can be appointed on Class III/Class IV post without prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools (Reference : Jagdish Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2006 (3) ESC 255), in view of the provision of Regulation 101 of the Regulations framed under the Act of 1921. Similar view has been taken in the case of Vivek Srivastava v. Union of India and others, 2005 (3) ESC 1790. 19. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Gopal Dubey v. District Inspector of Schools, Maharajganj, 1999(1) ESC 168 (All)(FB) has held that the liability of the State to pay salary through the State exchequer under the Act, 1971 is only in respect of posts which are duly created under orders of the Director of Eduction in exercise of powers under Section 9 of the Act, 1971. Further mere grant of permission to start new sections or for teaching additional subjects will not amount to creation of post. 20. It was contended before this Court that selected candidates have completed more than a decade of service and therefore, it would be too harsh to dislodge them from service, the issue is no more res integra. The Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 specifically paragraph 43 has held that the High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularisation, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. Merely because an employee had continued under cover of an order of the Court, which the Court described as ‘litigious employment’ in the earlier part of the judgment, he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service. Merely because an employee had continued under cover of an order of the Court, which the Court described as ‘litigious employment’ in the earlier part of the judgment, he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service. In paragraph-51 the Constitution Bench has held that the right to employment, if it is a part of right to life, would stand denuded by the preferring of those who have got in casually or those who have come through the back door. The obligation cast on the State under Article 39 (a) of the Constitution is to ensure that all citizens equally have the right to adequate means of livelihood. It will be more consistent with that policy if the Courts recognise that an appointment to a post in government service or in the service of its instrumentalities, can only be by way of a proper selection in the manner recognised by the relevant legislation in the context of the relevant provisions of the Constitution. In the name of individualising justice, it is also not possible to shut our eyes to the constitutional scheme and the right of the numerous as against the few who are before the Court. 21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its latest judgment in the case of State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh and others, (2009) 5 SCC 65 has treated the continuance of illegal appointees with the help of the order of the Court as spoils system and has dealt with the same in great detail in paragraph 33 onwards. 22. It would be worthwhile to reproduce paragraph-32 of the said judgment, which reads as follows : "32. Notwithstanding the basic mandate of Article 16 that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment for appointment to any office under the State, the spoils system which prevailed in America in the 17th and 18th centuries has spread its tentacles in various segments of public employment apparatus and a huge illegal employment market has developed in the country adversely affecting the legal and constitutional rights of lakhs of meritorious members of younger generation of the country who are forced to seek intervention of the Court and wait for justice for years together.” 23. It is needless to emphasize that if the law requires something to be done in a particular manner it can be done in the prescribed manner only and not otherwise. (Ref. 2000 (6) SCC 179 ; 2000 (7) SCC 296 ; AIR 2004 SC 486 and AIR 2004 SC 1657 ). 24. It is in this legal background that this Court shall now proceed to examine the case of the petitioners in various writ petitions individually. Writ Petition No. 39088 of 2007 : 25. This writ petition has been filed by five petitioners who claim to be employed in Ganga Baksh Kanodia Gandhi Inter College, Captainganj, Kushi Nagar. 26. Petitioner No. 1 Arun Kumar claims ad hoc appointment as Assistant Teacher against a short term vacancy in L.T. Grade caused due to ad hoc promotion of Bechan Prasad in Lecturer Grade. 27. Petitioner No. 2 Shyam Narain Pandey claims ad hoc appointment as L.T. Grade against short term vacancy which arose due to ad hoc promotion of Vishwanath Singh from L.T. Grade to Lecturers Grade. 28. Petitioner No. 3 Brijesh Mishra claims appointment as Assistant Teacher against a vacancy which arose due to ad hoc promotion of Sarvajeet Pandey from L.T. Grade to Lecturers Grade. 29. Petitioner No. 4 Virendra Kumar Pandey claims appointment as ad hoc Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade on ad hoc basis on 3.7.1995 against short term vacancy caused due to ad hoc promotion of Pujari Prasad Pandey from L.T. Grade to Lecturers Grade. 30. Petitioner No. 5 Devendra Kumar Pandey claims ad hoc appointment as L.T. Grade Teacher against short term vacancy caused due to ad hoc promotion of Ram Singhasan Pandey from L.T. Grade to Lecturers Grade. 31. This Court in order to ascertain the correct facts with regards to the existence of short term vacancies qua which the petitioners claim appointment, summoned the original records from the office of the District Inspector of Schools, and also required the District Inspector of Schools to file a detail affidavit disclosing all relevant facts qua the appointment of the writ petitioners. 32. Supplementary Affidavit has been filed by the District Inspector of Schools. In paragraph 14 of the Second Supplementary Affidavit, it has been stated that the ad hoc promotion as Lecturers of various teachers as suggested by the petitioners is non-existent. 32. Supplementary Affidavit has been filed by the District Inspector of Schools. In paragraph 14 of the Second Supplementary Affidavit, it has been stated that the ad hoc promotion as Lecturers of various teachers as suggested by the petitioners is non-existent. In fact the teachers concerned have been granted higher grade i.e. Lecturer grade on completing requisite number of years of working in L.T.Grade. A reply by means of supplementary rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioners dated 16.11.2007 bringing on record the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 8.12.1997 granting financial approval to the ad hoc promotion of (a) Ram Singhasan Pandey against vacancy caused due to retirement of Rajendra Prasad Dubey, (b) Pujari Prasad Pandey against the vacancy caused due to retirement of Ram Awadh Pandey, (c) Bechan Prasad against the vacancy caused due to retirement of H.H.Mirza, (d) ad hoc promotion of Vishwanath Singh on the vacancy caused due to Virendra Dubey being appointed as Principal. Reference has also been made to the advertisement which were published for making such ad hoc appointments in L.T. Grade in newspaper dated 8.5.1995, copy whereof has been enclosed as Annexure SA-3 to the Supplementary Affidavit. The newspaper is said to be Gram Swaraj, Deoria. It is stated that as many as 16 persons applied along with the writ petitioners. The petitioners were selected and thereafter the Committee of Management resolved to appoint the petitioners vide resolution of the Committee of Management dated 30.4.1995. The appointment letter was issued on 10.7.1995. 33. This Court may not enter into the issue of vacancy being available or not. From the pleadings before this Court, it is now admitted that the writ petitioners have been appointed on ad hoc basis in the institution in pursuance to an advertisement published in a local newspaper only namely Gram Swaraj, Deoria only. Such advertisement does not satisfy the requirement of the procedure as explained by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Km. Radha Raizada (supra) as well as the law laid down in the case of State of U.P. v. Krishna Kumar Gaur (supra). Therefore in view of Section 16 of the Act of 1982 such appointments are null and void. 34. Radha Raizada (supra) as well as the law laid down in the case of State of U.P. v. Krishna Kumar Gaur (supra). Therefore in view of Section 16 of the Act of 1982 such appointments are null and void. 34. What is further to be noted in the facts of the present case is that after examination of the original records as produced by the District Inspector of Schools, this Court on 7th May, 2009 required the counsel for the petitioners to disclose as to under which resolution of the Committee of Management, the petitioners have been offered appointment on ad hoc basis. Counsel for the petitioners could only refer to the resolution of the Management dated 30.4.1985. This Court passed a detail order on 7.5.2009 after noticing the averments on record, relevant part whereof reads as follows : “After the original records were examined by this Court qua appointment of all the petitioners, an specific query has been made to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as to under which resolution of the Committee of Management, they were granted ad hoc appointment/promotion to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the supplementary affidavit filed on 16th November, 2007 submits that such resolution was passed by the Committee of Management on 30th April, 1995. However, resolution dated 30th April, 1995 does not refer to promotion/appointment of any person by name, it only authorise the Manager of the institution to do the needful so that the vacancies, which are lying vacant may be filled. Such resolution in the opinion of the Court cannot be treated to be a resolution offering appointment/promotion to the petitioners. The original records produced today by the office of the District Inspector of Schools also present a similar picture. There is only a photo copy of the Resolution dated 30th April, 1995, on record said to have been attested by the Principal of the institution, which is as referred to herein above. No documents could be referred to by the learned Standing Counsel, which could establish that any resolution was passed by the Committee of Management of the institution qua ad hoc appointment/promotion or regular appointment/promotion of the petitioners. Power to offer ad hoc appointment/promotion or permanent promotion is with the Committee of Management. No documents could be referred to by the learned Standing Counsel, which could establish that any resolution was passed by the Committee of Management of the institution qua ad hoc appointment/promotion or regular appointment/promotion of the petitioners. Power to offer ad hoc appointment/promotion or permanent promotion is with the Committee of Management. In absence of any resolution having been passed, entire case set up by the petitioners claiming ad hoc promotion/appointment appears to be non est. Let the District Inspector of Schools, Kushi Nagar file his/her personal affidavit categorically stating as to which resolution was referred for the decision being taken to approve the appointment of the petitioners on ad hoc basis and what procedure prescribed by law was followed qua such appointment.” 35. In the supplementary affidavit filed by the District Inspector of Schools as detailed above, it has been stated that except for resolution dated 30.4.1995 there exists no document which could establish that the petitioners were offered ad hoc appointment in the institution under any resolution of the Committee of Management. In view of the aforesaid, this Court has no hesitation to record that the appointment as claimed by the writ petitioners is illegal to the extent of being void. 36. It is surprising to note that while the matter was engaging the attention of this Court, the petitioners were being paid salary under an interim order of this Court which was time bound, the District Inspector of Schools has chosen to release arrears of salary after grant of Selection Grade to these petitioners running into lakhs of rupees. 37. It is apparent that the appointment of the petitioners is de hors the statutory rules and the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Km. Radha Raizada and others v. Committee of Management, Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter College and others, 1994(2) ESC 345 (All)(FB). There exists no resolution of the Committee of Management under which the petitioners can be said to be appointed as ad hoc teachers in the institution. Consequently the orders of the District Inspector of Schools, resulting in payment of salary in respect of such appointments has the affect of cheating the public exchequer. 38. Learned Standing Counsel on the basis of the records has pointed out that no order with regard to grant of selection grade to the individual petitioners is on record. Consequently the orders of the District Inspector of Schools, resulting in payment of salary in respect of such appointments has the affect of cheating the public exchequer. 