JUDGMENT Honble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri S.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed against a short-term vacancy as L.T. grade teacher in Dr. Karan Singh Inter College, Rahlai, Agra by its Manager following the procedure prescribed under IInd Removal of Difficulties Order. It has further been stated that Committee of Management submitted the papers to District Inspector of Schools for seeking approval of petitioner’s appointment on 22.9.1994 copy of which is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Petitioner further asserts that D.I.O.S., Agra through order dated 10.10.1994 - Annexure-5 to the writ petition granted approval to the ad-hoc appointment of the petitioner on the basis of financial approval granted by Accounts Officer on 26.9.1994. Annexure-5 is signed by Shri V.P. Thapilyal, D.I.O.S. The raging controversy between the parties is that according to the respondents Shri Thapilyal was not D.I.O.S., Agra on 10.10.1994 while according to the petitioner Sri Thapilyal was very much D.I.O.S. on the said date. The second controversy is that dispatch no. mentioned on the alleged approval letter of D.I.O.S. relates to another order of D.I.O.S. of the said date relating to another Institution. The case of the respondents is that Smt. Raj Pathak was D.I.O.S. at the relevant time. The case of the petitioner is that Smt. Pathak was an associate to the D.I.O.S. and had been authorized by the D.I.O.S. Shri Thapilyal to look after the routine work of D.I.O.S. as Shri Thapilyal had been deputed to look after the work of Deputy Director of Education also. I do not propose to decide this controversy in this writ petition. 2. Earlier also petitions had been filed by the petitioner which were disposed of with the direction to decide petitioner’s representation. In pursuance of the said directions, Regional Deputy Director of Education, Agra passed an order against the petitioner on 3.5.2007 Annexure-10 to the writ petition which has been challenged through this writ petition. In the said order it has been held that alleged approval order of D.I.O.S. dated 10.10.1994 is fictitious (farji). Apart from it other reasons have also been given in the impugned order for rejecting petitioner’s claim. In the said order it has been held that alleged approval order of D.I.O.S. dated 10.10.1994 is fictitious (farji). Apart from it other reasons have also been given in the impugned order for rejecting petitioner’s claim. One of the reasons is that in view of Full Bench authority of this Court reported in Radha Raizada v. Committee of Management, 1994 (3) UPLBEC 1551 , it is essential that short-term vacancy should have been advertised in two newspapers having wide circulation. However, the post in question was allegedly advertised in Kumud Times which has got no circulation. The other reason given is that there was in-fact no vacancy. 3. In my opinion the last two reasons given by the Regional Deputy Director of Education are quite sound. Apart from it the inordinate delay in approaching the Court also goes against the petitioner. According to the petitioner he joined the Institution on 22.9.1994 and started teaching since then but was not paid salary. However, he for the first time raised his grievance through writ petition No. 20724 of 1997. Even though an extremely vague allegation has been made in para-12 of the writ petition that repeated representations were made by the petitioner however, neither any date of the representations has been mentioned nor copies of the said representations have been annexed. The allegation cannot be believed in the least. If a person is appointed and starts teaching but is not paid any salary then he is not expected to remain silent even for two or three months. In such situation normally aggrieved person is expected to approach the Court within two or three months. The inordinate delay of three years not only disentitles the petitioner for any relief but also falsifies his case. In any case filing repeated representations does not keep the claim/cause of action alive vide C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining, 2008 AIR SCW 7233 and AIR 2006 SC 1581 Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. v. K.Thangappan. 4. D.I.O.S. has rightly held that there was no vacancy. In fact neither there was short term vacancy nor substantive even if the allegation of the petitioner in this regard is taken to be correct. 4. D.I.O.S. has rightly held that there was no vacancy. In fact neither there was short term vacancy nor substantive even if the allegation of the petitioner in this regard is taken to be correct. In paragraphs 4 and 5 of the writ petition it has been stated that one Prem Veer Singh Assistant Teacher in C.T. grade in the college in question was granted ad-hoc promotion to the post of Assistant Teacher in L.T. grade against a substantive vacancy on 15.7.1994 which was approved by D.I.O.S. 5. In the year 1989 C.T. grade was declared to be a dying cadre and it was provided that those C.T. grade teachers who had completed 5 years would be given L.T. grade. Accordingly a teacher working in C.T. grade on fulfilment of the requisite conditions is granted L.T. grade. It cannot be said in such situation that it is a case of promotion on any vacancy occurs due to grant of such L.T. grade. By the declaration of C.T. grade as dying cadre, a sort of merger of C.T. grade and L.T. grade took place with the only rider that teachers working in C.T. grade were to be given L.T. grade only on fulfilment of certain conditions. Suppose in an institution there were ten posts of L.T. grade and five of C.T. grade then after the Government Order declaring C.T. grade as dying cadre, total sanctioned strength of Assistant teachers became 15. After fulfilment of certain conditions all C.T. Grade teachers were to be granted L.T. grade with the result that thereafter all the posts became of L.T. grade. Accordingly if a C.T. Grade teacher (Prem Vir Singh in the instant case) is granted L.T. grade no vacancy occurs. 6. Accordingly, view of the Deputy Director of Education that there was no vacancy by grant of L.T. grade to Prem Veer Singh who was till then C.T. grade teacher is quite correct. 7. The second reason given by D.I.O.S. regarding defective advertisement is also quite sound. 6. Accordingly, view of the Deputy Director of Education that there was no vacancy by grant of L.T. grade to Prem Veer Singh who was till then C.T. grade teacher is quite correct. 7. The second reason given by D.I.O.S. regarding defective advertisement is also quite sound. In the aforesaid Full Bench authority delivered on 12.7.1994 it was held that the procedure of notifying vacancies on the notice board as provided under IInd Removal of Difficulties Order was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the procedure of advertisement should be same as provided under 1st Removal of Difficulties Order i.e. publication of the advertisement in two newspapers having wide circulation. The paper Kumud Times in which advertisement is alleged to have been published has got virtually no circulation. In any case there is no allegation about publication of advertisement in any other Newspaper. It is stated that advertisement was issued on 21.7.1994. In the advertisement it was mentioned that interview would be held on 12.9.1994 i.e. after about 7 weeks. Accordingly, advertisement was highly defective. Firstly not being published in two newspapers and secondly the solitary newspaper in which it was published has got absolutely no circulation. 8. Moreover there is one more aspect which requires consideration. Annexure-4 to the writ petition which is alleged intimation of the Management dated 22.9.1994 states that Shri Virendra Kumar Tyagi has been appointed as teacher in L.T. grade. By virtue of para 2(3) it is essential that after selection but before appointment approval of D.I.O.S. should be sought. In the instant case there is not even an allegation that before appointment any approval was sought. Subsequent approval even if granted is meaningless. This aspect has been considered in detail in Division Bench authority reported in Joint Director of Education v. Udai Raj Vishwakarma, 2007 (2) ESC 1116 . 9. Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition hence it is dismissed. ————