38. Learned Standing Counsel on the basis of the records has pointed out that no order with regard to grant of selection grade to the individual petitioners is on record. No salary bill qua payment of arrears calculated after grant of such selection grade is on record as of date. No recommendation of the competent authority recommending grant of selection grade to the petitioners concerned is available on record as on date. It is stated that the District Inspector of Schools, Kushinagar herself is the authorised controller of the institution in question and is present in the Court. She is not in a position to inform the Court as to when such orders have been passed directing fixation of salary of the petitioners in the selection grade. 39. Salary bills produced before the Court in respect of arrears paid to the petitioners after grant of Selection Grade from back date i.e. for the period October, 2000 to February, 2003 to the tune of Rs. 2,18,581/- each are in loose sheets which bear absolutely no signatures of the District Inspector of Schools. However, it is brought to the knowledge of the Court that since the District Inspector of Schools is acting as the Authorised Controller of the institution in question, salary bills has been signed by her in capacity of authorised controller. No salary bill register in respect of payment of salary has been made available. With regard to the recommendation for grant of selection grade to the teacher concerned, what has been referred to, is the letter of the District Inspector of Schools herself addressed to the Principal of the institution informing that with reference to his letter dated 30th July, 2008 selection grade is being approved in respect of five teachers mentioned in the order. 40. The documents before this Court amply demonstrate that arrears after grant of selection grade to the tune of Rs. 2,18,581/- each, total whereof is Rs. 10 lacs and odds, has been provided to the petitioner on 2nd December, 2008. This Court may only record that in none of the salary bills produced before this Court or on the transfer sheets, any date under any signature or otherwise is mentioned. 41. 2,18,581/- each, total whereof is Rs. 10 lacs and odds, has been provided to the petitioner on 2nd December, 2008. This Court may only record that in none of the salary bills produced before this Court or on the transfer sheets, any date under any signature or otherwise is mentioned. 41. I am of the considered opinion that in the facts of the present case, fixation of salary in the selection grade under an order dated 23rd September, 2008 by the District Inspector of Schools, Kushingar, who is the authorised controller of the institution and payment of arrears to the tune of Rs. 10 lacs and odd to five petitioners after such fixation in the selection grade without informing the higher authorities or asking for any money for the purpose, is prima facie an attempt to confer illegal benefits upon the persons like the petitioners, whose appointment was under cloud and under consideration before this Court. 42. At this stage, learned Standing Counsel, with reference to the document enclosed as Annexure-1 to the supplementary counter affidavit filed today, stated that money was in fact asked for under letter dated 15th October, 2008. However, on being asked as to whether copy of the letter dated 15th October, 2008 is on record of the District Inspector of Schools or not, it is replied on instructions from the District Inspector of Schools who is present in the Court that the said letter is not available on records of her office. 43. Even otherwise, the endorsement reads as follows : ßbl vkcafVr /kujkf’k ls ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd] dq’khuxj ds i=kad@ys[kk---- 2008&2009 fnukad 15 vDVwcj] 2008 esa mfYyf[kr /kujkf’k dh lhek rd fu;ekuqlkj Hkqxrku djuk lqfuf’pr djsaA mDr Hkqxrku osru forj.k vf/kfu;e^@mifu;e ds v/khu fof/kd :i ls ijh{k.kksaijkUr lEcf/kr vkgj.k&foj.k ¼ft0fo0fu0½ dk gksxkAÞ 44. One more issue which is required to be examined by this Court is as to whether petitioners had in fact completed ten years of service and therefore, they became entitled for grant of selection grade or not. 45. From records of the present writ petition it is apparent that the appointment of the petitioner was approved in the year 1999 to be précised under an order dated 8th December, 1999, (although such order itself was in cloud). Even if such approval exists in the eye of law, the period of 10 years would expire only in December, 2009. From records of the present writ petition it is apparent that the appointment of the petitioner was approved in the year 1999 to be précised under an order dated 8th December, 1999, (although such order itself was in cloud). Even if such approval exists in the eye of law, the period of 10 years would expire only in December, 2009. Further selection grade is not to be granted in a routine manner, satisfactory performance of duties continuous period of 10 years has to be ensured. Absolutely no records have been produced before this Court, which could establish that at any point of time the District Inspector of Schools examined the work and conduct of the petitioner and came to the conclusion that the petitioners were entitled to grant such selection grade. 46. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is provided as follows : The Secretary, Secondary Education, U.P. Lucknow shall hold an enquiry in respect of payment made to the petitioners after fixation of salary in the selection grade against all responsible. He shall examine as to how such huge amount of money was paid after such fixation of salary in selection grade. He shall ensure the money is recovered from the persons responsible, within three months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him. He shall also submit compliance report within the same period. It after enquiry it is found that a cognizable offence has been committed, he shall also lodge a first information report. 47. Salary bills and the arrears bills as well as transfer sheets as have been produced by the learned Standing Counsel today before this Court, stated to be the original documents, are kept on record and shall be forwarded to the Secretary for the purposes of holding enquiry in the matter along with certified copy of this order. Writ Petition No. 47130 of 2007 & Writ Petition No. 61288 of 2006 : 48. Both the writ petitions are with reference to the post of Clerk in Sri Krishna Intermediate College Semara, P.O. Kathkuiya District Kishinagar. Therefore, both the writ petitions have been clubbed together and are being decided together. 49. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner be taken on record. Heard Sri R.C. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents. 50. Therefore, both the writ petitions have been clubbed together and are being decided together. 49. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner be taken on record. Heard Sri R.C. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents. 50. Petitioner, Daroga Ansari (in Ist petition) before this Court claims appointment on Class-III post in Sri Krishna Inter College, Semaria, Deoria (herein after referred to as the institution) by direct recruitment. 51. Learned counsel for the petitioner in response to the specific query being made by this Court, as to whether any advertisement was published for the purposes of filling up to the vacancy, which is said to be caused due to removal of Veer Bahadur Singh, could not refer to any advertisement, on the contrary he admitted that only a notice was published on the notice board of the institution. 52. On being asked as to whether any selection committee was constituted, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the resolution of the Committee of Management, which has been enclosed as Annexure-S.A.-1 to the supplementary affidavit filed today, which also does not refer to any selection committee. 53. On being further asked as to whether any order of approval qua appointment of the petitioner, was ever passed by the District Inspector of Schools, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to paragraph-6 of the writ petition for asserting that such order of approval was passed on 30th September, 2000, which is stated to have been recalled under order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 9th November, 2000, a copy whereof has been enclosed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. 54. It is admitted that the petitioner was not permitted to continue in the institution on the ground that there were 5 sanctioned Class-III posts in the institution and on the date the petitioner was appointed, five persons were working and were getting salary in the clerks grade. The State Government vide order dated 17th February, 2004 directed adjustment of the petitioner in Lok Manya Inter College, Janki Nagar, Sevarahi, District Kushinagar. Subsequently this order has been withdrawn by the State Government vide impugned order dated 27th July, 2007 as detailed above. Counsel for Daroga Ansari submitted that his initial appointment was valid and therefore, irrespective of the order of adjustment and recall thereof, this Court may permit his continuance in the institution at Deoria. 55. Subsequently this order has been withdrawn by the State Government vide impugned order dated 27th July, 2007 as detailed above. Counsel for Daroga Ansari submitted that his initial appointment was valid and therefore, irrespective of the order of adjustment and recall thereof, this Court may permit his continuance in the institution at Deoria. 55. As already noticed above, under law appointment on Class III post in a recognized Intermediate College can be made only after due advertisement in newspaper and after obtaining prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools in view of Regulation 101 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. 56. In the facts of the present case no such advertisement exists on record nor any recommendation of the Selection Committee recommending the petitioner for appointment has been disclosed. As a matter of fact except for referring to the earlier writ petitions filed and the orders passed by the District Inspector of Schools from time to time the petitioner has hopelessly failed to establish that any procedure known to law was followed before his appointment. More over the fact that the petitioner was not permitted to work in the institution where he was initially appointed as there was no vacancy available on the date of selection has also not been disputed before this Court. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to record that appointment of the writ petitioner in the institution at Deoria was not only manifestly illegal but also against a non-existent post. 57. In view of the aforesaid, it is apparent that the appointment of the petitioner is a fraud upon the statutory provisions applicable and the law laid down in the case of Jagdish Singh (supra) and Vivek Srivastava (supra). This has resulted in withdrawal of money from public exchequer. Beneficiary of the fraud is the writ petitioner and the persons colluding with him are the Committee of Management and the District Inspector of Schools. In such circumstances, this Court has no other option but to direct that an enquiry be held against all the persons responsible and recovery be made within three months of the production of this order, from the person found guilty. 58. The Secretary shall conduct the enquiry and shall take appropriate action against all involved for creating the situation whereby government money has been withdrawn on the strength of the aforesaid fraudulent appointment. 59. 58. The Secretary shall conduct the enquiry and shall take appropriate action against all involved for creating the situation whereby government money has been withdrawn on the strength of the aforesaid fraudulent appointment. 59. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the directions issued above. 60. The connected writ petition No. 61288 of 2006 has been filed by Veer Bahadur Singh for quashing the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 5th August, 2004, whereby adjustment of respondent No. 5, Daroga Ansari was directed in the petitioner’s institution namely, Lok Manya Inter College, Semara, Janki Nagar, District Kushi Nagar against the vacancy caused due to promotion of one Baijnath Pandey as head clerk in the institution. 61. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed in the institution as Assistant Clerk in the institution in the year 1979. However, his services were illegally dispensed with sometime in the year 1981. 62. At no point of time, such removal of the petitioner from service was challenged by him before appropriate authority. Further what is surprising to note is that absolutely no material is on record to show that the petitioner was appointed after following the procedure known to law. The order of approval qua his appointment as Assistant Clerk in the institution in question as well as the order removing him from service have not been brought on record. 63. In view of the aforesaid, the Court finds that the petitioner Veer Bahadur Singh is not entitled to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further this Court has already held in writ petition 47130 of 2007 filed by Daroga Ansari that the appointment of Daroga Ansari was illegal. Direction for adjustment of Daroga Sanari in the petitioner’s institution is also rendered illegal. No further directions are required to be issued. The State Government vide order dated 27th July, 2007 has already withdrawn the impugned order of adjustment. 64. This writ petition is also accordingly dismissed. Writ Petition No. 38571 of 2001 : 65. On behalf of the petitioner it is stated that one Surendra Nath Tewari who was working as Principal in Nehru Intermediate College, Kushi Nagar retired from service on 30.6.1990. One Hari Prasad, Lecturer in Geography was granted promotion as Ad hoc Principal. 64. This writ petition is also accordingly dismissed. Writ Petition No. 38571 of 2001 : 65. On behalf of the petitioner it is stated that one Surendra Nath Tewari who was working as Principal in Nehru Intermediate College, Kushi Nagar retired from service on 30.6.1990. One Hari Prasad, Lecturer in Geography was granted promotion as Ad hoc Principal. Against the resultant vacancy in Lecturers Grade one Vijay Kumar Gupta was appointed by the Committee of Management treating the vacancy to be short term. The appointment of Vijay kumar was not approved by the District Inspector of Schools. He filed a writ petition which was dismissed. Against the same short term vacancy caused due to promotion of Hari Prasad the petitioner claims appointment by direct recruitment. The District Inspector of Schools did not pass any orders qua such appointment of the petitioner and, therefore, he filed Writ Petition No. 19104 of 1998 which was disposed of with a direction upon the District Inspector of School to consider the claim of the writ petitioner. The District Inspector of Schools on 2.10.2000 accorded sanction for payment of salary. The Joint Director of Education vide order dated 20.10.2000 stayed the payment of salary to the petitioner. Thereafter the District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 13.7.2001, recalled his earlier order and rejected the claim of the petitioner for salary. Against the order dated 13.7.2001 the present writ petition has been filed. The Joint Director of Education vide order dated 20.10.2000 stayed the payment of salary to the petitioner. Thereafter the District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 13.7.2001, recalled his earlier order and rejected the claim of the petitioner for salary. Against the order dated 13.7.2001 the present writ petition has been filed. A counter affidavit was filed in this writ petition by the then District Inspector of Schools, Ashok Kumar and in paragraph 2 it is stated as follows : ß2 ;g fd kiFkdrkZ ;kph }kjk nkf[ky ;kfpdk] kiFki=] LFkxu izkFkZuki= o rRlEcUèkh layXudksa dk voyksdu fd;k rFkk mudk ifj’khyu djrs gq, bl ;kfpdk dk xq.k&nks"k ds vk/kkj ij fuLrkj.k fd;s tkus gsrq ;kfpdk dk izLrjokj mRrj nsus ls iwoZ izdj.k ls lEcfUèkr dqN vko’;d rF; ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds laKku esa yk;k tkuk kiFkdrkZ t:jh le>rk gS] tks rF; U;k;fgr esa fuEuor~ gSa& v- ;gfd usg: b.Vj dkyst rj;klqtku dq’khuxj esa Jh vfHkrkHk vks>k ;kph dh izoDrk Hkwxksy in ij rnFkZ fu;qfDr izca/kra= }kjk Jh gjhizlkn izoDrk Hkwxksy dh inksUufr dk;Zokgd iz/kkukpk;Z in ij gksus ds dkj.k fjDr in ij n’kkZ;h x;h gS] tcfd Jh gjh izlkn dh inksUufr ds dkj.k fjDr in ij iwoZ esa gh izcU/kra= }kjk Jh T;ksfr”k ik.Ms; dh fu;qfDr dj yh x;h Fkh] ftUgsa kklukns’k la[;k&2142@15&12&98 (601)(112) fnukad 04-07-98 ds vuqikyu esa osru Hkqxrku gks jgk gSA izoDrk Hkwxksy in ij izca/kra= }kjk Jh fot; dqekj xqIrk dh Hkh fu;qfDr dh x;h Fkh ftlds lEcU/k esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k fo’ks"k vihy la0 295@98 vHkh Hkh yfEor gS] ftlds fo:) izfr’kiFki= nkf[ky fd;k tk pqdk gSA rRi’pkr~ Jh fot; dqekj xqIrk dh lsok lekfIr dj izca/kra= }kjk Jh vfHkrkHk vks>k(;kph) dh fu;qfDr dh x;h ftlds laca/k esa Jh vks>k }kjk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] bykgkckn esa fjV ;kfpdk la[;k&19104@98 ;ksftr dh x;h] ftlesa ikfjr vkns’k fnukad 5-4-99 ds vuqikyu esa rRdkyhu ftyk fo+|ky; fujh{kd dq’khuxj Jh d`ik yky fo’odrkZ us vius i=kad 1545&48@2000&2001 fnukad 2-10-2000 }kjk osru Hkqxrku izkjEHk dj fn;k ftls vfu;er ekurs gq, la;qDr f’k{kk funs’kd lIre e.My xksj[kiqj us vius i=kad 10844&47@2000&2001 fnukad 20-10-2000 }kjk ;kph Jh vfHkrkHk vks>k dk osru Hkqxrku rRdkfyd izHkko ls Lfkfxr dj fn;kA rRi’pkr~ ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd Jh Kku izdk’k flag us izdj.k dh tkap djus ds mijkUr i=kad 1035&41@2001&02 fnukad 13-7-01 }kjk ;kph dks iznku dh x;h foRrh; lgefr dks fujLr dj fn;kA c- ;gfd ;kph }kjk foRrh; lgefr fujLr djus lEcU/kh vkns’k fnukad 13-7-01 ds fo:) ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] bykgkckn esa fjV ;kfpdk la[;k 38571@2001 ;ksftr dh gSA bl lEcU/k esa ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd fo|ky; esa dk;Z;jr lgk;d v/;kid Jh v’kQhZ izlkn }kjk izoDrk Hkwxksy ds in ij inksUufr gsrq ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa fjV ;kfpdk la[;k 17866@98,oa fjV ;kfpdk la[;k 21643@99 ;ksftr dh gS tks vHkh Hkh yfEor gSa] bu ;kfpdkvksa esa izfr’kiFk i= nkf[ky fd;k tk pqdk gSA bl izdkj ls Lor% Li"V gS fd izoDrk Hkwxksy dk in fookfnr gS] rFkk Jh T;ksfr"k ik.Ms; ds osru Hkqxrku ds dkj.k in miyC/k ugha gSA ;kfpdk furkUr vlR;] Hkzked o fujk/kkj dFkuksa ij ;ksftr gksus ds dkj.k U;k;fgr esa fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA 6- ;g fd ;kfpdk ds izLrj la[;k&4 o 5 esa of.kZr ;kph dk dFku Lohdkj ugha gSA Jh gjh izlkn izoDrk Hkwxksy dh inksUufr dk;Zokgd iz/kkukpkZ in gksus ds dkj.k fjDr in ij izca/kra= }kjk Jh T;ksfr"k ik.Ms; dh fu;qfDr dh x;h Fkh] ftUgsa kklukns’k la0 2142@15&12&98 ¼601½ ¼112½ fnukad 4-7-98 ds vuqikyu esa osru Hkqxrku Hkh gks jgk gSA iqu% mlh in ij Jh fot; dqekj xqIrk dh izca/kra= }kjk dh x;h vfu;fer fu;qfDr ds izfr vuqeksnu iznku fd;k tkuk fu;ekuqlkj lEHko ugha gSaAÞ 66. On examination of the record the Court found that the statement made by the District Inspector of Schools qua promotion of Jyotish Pandey against the same vacancy was false inasmuch as Jyotish Pandey was appointed as Lecturer (English), however the details of the vacancy were not disclosed. This Court vide order dated 25.5.2009 required the District Inspector of Schools to file a better affidavit disclosing the following : (a) Whether the Hari Prasad was working on substantive basis as Lecturer (Geography) and was granted ad hoc promotion as officiating principal or not. (b) Whether he was regularised on the said post under any statutory provisions or not, (c) The vacancy on the post of Lecturer (Geography) caused due to promotion of Hari Prasad was short term or substantive. (d) Whether there was any qualified teacher available in the institution for promotion against said vacancy on the relevant date, inasmuch as before direct recruitment could be resorted to, such claim had to be considered. (e) Whether any advertisement in newspapers having adequate circulation as required by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Km. Radha Raizada (supra) was made or not. (f) Whether quality point marks as required, were the criteria for appointment or some other procedures, namely, interview, was the basis of selection of the petitioner. (g) If the appointment of Jyotish Pandey was not against the post of Lecturer (Geography), where was the occasion for alleging in paragraph-2 (ba) that the petitioner is not entitled to salary because of appointment of Jyotish Pandey. 67. A counter affidavit has been filed by the then District Inspector of Schools, Ashok kumar on 29.5.2009 and to the queries made by this Court the reply given reads as follows : “ 5-A. That on 30.6.1990 Sri Surendra Nath the then Principal of Nehru Inter College Taraiya Sujan Deoria now (Kushinagar) had retired due to retirement of Sri Surendra Nath the post of Principal become vacant. 6. That Sri Hari Prasad who was senior most lecturer (Geography) in the institution who had been promoted temporarily on the post of Principal of Nehru Inter College were promoted as temporary Principal. 7. That since the Geography lecturer promoted on the post of Principal, therefore, vacant post may be treated to be a post of Geography. 8. 6. That Sri Hari Prasad who was senior most lecturer (Geography) in the institution who had been promoted temporarily on the post of Principal of Nehru Inter College were promoted as temporary Principal. 7. That since the Geography lecturer promoted on the post of Principal, therefore, vacant post may be treated to be a post of Geography. 8. That on the post vacant due to promotion of Sri Hari Prasad Lecturer Geography the Management by the resolution dated 30.9.1991 passed proposal for appointment of Sri Jyotish Kumar Pandey though he was not qualified to be appointed on the post of Lecturer Geography. 9. That the Management had illegally issued appointment letter to Sri Jyotish Kumar Pandey appointing him on the post of English Lecturer. Since the post of Geography lecturer was vacant probably no approval has been given to the appointment of Sri Jyotish Kumar Pandey by the then D.I.O.S. As the appointment was illegal.” 68. From the aforesaid affidavit filed by Shri Ashok kumar and on the basis of record following facts emerge and which could not be disputed by the present writ petitioner : Short term vacancy on the post of Lecturer (Geography) was caused in the institution due to promotion of Hari Prasad as ad hoc Principal. Jyotish Pandey who was not qualified for the post of Lecturer (Geography) was granted promotion by the Committee of Management. Further without following any procedure and the law laid down in the case of Km. Radha Raizada (supra), appointment of Amitabh Ojha was shown to have been made on ad hoc basis against the same short term vacancy on the post of Lecturer (Geography).It is apparent that on the date the Committee is stated to have offered appointment to Amitabh Ojha against the short term vacancy caused due to promotion of Hari Prasad as Principal, it had already promoted one Jyotish Pandey against the said vacancy. It is thus clear that the committee had suggested appointment of two persons namely Jyotish Pandey and Amitabh Ojha against the one and same short term vacancy. 69. In the opinion of the Court this act of the Committee of Management is therefore, a fraud upon the statutes resulting in illegal payment of money from the public exchequer. It is thus clear that the committee had suggested appointment of two persons namely Jyotish Pandey and Amitabh Ojha against the one and same short term vacancy. 69. In the opinion of the Court this act of the Committee of Management is therefore, a fraud upon the statutes resulting in illegal payment of money from the public exchequer. It is admitted on record that services of Hari Prasad were regularized as Principal on 18.11.1999 vide order of the Joint Director of Education, accordingly the vacancy on the post of Lecturer (Geography) became substantive. Subsequent to the order dated 18.11.1999 ad hoc appointment if any made against short term vacancy came to an automatic end in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Surendra Kumar Srivastava (supra) against substantive vacancy on the post of Lecturer (Geography) caused on 18.11.1999 the Committee of Management has no power to make any ad hoc appointment. [Ref. Joint Director of Education v. Udai Raj Vishwakarma (supra)]. 70. So far as the Jyotish Pandey is concerned, this Court may record that he claims to have been promoted on ad hoc basis against a short term vacancy said to be caused due to promotion of Hari Prasad as Officiating Principal. It could not be disputed that Hari Prasad was working as Lecturer (Geography), therefore, the vacancy caused due to ad hoc promotion of Hari Prasad would be that of Lecturer (Geography) only. Jyotish Pandey was admittedly not qualified for the post of Lecturer (Geography) and therefore, he could not claim or promoted against the said vacancy. His entire claim has to be rejected. 71. It may also be recorded that Jyotish Pandey had filed Writ Petition No. 50533 of 1995 before this Court and the writ petition was dismissed by the Hon’ble Single Judge vide order dated 29.9.2004. From the records it appears that Jyotish Pandey had obtained an order in his favour from the District Inspector of Schools on 4.7.1998 which was withdrawn vide order dated 4.3.2000 and dated 12.3.2000. Against the aforesaid two orders, Jyotish Pandey filed Writ Petition which was dismissed under the same judgment and order dated 29.9.2004, referred to above. 72. Against the said judgements Jyotish Pandey filed Special Appeal No. 1455 of 2004 which was got dismissed as withdrawn. Against the aforesaid two orders, Jyotish Pandey filed Writ Petition which was dismissed under the same judgment and order dated 29.9.2004, referred to above. 72. Against the said judgements Jyotish Pandey filed Special Appeal No. 1455 of 2004 which was got dismissed as withdrawn. With the dismissal of the Special Appeal the judgment and order passed in Writ Petition No. 30533 of 1995 and 14900 of 2000 filed by Jyotish Pandey stands affirmed and consequently the authorities are duty bound to take action in accordance thereto. 73. The appointment of Amitabh Ojha and Jyotish Pandey is nothing but a farce. This Court has, therefore, no hesitation to hold that their appointment is patently illegal and the salary drawn by the writ petitioners must be recovered equally from the District Inspector of Schools who has approved their appointment vide order dated 2.10.2000 and the Committee of Management who had suggested such fraudulent appointments. Writ Petition Nos. 528 of 2008, 59639 of 2007, 59640 of 2007, 59644 of 2007, 59632 of 2007 & 21295 of 2008 : 74. Since the basic facts relevant for decision of the dispute qua the aforesaid six writ petitions are more or less same and legal aspects involved are also same. All the petitions have been clubbed and are being decided as hereunder. The facts record of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 528 of 2008 are being stated treating the same to be the leading case. 75. Petitioner Shambhu Singh claims appointment as Assistant Teacher on ad hoc basis on 1.12.1989 in the primary section attached to the Nehru Intermediate College, Kushi Nagar. The District Inspector of Schools refused to accord approval to the appointment on the ground that a ban on appointment has been imposed by the State Government. Subsequently the Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad vide order dated 4.1.2005 directed payment of salary to 17 teachers which included the name of the petitioner. On the basis of this letter he was sanctioned salary. Absolutely no details qua the mode and manner of appointment and the vacancy against which such appointment is claimed is on record. The Court finds that the appointment letter only refers to a resolution of the Committee of Management dated 14.11.1989. 76. On the basis of this letter he was sanctioned salary. Absolutely no details qua the mode and manner of appointment and the vacancy against which such appointment is claimed is on record. The Court finds that the appointment letter only refers to a resolution of the Committee of Management dated 14.11.1989. 76. Despite specific query of the Court as to against which vacancy and after following what procedure prescribed by law, such appointment has been offered to the petitioner, no details in reply could be furnished. This Court may record that so far as the teachers in Primary Section of recognized Intermediate College are concerned, it is essential for them to establish the following facts before payment of salary from State exchequer can be claimed : (a) There was a existing vacancy against duly created post in the institution. (b) The vacancy was duly advertised in newspaper and the procedure prescribed for appointment of teachers in primary section of recognized Intermediate Colleges was followed. 77. The present writ petition is completely silent in respect of the aforesaid details. Further from the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 28.7.2005 the Court finds that appointments had only been made with reference to the Manak prescribed for creations of posts. Full Bench of this Court in the case of Gopal Dubey (supra) has specifically held that unless and until a post is created by the Director with reference to his powers under Section 9 of the Act of 1971, the liability for payment of salary cannot be fastened upon the State Government. It is, therefore, apparently clear that the management had offered appointment against a post which had not been created under Section 9 of the Act, 1971. Salary drawn by the petitioner on the strength of such appointment against a non-existent post has necessarily to be recovered from the management, the District Inspector of Schools responsible for such payment and the petitioner equally. The State exchequer cannot be permitted to suffer because of collusion between the three named above. 78. All the petitioners in connected matter have similarly been appointed against non sanctioned post only with reference to the Manak. 79. The State exchequer cannot be permitted to suffer because of collusion between the three named above. 78. All the petitioners in connected matter have similarly been appointed against non sanctioned post only with reference to the Manak. 79. Let the Secretary of Education take appropriate action for recovery of the entire salary paid to the petitioners equally from the management, the District Inspector of Schools concerned and the petitioner, after holding an enquiry into the matter, within six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him. Writ Petition No. 36040 of 1999 : 80. Petitioner before this Court in paragraph 4 of the writ petition has stated that one Param Hans Mishra who was working as C.T.Grade teacher in the institution was promoted to L.T. Grade w.e.f. 1.7.1990 and, therefore, a vacancy in C.T.Grade was caused in the institution. On 4.12.1990, C.T. Grade was declared to be a dying cadre and, therefore, the vacancy stood converted into L.T. Grade vacancy. This L.T.Grade vacancy was filled on ad hoc basis after following the procedure prescribed under Second Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 and letter of appointment was issued to the petitioner on 18.9.1997. The District Inspector of Schools refused to accord approval to the appointment vide order dated 4.2.1999 on the ground that a ban has been imposed on ad hoc appointments. It is contended that ban was imposed only on 25.1.1999 and that the petitioner had been appointed prior to the said date, therefore, the ban was not applicable. The other ground mentioned in the order of the District Inspector of Schools qua the Committee of Management having no power to appoint on ad hoc basis is incorrect inasmuch as against a short term vacancy such power to make ad hoc appointment was with the Committee of Management. Hence this petition. 81. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State respondents and it has been stated that Param Hans Mishra was not promoted in L.T. Grade. In fact on completing 10 years of service with reference to the date of his initial appointment i.e. 1.1.1986 he was permitted payment of salary in L.T. Grade under order dated 11.12.1996 w.e.f. 1.1.1986. Therefore, there was no vacancy as claimed by the writ petitioner. The then District Inspector of Schools illegally permitted payment of salary to the writ petitioner. In fact on completing 10 years of service with reference to the date of his initial appointment i.e. 1.1.1986 he was permitted payment of salary in L.T. Grade under order dated 11.12.1996 w.e.f. 1.1.1986. Therefore, there was no vacancy as claimed by the writ petitioner. The then District Inspector of Schools illegally permitted payment of salary to the writ petitioner. However on correct facts being brought to his knowledge the payment of salary was stopped. 82. In reply in rejoinder affidavit it has been stated that a post in L.T. Grade fell vacant and this L.T. Grade vacancy was filled on 1.7.1990, the statement that there was no vacancy is actually incorrect. Reliance has been placed upon a letter of the District Inspector of Schools dated 16.6.1992 granting approval to the promotion of Param Hans Mishra with reference to the Removal of Difficulties Order 1981 as also upon the Government Order dated 4.12.1990. 83. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the writ petition. 84. There is a dispute as to whether Param Hans Mishra was granted ad hoc promotion in L.T. Grade or he was merely granted salary in L.T. Grade. The said issue may not detain the Court long inasmuch if the case of the petitioner is accepted that Param Hans Mishra was promoted in L.T. Grade on ad hoc basis it will only mean that a short term vacancy in C.T. Grade was created. Such vacancy in C.T. Grade will not stand converted to L.T. Grade under G.O. dated 4.12.1990 inasmuch as if Param Hans Mishra reverted to his parent post will continue as C.T. Grade teacher only. Therefore, the short term vacancy due to promotion of Param Hans Mishra on ad hoc basis will continue to be that in C.T. Grade only. The same follows from simple reading of the Government Order dated 4.12.1990 also. It is further surprising to note that the petitioner has not furnished any details of the mode and manner of his appointment in the year 1997 which is admittedly subsequent to the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Km. Radha Raizada (supra). There is no material on record to establish that the vacancy was advertised in newspapers nor there is any such pleading. Radha Raizada (supra). There is no material on record to establish that the vacancy was advertised in newspapers nor there is any such pleading. Only vague allegations have been made to the effect that procedure prescribed has been followed. This in the opinion of the Court will not satisfy the requirements of the procedure necessary for making appointment by direct recruitment even against short terms vacancies as explained by the Full Bench in the case of Km. Radha Raizada (supra). As already noticed herein above, the short term vacancy continues to be in C.T. Grade only and therefore, no appointment in L.T. Grade could have been made. If the alternative case is taken that promotion of Param Hans Mishra was substantive and, therefore, the vacancy caused was also substantive, then on the relevant date the Committee of Management had no power to make ad hoc appointment against substantive vacancy. 85. Original records were also examined by this Court qua the selection and appointment of the petitioner as available in the office of the District Inspector of Schools in the presence of the counsel for the petitioner. No advertisement whatsoever is available on record nor is referred to in any of the correspondence between the management and the office of the District Inspector of Schools. In view of the aforesaid the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as has been prayed for in the present writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. 86. Interim order, if any, stands discharged. Writ Petition No. 39090 of 2007 : 87. Petitioners who are four in number claim ad hoc appointment against short term vacancies. Facts in short are as follows : Petitioner No. 1 claims appointment as ad hoc L.T. Grade Teacher against a vacancy caused due to promotion of one Lallan Prasad Shukla who was working in Mahatma Gandhi Inter College, Sakhwania, Kushi Nagar from L.T. Grade to Lecturers Grade which was approved on 24.2.1981. Petitioner No. 2 similarly claims appointment as ad hoc C.T. Grade Teacher on 26.1.1997 against short term vacancy said to be caused due to promotion of Liyakat Hussain from C.T. Grade to L.T. Grade in Mahatma Gandhi Inter College, Sameria, Kushi Nagar. Petitioner No. 2 similarly claims appointment as ad hoc C.T. Grade Teacher on 26.1.1997 against short term vacancy said to be caused due to promotion of Liyakat Hussain from C.T. Grade to L.T. Grade in Mahatma Gandhi Inter College, Sameria, Kushi Nagar. Petitioner No. 3 claims ad hoc appointment as Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade on 5.1.1999 against short term vacancy caused due to promotion of Satya Narain as Lecturer in Nehru Inter College Sameria, Sakrauli, Kushi Nagar. Petitioner No. 4 Azizullah Ansari claims appointment as ad hoc teacher in L.T. Grade on 27.12.1999 against a short term vacancy said to be caused due to death of Mustakeem Ansari on 22.10.1991 in Nehru Inter College, Sameria, Kushi Nagar. 88. It is stated that appointment of petitioners has been made after following the procedure prescribed under the Second Removal of Difficulties Order 1981. The District Inspector of Schools however refused to accord approval to the appointment of the writ petitioners. They filed Writ Petition Nos. 3378 of 1998, 11021 of 2000, 7897 of 1999 & 8239 of 1994 respectively. The writ petitions were disposed of requiring the District Inspector of Schools to examine the matter. The District Inspector of Schools passed an order approving the appointment of the writ petitioners w.e.f. 30.9.1999, 1.10.2000, 9.8.1999 & 6.8.1999 respectively. However on 9.11.2000 the District Inspector of Schools passed an order withholding the salary of the writ petitioners. Petitioners, therefore, filed second set of writ petitions being Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 5313 of 2000, 3097 of 2000, 3193 of 2001 and 5206 of 2001 respectively. An interim order was granted by this Court on 9.11.2000 in the aforesaid writ petitions. In the meantime the District Magistrate passed an order for payment of salary to the writ petitioners dated 15.2.2001. The Secretary, Secondary Education intervened in the matter and vide order dated 19.2.2001 held that the District Magistrate has no power to issue any directions qua teachers of Intermediate Colleges. Petitioners filed third set of writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8287 of 2001. The matter was referred to the State Government again. A detailed report was submitted by the authorities and it was pointed out that the appointment of the writ petitioners was not in accordance with law. The State Government however issued an order sanctioning salary to the writ petitioners. Writ Petition No. 8287 of 2001. The matter was referred to the State Government again. A detailed report was submitted by the authorities and it was pointed out that the appointment of the writ petitioners was not in accordance with law. The State Government however issued an order sanctioning salary to the writ petitioners. Thereafter vide order dated 17.2.2004 the State Government directed absorption of the writ petitioners in the other institution. Lastly vide order dated 27.7.2007 the State Government recalled its order dated 17.2.2004 as detailed above. It is claimed that the appointment of the writ petitioners is in accordance with law and, therefore, they are entitled to salary. 89. The State respondents in their counter affidavit have disputed the correctness of the alleged vacancies set up by the petitioner, the correctness of the papers qua such promotion have also been disputed. With regards to petitioner No. 4 it is pointed out that according to his own case he has been appointed against a vacancy caused due to death of Mustakeem Ansari. The vacancy was, therefore, substantive and on 27.12.1999 i.e. the alleged date of appointment of petitioner No. 4, the Committee of Management had no power to make ad hoc appointment against substantive vacancies. 90. Supplementary Affidavit has been filed on behalf of all the petitioners and thereafter supplementary affidavits have been filed by all the petitioners individually. 91. In supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of all the petitioners, with regard to petitioner No. 1 it is stated that the vacancy was advertised on 30.10.1980 in local newspaper being Hindustan Ka Swaroop, Deoria dated 30.10.1980 (Ref. Paragraph 7 of S/A) and thereafter quality point marks have been awarded and the petitioner is stated to have been selected. The claim of petitioner No. 1 is liable to be rejected on the ground that the advertisement of the vacancy does not satisfy the requirement of law as laid down by the Full Bench in the case of Radha Raizada (supra). Advertisement in one newspaper only and that too in local newspaper is not in accordance with law. Therefore, the petitioner No. 1 is not entitled to any relief. 92. So far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned, it is stated that the vacancy was advertised in two local newspapers dated 11.12.1996 and 16.12.1996 (Ref. Paragraph 12 of S/A). Advertisement in one newspaper only and that too in local newspaper is not in accordance with law. Therefore, the petitioner No. 1 is not entitled to any relief. 92. So far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned, it is stated that the vacancy was advertised in two local newspapers dated 11.12.1996 and 16.12.1996 (Ref. Paragraph 12 of S/A). The newspapers are Padrauna Namdeo Hindi Saptahik and the name of the second newspaper is not legible. The advertisement in the case of petitioner No. 2 is not in accordance with the requirements of law laid down by the Full Bench in the case of Radha Raizada (supra). The advertisement in weekly newspaper referred to above, only records “Avashyakta Hai :Mahatma Gandhi Inter College Mein Kuch Adhyapakon Ki (SIC). Ishchuk Abhyarthi Sampark Karen” Such an advertisement is no advertisement in the eyes of law. For the advertisement to be completed it should have disclosed the nature of vacancies, minimum qualifications required, method of selections and the last date of submission of application. The claim of petitioner No. 2 must also fail accordingly. 93. So far as petitioner No. 3 is concerned in paragraph 19 of the Supplementary Affidavit it has been stated that the vacancy was advertised in two newspapers namely Dainik Jagran and Aaj dated 18.10.1998 (copies have been enclosed as Annexure SA-11). The advertisement reads as follows : “Avashyakta Hai : Snatak Vetan Kram Mein Sahayak Adhyapak Ki. Ishchuk Abhyarthi Vigyapan Tithi Se 7 Din Ke Andar Prabandhak Ke Pate Per Aavedan Patra Bhejen. Prabandhak Nehru Inter College, Sameria, Sukroli, Jila Kushi Nagar.” 94. It will be seen that there is absolutely no mention of the subject in which the teacher was required. Further admittedly the ad hoc promotion which was granted to Satya Narain was recommended under proposal No. 2 dated 30.8.1998 and that financial approval was granted on 28.1.1999. The Court finds that the alleged resolution of the Committee of Management qua appointment of petitioner No. 3 is dated 3.1.2009 i.e. even before the date on which the alleged promotion of Satya Narain was approved by the District Inspector of Schools. It is to be noted that Satya Narain was promoted as Lecturer in the subject of Economics and, therefore, in all probabilities he must be teaching the subject of Economics in the institution as L.T. Grade teacher. It is to be noted that Satya Narain was promoted as Lecturer in the subject of Economics and, therefore, in all probabilities he must be teaching the subject of Economics in the institution as L.T. Grade teacher. The qualification possessed by the petitioner No. 3 as disclosed in the tabulation chart are B.Sc. and M.Sc. in Maths. The Court further finds that he has been selected on the strength of the marks which he received during interview i.e. 45 and 80 marks awarded for teaching experience is clear from the document enclosed as Annexure-12 to the Supplementary Affidavit. Absolutely no details have been furnished nor any document has been enclosed in that support of the teaching experience. Even otherwise Clause 2(3) of Second Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 provides for selection on the basis of quality point marks specified in Appendix to the First Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981. The Appendix to the First Removal of Difficulties Order does not contemplate awarding of marks for interview and teaching experience. The selection of petitioner No. 3 is, therefore, not in accordance with the statutory procedure prescribed and he is not entitled to any relief. 95. So far as petitioner No. 4 this Court may record that he has been set up an appointment by the Committee of Management against a substantive vacancy caused due to death of teacher concerned. On the relevant date the Committee of Management had no jurisdiction to appoint a teacher on ad hoc basis against substantive vacancy by direct recruitment. 96. For all the reasons noticed above, the Court holds that the petitioners No. 1 to 4 are not entitled to any relief. The writ petition on their behalf is, therefore, dismissed. Writ Petition No. 39092 of 2007 : 97. Petitioners are five in number. Petitioner No. 1 to 4 claim appointment on ad hoc basis in Sri Krishna Inter College, Semara, Kushinagar while petitioner No. 5 claims appointment as ad hoc Assistant Teacher in Nehru Inter College, Kushi Nagar. 98. Petitioner No. 1 & 2 claim ad hoc appointment as Assistant Teacher against a vacancy which arose due to ad hoc promotion of L.T. Grade teachers namely Kailash Mishra and Uma Shankar Soni as Lecturer. 99. Petitioner No. 3 claims appointment as Assistant Teacher in C.T. Grade against a vacancy caused due to ad hoc promotion of Tej Pratap Singh from C.T. Grade to L.T. Grade. 99. Petitioner No. 3 claims appointment as Assistant Teacher in C.T. Grade against a vacancy caused due to ad hoc promotion of Tej Pratap Singh from C.T. Grade to L.T. Grade. 100. Petitioner No. 4 claims ad hoc appointment in C.T. Grade on 1.2.1997 vacancy whereof is said to be caused due to ad hoc promotion of Ravindra Shukla from C.T. Grade to L.T. Grade. 101. Petitioner No. 5 claims appointment as ad hoc Assistant Teacher against a vacancy which was caused due to ad hoc promotion of one Omkar Narain Pandey. 102. It is stated that the appointments have been made under the Second Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981. Their appointment was refused approval by the District Inspector of Schools. The petitioners challenged the order of the District Inspector of Schools by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 19472 of 1998, 19473 of 1998, 12106 of 1999 30894 of 1998 and 601 of 1998 respectively. The writ petitions were disposed of with a direction upon the District Inspector of Schools to examine the matter afresh. Appointment of the petitioners was approved by the District Inspector of Schools w.e.f. 1.7.1997, 1.9.1997, 1.9.1997, 2.10.2000 and 13.5.1999 respectively. On 9.11.2000 the District Inspector of Schools passed an order withholding the salary of the writ petitioners. The petitioners therefore, filed Writ Petition No. 51726 of 2000 challenging the said order of the District Inspector of Schools. The High Court disposed of the writ petition requiring the District Inspector of Schools to re-examine the matter. The District Magistrate intervened in the matter and directed payment of salary. The Secretary, Secondary Education by means of the order dated 13.12.2002 has held that such order of the District Magistrate is totally uncalled for. This order of the Secretary was challenged by the writ petitioners by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8287 of 2001. The High Court dismissed the writ petition. The petitioners approached the State Government again and the Secretary issued an order dated 24.2.2003 in favour of the writ petitioners. Thereafter the order dated 27.7.2007 recalling the order dated 24.2.2003 was issued (as already detailed above). 103. For establishing the legality of their appointments the petitioners filed supplementary affidavit. Petitioner No. 1 claims that the vacancy caused in the institution was advertised, however details of the advertisement have not been furnished. Full Bench of this Court in the case of Km. 103. For establishing the legality of their appointments the petitioners filed supplementary affidavit. Petitioner No. 1 claims that the vacancy caused in the institution was advertised, however details of the advertisement have not been furnished. Full Bench of this Court in the case of Km. Radha Raizada (supra) has held that even a short term vacancy is required to be advertised in two newspapers having vide circulation. In absence of any evidence of such advertisement this Court holds that so far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned, requirement of publication of the advertisement has not been satisfied and, therefore, his appointment is void and a nullity. 104. So far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned it is stated that vacancy became available due to grant of ad hoc promotion to Uma Shankar Soni from L.T. Grade to Lecturer Grade on 17.7.1997 and the vacancy was advertised on 2.7.1997 in newspaper (copy whereof has been enclosed as annexure SA-6). There is only one newspaper enclosed and the name of the newspaper as discernible to the Court is Hindustan Swaroop. 105. In the opinion of the Court such advertisement does not satisfy the requirement of law as has been explained in the case of Km. Radha Raizada (supra) and, therefore, the appointment of petitioner No. 2 is also rendered void. 106. So far as petitioner No. 3 is concerned it is stated that the vacancy was caused due to ad hoc promotion of one Tej Pratap from C.T. Grade to L.T. Grade. With regard to the said vacancy the advertisement made in the newspapers has been enclosed as Annexure 11 which are in Rashtriya Sahara Dainik and Dainik Hindustan Ka Swarup. The advertisement talks of vacancy in L.T. Grade and not in C.T. Grade. To explain the same petitioner contended that the vacancy stood converted into L.T. Grade because of C.T. Grade being declared a dying cadre. On being questioned as to how the promotion of Tej Pratap on ad hoc basis as L.T. Grade teacher the post of C.T. Grade will not stand converted into L.T. Grade, counsel for the petitioner could not reply. It is held that the appointment has been made against a non-existing vacancy in L.T. Grade and under an incorrect advertisement. 107. On being questioned as to how the promotion of Tej Pratap on ad hoc basis as L.T. Grade teacher the post of C.T. Grade will not stand converted into L.T. Grade, counsel for the petitioner could not reply. It is held that the appointment has been made against a non-existing vacancy in L.T. Grade and under an incorrect advertisement. 107. So far as petitioner No. 4 is concerned, it is stated that C.T. Grade teacher Ravindra Shukla was promoted on ad hoc basis as L.T. Grade teacher under resolution dated 15.8.1997 and this C.T. Grade vacancy was advertised for making ad hoc appointments on 2.7.1997. The advertisement has been enclosed as Annexure-15 to the supplementary affidavit. The advertisement has been made in only one newspaper namely Dainik Hindustan Ka Swaroop which does not answer the requirement of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Km. Radha Raizada (supra). The appointment of the petitioner even otherwise bad for having been made against a non-existent L.T.Grade vacancy. 108. So far as petitioner No. 5 is concerned it is stated that L.T. Grade teacher was promoted as Lecturer on 10.10.1997 and against the vacancy so caused in L.T. Grade was published in newspaper on 10.6.1998 (copy of the advertisement is enclosed as Annexure SA-19). The advertisement has been made in newspaper Swatantra Chetna and Dainik Jagran. 109. This Court may now refer to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State respondents to the supplementary affidavit. It is pointed out that the Removal of Difficulties Orders have been recended. The document filed as Annexure-2 to the supplementary affidavit qua petitioner No. 1 is with respect of the institution in the name of Nehru Inter College, Padrauna dated 26.12.1996 while according to the writ petitioner said letter is with reference to the promotion of Kailash Pati Nishad in Sri Krishna Inter College, Kushi Nagar. On mere reading of the letter, the Court is satisfied that the claim set up is manifestly incorrect. (Ref. Paragraph 6 of the supplementary affidavit read with Annexure-2 to the supplementary affidavit). 110. On mere reading of the letter, the Court is satisfied that the claim set up is manifestly incorrect. (Ref. Paragraph 6 of the supplementary affidavit read with Annexure-2 to the supplementary affidavit). 110. With regards to the petitioner No. 2 it is pointed out that at the relevant time his father was one of the member of the Committee of Management of the institution and therefore, his son could not be appointed in the institution in view of Regulation 4 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act. 111. With regards to petitioner No. 3 it is pointed out that no promotion of Tej Pratap as alleged was made. Papers in that regard are manufactured document. Similarly qua the claim of petitioner No. 4 alleged approval granted to the ad hoc promotion of Ravindra Singh from C.T. Grade to L.T. Grade, it is stated that no such order dated 15.8.1997 exist in the official record and, therefore, the document is fabricated. 112. So far as petitioner No. 5 is concerned it is pointed out that the vacancy is stated to have been caused on 30.6.1994 due to promotion of Lalta Prasad from L.T. Grade to Lecturers Grade. One Omkar Nath was granted ad hoc promotion under Resolution No. 136 dated 30.3.1995 which was granted financial approval by the District Inspector of Schools on 22.1.1996. An attempt has been made to mislead the Court by suggesting that Omkar Nath was promoted under Resolution No. 136 of 10.10.1997 it is also stated that the vacancy is stated to have advertisement on 30.6.1998 i.e. after more than 2 years of the alleged vacancy. 113. From the records of proceedings of selections qua all the appointees/petitioners it is apparently clear that selections have been made on the basis of interview marks only and not on the basis of the quality point marks as required under the Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981. Therefore, the procedure pleaded by the petitioners is contrary to the provisions of the Second Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 and illegal to the extent of void in view of Section 16 of the Act, 1982. 114. In view of the aforesaid this Court holds that the writ petitioners are not entitled to any relief. Writ petition is dismissed. Writ Petition No. 39089 of 2007 : 115. 114. In view of the aforesaid this Court holds that the writ petitioners are not entitled to any relief. Writ petition is dismissed. Writ Petition No. 39089 of 2007 : 115. Petitioners who are six in number claim to have been appointed as Assistant Teacher in Gandhi Smarak Inter College, Kushi Nagar. 116. Petitioner No. 1 claims that he was appointed on 12.8.1997 against a short term vacancy which arose due to promotion on ad hoc basis of one Vidya Sagar from L.T. Grade to Lecturer Grade. 117. Petitioner No. 2 claims appointment on 12.8.1997 against a short term vacancy in L.T. Grade caused due to promotion of Chandra Shekhar Mishra as ad hoc Lecturer from L.T. Grade. 118. Petitioner No. 3 claims appointment as L.T. Grade teacher on 12.8.1997 against a short term vacancy caused due to ad hoc promotion of Ram Surat as Lecturer from C.T. Grade in the institution. 119. Petitioner No. 4 claims appointment as Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade on ad hoc basis on 12.8.1997 against short term vacancy caused due to promotion of Krishna Deo Mishra to Lecturer Grade on ad hoc basis from L.T. Grade. 120. Petitioner No. 5 claims appointment as Assistant Teacher on 29.7.1996 against a short term vacancy due to death of Baleshwar Ojha. 121. Petitioner No. 6 claims appointment as ad hoc Assistant Teacher on 29.7.1996 against a vacancy which arose due to superannuation of Ram Sambhar VaishNo. 122. In paragraph 11 it is stated that the petitioners have been appointed in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission, Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981(First) and that their appointment is temporary against short term vacancies. 123. The District Inspector of Schools refused to accord approval to their appointment and therefore, they filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6106 of 1999, 23205 of 1995, 16321 of 1995 and 16889 of 1998. The writ petitions were disposed of requiring the District Inspector of Schools to pass a fresh order. The District Inspector of Schools is stated to have approved the appointment of the writ petitioners w.e.f. 30.7.1999, 30.7.1999, 11.10.1999, 11.10.1999, 3.2.2000 and 3.2.2000. However vide order dated 9.11.2000 the District Inspector of Schools stayed the payment of salary to the writ petitioners. The petitioners, therefore, filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 1718 of 2001, 7949 of 2001, 7946 of 2001. However vide order dated 9.11.2000 the District Inspector of Schools stayed the payment of salary to the writ petitioners. The petitioners, therefore, filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 1718 of 2001, 7949 of 2001, 7946 of 2001. The writ Court allowed the aforesaid writ petitions vide order dated 1.3.2001 and required the District Inspector of Schools to hold an enquiry into the matter with a further direction to pass a fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioners. The District Magistrate intervened in the matter and an order was passed for payment of salary to the writ petitioners. 124. The State Government vide order dated 19.2.2001 provided that the District Magistrate had no power to intervene and stayed the order of the District Inspector of Schools. This order of the State Government was challenged by means of a writ petition which was dismissed. The petitioners thereafter filed representations before the State Government resulting in the orders dated 24.2.2003, dated 17.2.2004 which have been withdrawn under the order dated 27.2.2007 as noticed above. 125. So far as the appointment claimed by the petitioner No. 5 and 6 is concerned, it may be recorded that as per the statement made in paragraph 7 and 8 of the present writ petition, it is apparently clear that the vacancies have been caused due to death and superannuation of the teachers concerned. Such vacancies are substantive in nature and not short term. Therefore, the claim of the writ petitioners No. 5 and 6 that they have been appointed against a short term vacancy has to be rejected outright. It is needless to emphasize that on the relevant date there was no power with the Committee of Management to make ad hoc appointment against substantive vacancies. 126. The Court may now examine the claim of petitioners No. 1 to 4 only. 127. Counter affidavit has been filed by the District Inspector of Schools, Kushi Nagar. In paragraph 4 it has been stated that the appointment of the writ petitioners have been made illegally without following the procedure and norms of appointment. It is further stated that the earlier District Inspector of Schools without ascertaining as to whether the appointment of the petitioners was against sanctioned post and was made after following the procedure or not, passed orders approving their appointment as detailed in paragraph 18 of the writ petition. 128. It is further stated that the earlier District Inspector of Schools without ascertaining as to whether the appointment of the petitioners was against sanctioned post and was made after following the procedure or not, passed orders approving their appointment as detailed in paragraph 18 of the writ petition. 128. Supplementary affidavit has been filed by the writ petitioners and details of the vacancies which became available after grant of ad hoc promotion which was duly approved by the District Inspector of Schools has been furnished. In paragraph 6 of the Supplementary Affidavit it has been stated that the Committee of Management made advertisement inviting applications in local newspapers on 12.4.1997 and 13.4.1997, photostat copy of the newspapers have been enclosed as Annexure SA-2. The name of the newspapers as disclosed are Sahara Dainik Samachar Patra and Dainik Swatantra Chetna Samachar Patra. The advertisement refers to five vacancies being available in L.T. Grade. A chart has been enclosed as Annexure SA-3 which refers to the quality point marks secured by each of the applicants. Thereafter resolutions of the Committee of Management have been enclosed as Annexure SA-4 to the Supplementary Affidavit dated 1.8.1997. The specific details qua the existence of short term vacancies as detailed herein above have been vaguely replied in supplementary counter affidavit. However it has been pointed out that the advertisement had been published even prior to the grant of approval to the ad hoc promotion of the teacher concerned. 129. This Court finds that there is no order on record of the present writ petition which could establish that at any point of time the District Inspector of Schools had recorded his findings after application of mind to the following facts qua the appointment claimed by the writ petitioners : (a) Whether there was any short term vacancy available in the institution due to grant of alleged promotion to a teacher already working in the institution from L.T. Grade to Lecturers Grade. (b) Whether there was any qualified teacher working in C.T. Grade available for promotion or not against the short term vacancy in L.T. Grade. (c) Whether such vacancies were duly advertised in two newspaper having vide circulation as per the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Km. Radha Raizada (supra) or not. (b) Whether there was any qualified teacher working in C.T. Grade available for promotion or not against the short term vacancy in L.T. Grade. (c) Whether such vacancies were duly advertised in two newspaper having vide circulation as per the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Km. Radha Raizada (supra) or not. (d) Whether the procedure prescribed under the Second Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 had been followed qua the petitioners No. 1 to 4 or not. (e) Whether any ban was applicable on the date ad hoc appointment is claimed by the writ petitioners. 130. In view of the aforesaid this Court directs that so far as the claim of the writ petitioners No. 1 to 4 be examined by the Director of Education, in light of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Km. Radha Raizada (supra) and record his categorical finding on the five issues framed by this Court above and to decide as to whether the appointment claimed by the petitioners are in accordance with law or not. The aforesaid exercise may be completed within six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him. 131. With regards to petitioner Nos. 5 and 6, this Court holds that their appointment is void and any salary drawn by the aforesaid persons is liable to be recovered from the management, petitioners as well as the District Inspector of Schools involved. For the purposes, let the Secretary of Education hold an enquiry within four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him. Writ Petition No. 39091of 2007 : 132. Petitioners who are four in number claim appointment as Assistant Teachers in Durga Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Khutahi, Kushi Nagar on 21.7.1997. 133. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 claim appointment against two short term vacancies in C.T. Grade said to have been caused due to grant of ad hoc promotion to Chandra Bhan Singh and Ali Hasan from C.T. Grade to L.T. Grade. 134. Petitioner No. 3 claims appointment as Lecturer on ad hoc basis against short term vacancy caused due to grant of medical leave to Siyaram Singh. 135. 134. Petitioner No. 3 claims appointment as Lecturer on ad hoc basis against short term vacancy caused due to grant of medical leave to Siyaram Singh. 135. Petitioner No. 4 claims appointment as Assistant Teacher in C.T. Grade dated 22.9.1996 against short term vacancy caused due to ad hoc promotion of Nagendra Lal Srivastava from C.T. Grade to L.T. Grade. 136. Petitioners claim that they have been selected after following the procedure prescribed under the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Commission, Second Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981. 137. Petitioners had earlier filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 24836 of 1999, 36784 of 1997 and 40062 of 1997. The writ petitions were disposed of requiring the District Inspector of Schools to pass an order qua approval of ad hoc appointments. The District Inspector of Schools is stated to have approved the appointment of the writ petitioners w.e.f. 27.1.2000, 27.1.2000, 24.5.1999 and 24.1.2000 respectively. 138. A supplementary affidavit has been filed and petitioners No. 1 and 2 claim that they had applied in pursuance to an advertisement (copy whereof has been enclosed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition). The advertisement is said to have been published in one newspaper i.e. Dainik Rashtriya Samachar. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Km. Radha Raizada (supra) has explained that every short term vacancy has to be advertised in two newspapers having vide circulation. Admittedly the advertisement in question does not fulfill the requirement of law as explained by the Full Bench. Therefore, the appointment of petitioners No. 1 and 2 are rendered illegal. 139. Petitioner No. 3 claims that the vacancy was advertised in two newspapers namely Rashtriya Chinha Samachar dated 6.6.2005 and Gorakhpur Samachar Patra. What is surprising to note is that the leave application (Annexure-5 to the supplementary affidavit) discloses that Siya Ram Singh applied for leave for the period 13.2.1995 and 25.4.1995 at the first instance and thereafter by means of a separate application for the period on 26.4.1995 to 26.8.1995 and by means of third application for the period between 27.8.1995 to 31.12.1995. The advertisement was published on 6.6.1985 during a period when there was no leave application of Siya Ram Singh. It is needless to point out that he applied for leave between 26.4.1995 to 26.8.1995 under a letter dated 4.8.1985. The advertisement was published on 6.6.1985 during a period when there was no leave application of Siya Ram Singh. It is needless to point out that he applied for leave between 26.4.1995 to 26.8.1995 under a letter dated 4.8.1985. Even otherwise this Court finds that there is little or no justification for ad hoc appointment being made against a leave vacancy during summer vacations. This Court further records that there is no other document suggesting that leave was further extended by Siya Ram Singh subsequent to 31.12.1995. Appointment, if any, of petitioner No. 3, therefore, would come to an automatic end on 31.12.1995 when the leave of Siya Ram ended. The fact as to whether Siya Ram singh joined on 31.12.1995 or the leave vacancy was converted into another nature of vacancy has not been disclosed. Even otherwise the newspapers in which the advertisement is said to have been published do not satisfy the requirement of law laid by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Km. Radha Raizada (supra). therefore, on the face of it is illegal. Even in the second supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, the details about status of Siya Ram Singh subsequent to expiry of his leave in December, 1985 have not been mentioned. In paragraph 5-A of the second supplementary affidavit filed by respondent No. 3 it has been stated that Siya Ram Singh expired on 8.9.1995 and the vacancy was notified to the Commission on 24.6.1996. From the aforesaid it is apparently clear that the leave vacancy of Siya Ram stood converted into substantive vacancy on 8.9.1995 and, therefore, any appointment by the Committee of Management against leave vacancy loses all legal significance and cannot either be approved or forwarded for approval subsequent to 8.9.1995. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Surendra Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. (supra) has held that if short term vacancy is converted into substantive vacancy, the appointment against short term vacancy will come to an end automatically. This Court may record that on 8.9.1995 the Committee of Management had no authority of law to make any ad hoc appointment against substantive vacancy. This Court may record that on 8.9.1995 the Committee of Management had no authority of law to make any ad hoc appointment against substantive vacancy. Consequently this Court hold that the appointment of the petitioner No. 3 is a farce and any salary drawn by the aforesaid persons is liable to be recovered from the management, petitioners as well as the District Inspector of Schools involved. 140. Petitioner No. 4 claims that one Ranjit Singh who was working as L.T. Grade Teacher retired on 30.6.1996. The Committee of Management promoted Nagendra Lal Srivastava on ad hoc basis from C.T. Grade to L.T. Grade. The resultant vacancy was advertised in two newspapers being Aaj Dainik Samachar Patra and Seema Rekha dated 21.8.1996. Further that the petitioner was selected and offered appointment under resolution of the Committee of Management dated 2.9.1996 as ad hoc L.T. Grade Teacher. The claim set up by the petitioner cannot be accepted by this Court for following reasons : (a) On grant of ad hoc promotion to Nagendra Lal Srivastava from C.T. Grade to L.T. Grade the short term vacancy caused would be in C.T. Grade only and it will not get converted into L.T. Grade. Therefore, advertisement published inviting application for appointment as trained grade teachers in the newspapers is patently illegal. (b) Advertisement in newspaper Seema Rekha does not satisfy the requirement of law as explained by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Km. Radha Raizada (supra). (c) The resolution of the Committee of Management offering appointment to the petitioner makes an interesting reading, the same is quoted herein below : “Sarvasammat Se Tay Paya Ki Shri Nagendra Lal Srivastava Ke Tadarth Pronnati Ke Phalswaroop (C.T. Kram Se L.T. Kram Mein) Rikt Huye Sthan Per Tadarth Shikshak Niyukti Karne Per Vichar Kiya Gaya. Isme Teen Prarthna Patra Prapt Huye Jo Nimnawat Is Prakar Hain : 1. Shri Rama Shankar Singh 2. Shri Girijesh Kumar Singh 3. Shri Jiyut Pandey Sabke Prarthna Patra Per Vichar Hua. Isme Teen Prarthna Patra Prapt Huye Jo Nimnawat Is Prakar Hain : 1. Shri Rama Shankar Singh 2. Shri Girijesh Kumar Singh 3. Shri Jiyut Pandey Sabke Prarthna Patra Per Vichar Hua. Is Pud Ke Liye Sabse Yogya Abhyarthi Girijesh Kumar Singh B.A. (B.Ed.) Ko Upyukt Paya Gaya Tatha Parokt Pud Per Inki Niyukti Ki Jati Hai Tatha Prabandhak Ko Adhikrit Kiya Jata Hai Ki Anumodan Sambandhi Avashyak Karyavahi Karen.” From the same it is clear that the appointment offered to the petitioner is in C.T. Grade then to L.T. Grade and that only three applications had been received and only their case has been considered. 141. In the judgment of the High Court in the earlier writ petition filed by Girjesh Singh, petitioner No. 4 being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4062 of 1997 decided on 16.12.1998, it was specifically provided that appointment on short term vacancy can only be made in accordance with the Removal of Difficulties Order after the vacancy having been circulated in two newspapers and after following the procedure statutorily prescribed thereto. The law as explained by the writ Court in the said judgment had admittedly not been followed qua appointment claimed by Girjesh Singh. Tabulation chart qua quality point marks allotted to the applicants, enclosed in the supplementary affidavit filed by petitioner No. 4 the number of persons considered has been mentioned as Five. The Court, therefore, feels that the documents suggesting grant of quality point marks (page 19 to the supplementary affidavit) has been subsequently prepared and was not under consideration before the Committee of Management in its meeting dated 10.9.1996. Even otherwise selection has been made after adding interview marks to the quality point marks which is contrary to the procedure prescribed under the Removal of Difficulties Order. 142. In view of the aforesaid the Court holds that the appointment claimed by the writ petitioners are illegal. The salary paid must be recovered. 143. Let the Secretary of Education take appropriate action for recovery of the entire salary paid to the petitioners equally from the management, the District Inspector of Schools concerned and the petitioners, after holding an enquiry into the matter, within six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him. Writ Petition No. 46511 of 2007 : 144. There are eight writ petitioners in this writ petition. 145. Writ Petition No. 46511 of 2007 : 144. There are eight writ petitioners in this writ petition. 145. On behalf of petitioner No. 1 it is contended that a vacancy in L.T.Grade was caused in Sri Annapurna Inter College due to resignation tendered by one Babu Ram. Against the said vacancy Paramhans Mishra who was working as C.T. Grade teacher in the institution was granted ad hoc promotion with the approval of the District Inspector of Schools dated 16.6.1992. As a result whereof a vacancy was caused in C.T. Grade and since the C.T. Grade was declared to be a dying cadre, the vacancy stood converted into L.T. Grade. This vacancy was advertised in newspaper Dainik Aaj on 13.7.1997 (wrongly mentioned as 13.7.1990 in the supplementary affidavit). Petitioner applied and after awarding quality point marks he was selected. Under resolution of the Committee of Management dated 14.9.1997 a decision was taken to offer appointment to the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner had filed writ petition No. 36040 of 1999 wherein an interim order was passed on 11.9.2000 directing payment of salary to the petitioner. A supplementary affidavit has been filed enclosing the copy of the advertisement, the resolution of the Committee of Management dated 14.9.1997 as well as approval letter of the District Inspector of Schools dated 17.9.1992 and a chart depicting the quality point marks received. From the aforesaid records following facts emerge : 146. Promotion granted to Param Hans Mishra from C.T. Grade to L.T. Grade was only an ad hoc promotion. Therefore, the vacancy which was caused in C.T. Grade was only a short terms vacancy and such vacancy will not stand converted into L.T. Grade under the Government Order which declared the C.T. Cadre as the dying cadre. In order to overcome the aforesaid objection, counsel for the petitioner made a statement that subsequently the appointment of Param Hans Mishra was regularized as L.T. Grade Teacher. However he has not disclosed the date on which such regularization of Param Hans Mishra was directed. The Court may record that if the case set up by the petitioner that Param Hans Mishra was subsequently regularized as L.T. Grade then the short term vacancy in C.T. Grade would converted into a substantive vacancy and any earlier appointment against short term vacancy will come to an end automatically. {Ref. Surendra Kumar Srivastava (supra)}. The Court may record that if the case set up by the petitioner that Param Hans Mishra was subsequently regularized as L.T. Grade then the short term vacancy in C.T. Grade would converted into a substantive vacancy and any earlier appointment against short term vacancy will come to an end automatically. {Ref. Surendra Kumar Srivastava (supra)}. In 1997 the Committee of Management had no jurisdiction to make appointment against a substantive vacancy. The appointment of the petitioner must be held to be illegal. The Court may further record that even in respect of ad hoc appointment admittedly the advertisement has been published in one newspaper only and, therefore, the process adopted is not in accordance with the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Radha Raizada (supra). For the reasons best known to the petitioner it has not been disclosed as to what has happened to the writ petition filed by him earlier i.e. Writ Petition No. 36040 of 1999. 147. Petitioners No. 2, 3 and 4 claim appointment as Assistant Teachers in primary sections of the institution as per the letter dated 18.2.1992, 18.2.1992 and 1.7.1995 respectively. The petitioners No. 2 and 3 filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2765 of 1995 which was decided vide judgment and order dated 8.2.1999 with a direction upon the District Inspector of Schools to decide the issue of payment of salary on the representation made by the petitioners. 148. Petitioner No. 4 filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51730 of 2000 which was also disposed of vide judgment and order dated 13.12.2000 with a direction upon the District Inspector of Schools to pass a fresh orders in accordance with law. All the three writ petitioners have taken a stand in the supplementary affidavit filed that there were 24 sanctioned post of Assistant Teacher in primary section. However no facts nor any details qua sanction of these 24 posts in the institution has been disclosed. On a query being made by the Court as to on what basis it is being alleged that there were 24 posts in primary section, counsel for the petitioner made reference to the document which has been enclosed as Annexure SA-2 to the Supplementary Affidavit sworn on 13.5.2009. On a query being made by the Court as to on what basis it is being alleged that there were 24 posts in primary section, counsel for the petitioner made reference to the document which has been enclosed as Annexure SA-2 to the Supplementary Affidavit sworn on 13.5.2009. It is submitted that from the aforesaid letter it was established that the District Inspector of Schools granted permission to the Management of the institution vide letter dated 25.4.1991 for opening of 10 new sections and according to this letter 10 sections were opened which in turn resulted in 20 additional post being created in the institution. 149. This Court may record that such contention is totally misplaced. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Gopal Dubey v. District Inspector of Schools, Maharajganj, 1999(1) ESC 168 (All)(FB) has held that the liability of the State to pay salary through the State exchequer under the Act, 1971 is only in respect of posts which are created under order of the Director of Eduction in exercise of powers under Section 9 of the Act, 1971. Mere grant of permission to start new sections or teaching of additional subjects will not amount to creation of additional post. This Court holds that there was no vacancy in the institution in primary section against a duly created post and therefore, the appointment claimed by the petitioners No. 2, 3 and 4 are patently against non existent post. Even otherwise the only procedure disclosed by the petitioners No. 2, 3 and 4 is that an advertisement was published on 31.5.1995, copy of the advertisement is not available with them. On the basis of quality point marks against alleged the appointment was offered. Counsel for the petitioners was failed to establish as to how appointment could be made on the basis of quality point marks against alleged substantive vacancies in primary section of an Intermediate College nor could he refer to any statutory rule for the purpose. 150. Petitioners No. 5, 6, 7 and 8 claim appointment as Class IV employee in the institution vide appointment letter dated 10.7.1990, 10.7.1990, 10.7.1990 and 20.8.1997 respectively. It is stated that petitioners No. 5, 6 and 7 filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18475 of 1998 which was dismissed on 26.5.1998. 150. Petitioners No. 5, 6, 7 and 8 claim appointment as Class IV employee in the institution vide appointment letter dated 10.7.1990, 10.7.1990, 10.7.1990 and 20.8.1997 respectively. It is stated that petitioners No. 5, 6 and 7 filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18475 of 1998 which was dismissed on 26.5.1998. They filed Special Appeal No. 587 of 1998 which was decided on 6.8.1998 with a direction upon the District Inspector of Schools to examine their grievance in accordance with law. Similarly petitioner No. 08 filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12102 of 1999 which was decided vide judgment and order dated 31.3.1999 requiring the District Inspector of Schools to examine the matter. According to the writ petitioners they made applications for appointment which was considered and appointment was offered. Reference has also been made to the writ petitions which were filed by them and to the fact that in pursuance thereto the District Inspector of Schools had passed an order approving their appointment. What is surprising to note is that there is absolutely no mention of any Advertisement having been published for the purposes of making appointment against these vacancies nor necessary details have been mentioned in the writ petition. 151. In the opinion of the Court no appointment by direct recruitment against a post qua which salary is payable by the State Government can be made except after due advertisement in newspaper and by adopting procedure known to law. On examination of the Supplementary Affidavit the Court finds that it is only a notice was affixed on the notice board of the institution for inviting application for appointments. It is needless to emphasize that the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Radha Raizada (supra) has held that publication of notice on the Notice Board qua availability of vacancy in an aided and recognized institution is no advertisement in the eyes of law. In absence of any advertisement having been published in newspapers in respect of the vacancies, the appointments claimed by the petitioners is patently violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India to the extent of being void. 152. The Division Bench of this Court has held that no appointment in an Intermediate College on Class IV post can be made without prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools. {Ref. Vivek Srivastava (Supra)} 153. 152. The Division Bench of this Court has held that no appointment in an Intermediate College on Class IV post can be made without prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools. {Ref. Vivek Srivastava (Supra)} 153. The Court holds that the claim of petitioners No. 1 to 8 is either against non existent vacancies or an appointment without advertisement of the vacancy. The amount of salary drawn by the petitioners from public exchequer is only because of a fraud played by the petitioners, the Committee of Management and the office of the District Inspector of Schools. The Court cannot be a mute spectator. The illegal benefit drawn by the writ petitioners must be returned to the State Government, be it on the strength of the interim orders passed by the Court or on the strength of the orders passed by the District Inspector of Schools with reference to the directions issued by this Court qua consideration of their claim. This Court holds that the petitioners, the Committee of Management and the concerned District Inspector of Schools at the relevant time who have released the payment of salary are equally responsible. The Secretary shall conduct an enquiry and shall take appropriate action within eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him against all involved for creating the situation. The government money which has been withdrawn on the strength of the aforesaid fraudulent appointment must be restored to the government fund. 154. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the directions issued above. Writ Petition No. 39093 of 2007 : 155. Petitioners are six in number. They claim to have been appointed in different recognized and aided Intermediate Colleges in district Kushi Nagar. 156. Petitioner No. 1 claims appointment as Peon on 7.2.1996 against a vacancy which arose due to absence of Virendra Mishra in Sri Goswami Tulsi Das Inter College, Padrauna, District Kushi Nagar. 157. Petitioner No. 2 claims appointment as Peon on 1.11.1997 the vacancy whereof has arisen due to resignation by Rajesh in Sri Krishna Inter College, Semara, Kushi Nagar. 158. Petitioner No. 3 claims appointment on 1.11.1997 against a vacancy which arose due to resignation by Bechari Yadav in Sri Krishna Inter College, Semara, Kushi Nagar. 159. 157. Petitioner No. 2 claims appointment as Peon on 1.11.1997 the vacancy whereof has arisen due to resignation by Rajesh in Sri Krishna Inter College, Semara, Kushi Nagar. 158. Petitioner No. 3 claims appointment on 1.11.1997 against a vacancy which arose due to resignation by Bechari Yadav in Sri Krishna Inter College, Semara, Kushi Nagar. 159. Petitioner No. 4 claims appointment on 19.4.1999 against a vacancy which arose due to grant of promotion to Virendra Mishra in Sri Krishna Inter College, Semara, Kushi Nagar. 160. Petitioner No. 5 claims appointment on 22.2.1999 against a vacancy on Class IV post in Mahatma Gandhi Inter College, Sakhwania, Kushi Nagar. 161. Petitioner No. 6 claims appointment on 15.9.1995 against a vacancy which arose due to retirement of Parasnath in Sri Ganga Baksh Kanodia Inter College, Captainganj, Kushi Nagar. 162. According to the petitioners the vacancies were substantive in nature and since the teaching work of the institution was badly effected, they have issued appointment letters. The District Inspector of Schools refused to accord financial approval and, therefore, they filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18332 of 1998, 35903 of 2000, 75718 of 2000, 35530 of 1999, 1080 of 2000 and 35494 of 19998. The writ petitions were disposed of with a direction upon the District Inspector of Schools to examine their grievances. The District Inspector of Schools made queries from the Principal of the institution to which reply was submitted. The District Inspector of Schools thereafter approved the appointment of the petitioners w.e.f. 7.10.1999, 30.9.2000, 30.9.2000, 2.10.2000, 2.10.2000 and 2.10.2000. However the salary of the petitioners was stopped vide order dated 9.11.2000. The petitioners therefore, filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51977, 52048 of 2000 and 6854 of 2001. The order of the District Inspector of Schools was set aside and the matter was remanded. In the meantime the District Magistrate intervene in the matter and thereafter orders have been passed by the State Government as detailed above. 163. From the records of the present writ petition, this Court finds that there is absolutely no averment qua any advertisement having been published in any newspaper before making the appointments. In the meantime the District Magistrate intervene in the matter and thereafter orders have been passed by the State Government as detailed above. 163. From the records of the present writ petition, this Court finds that there is absolutely no averment qua any advertisement having been published in any newspaper before making the appointments. The supplementary affidavit filed refers to the advertisement dated 12.2.1996 qua petitioner No. 1 the details of the newspaper wherein the said advertisement is published is not mentioned and in fact what is being termed as an advertisement is only a notice published on the notice board of the institution. Similar is the situation with regards to the advertisement claimed by the petitioner No. 2 referred to as Annexure SA-4 to the Supplementary Affidavit. 164. Qua petitioner No. 1 reference has been made to an advertisement in paragraph 16 but neither the date of the advertisement nor the newspaper where such advertisement has been published has been disclosed. In paragraph 20 of the supplementary affidavit, reference has been made to an advertisement qua petitioner No. 2. Neither the name of the newspaper nor the date of the advertisement is disclosed. 165. Qua petitioners No. 3,4,5 and 6 averments have been made qua the vacancy having been published in newspaper. Neither the name of the newspaper nor the date of such advertisement has been disclosed. Copy of the advertisement has also not been brought on record. The allegations are vague and cannot be accepted by this Court. Reference paragraphs 13,16,20 and 24 of the Supplementary Affidavit. Even from the resolution brought on record qua appointment of the petitioners, there is no reference of any advertisement having been published nor any selection is stated to have taken place. The appointments have been made only on the making of the applications and that too under a resolution of the Committee of Management of the institution. This Court may record that for appointment on Class IV post, Principal is the appointing authority and the Committee of Management of the institution has no role to play. In these set of circumstances this Court hold that the case set up by the petitioners is without any legal foundation. 166. This Court may record that for appointment on Class IV post, Principal is the appointing authority and the Committee of Management of the institution has no role to play. In these set of circumstances this Court hold that the case set up by the petitioners is without any legal foundation. 166. This Court also holds that amount of salary drawn by the petitioner from public exchequer is only an outcome of a collusion between the petitioners, the Committee of Management and the District Inspector of Schools. The money must be returned to the Government coffers. This Court holds that the petitioners, the Committee of Management and the concerned District Inspector of Schools at the relevant time who had released the payment of salary are equally responsible. The Secretary shall hold an enquiry and shall take appropriate steps within eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order of filed before him for realization of the money as also for action against all involved for creating the situation whereby government money has been withdrawn on the strength of the aforesaid fraudulent appointment. 167. All the writ petitions except Writ Petition No. 39089 of 2007 are accordingly dismissed with the directions issued above. 168. Writ Petition No. 39089 of 2007 is dismissed qua petitioners No. 5 and 6. So far as petitioners No. 1 to 4 are concerned, the matter is remanded to the Director of Education for examining the legality of their appointments. 169. Standing Counsel is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Secretary, Secondary Education, U.P. and Director of Education, U.P., within two weeks from today for the directions issued being complied within the time permitted. ————