JUDGMENT FERDINO INACIO REBELLO, C.J. and A.P. SAHI, J. - The appellant claims himself to be a validly appointed teacher on ad hoc basis in the L.T. Grade in Janta Inter College, Sohang, District Kushi Nagar. The institution is governed by the provisions of the V.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the selection and appointment of teachers in such institutions is governed by the provisions of the V.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder. 2. A vacancy arose on 25.10.1991 on account of the death of one Mustaqim Ansari. The appellant claims that it was he, who was selected and appointed against the said substantive vacancy after it was advertised on the Notice Board. This decision of the committee to appoint the appellant was followed by a letter of appointment and the documents were forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools for grant of financial sanction. The date of selection is 19.12.1991 and the date of letter of appointment is 27.12.1991. 3. It is alleged that when no action was taken, the appellant was compelled to file Writ Petition No. 8239 of 1994 in which the State filed a counter affidavit taking a stand that the appointment cannot be approved as there was a ban imposed by the State Government on making such ad hoc appointments. The said writ petition was finally heard and disposed of on 29.4.1999 directing the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria, to reconsider the claim of the appellant in accordance with law keeping in view the fact that the State Government had lifted the ban on certain conditions on 26.9.1991, which was prior to the selection and appointment of the appellant. The District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 6.8.1999 granted financial sanction to the appointment of the appellant purporting to be in compliance of the judgment of this Court dated 29.4.1999. It appears that the District Magistrate was apprised of certain complaints against the District Inspector of Schools and appointments in the district alleging that the financial sanction has been wrongly extended to the teachers appointed including the appellant. The District Magistrate, accordingly, issued directions to the District Inspector of Schools to cancel the financial sanction as extended by the District Inspector of Schools. The District Magistrate, accordingly, issued directions to the District Inspector of Schools to cancel the financial sanction as extended by the District Inspector of Schools. The District Inspector of Schools on 9th November, 2000 stopped the payment of salary to the appellant referring to an inquiry held by the District Magistrate through a Committee. Aggrieved, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 5206 of 2001 assailing the said order of the District Inspector of Schools. 4. This Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of the District Inspector of Schools with a direction to the District Inspector of Schools to furnish a copy of the inquiry report as prepared by the District Magistrate and after giving an opportunity to the appellant proceed to pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law. This order was passed on 22.12.2000. 5. The District Inspector of Schools does not appeal to have passed any order immediately thereafter and the District Magistrate, Kushi Nagar, on 15.2.2001 passed an order that the directions of the High Court should be complied with by the District Inspector of Schools and in such circumstances, the restraint on payment of salary does not appear to be justified. 6. The District Magistrate, as indicated earlier, ha I also got an inquiry conducted and it was reported by him to the State Government that 99 illegal appointments without there being any posts and without following the -procedure, had been made in the district The State Government, therefore, in the light of the said report passed an order on 19.2.2001 intimating the District Magistrate that he had no powers under the Act to issue any direction to the District Inspector of Schools to make payment of salary under the order dated 15.2.2001. Accordingly, the order dated 15.2.2001 was set aside. A report was submitted by one Sri Mitra Lal, Additional Director of Education, on 17.12.2002 entailing therein the status of the appointments which were under scrutiny. The Secretary, Secondary Education, on 24.2.2003 passed an order intimating the Director of Education that he has been called upon to say that in view of the various decisions of the High Court for deciding the matter in relation to these disputed appointments, the payment of salary to 46 teachers/employees can be made provided they have been appointed against regular sanctioned substantive posts. The said payment should, therefor, be made subject to any decision in the special appeals, which were stated to be pending. It was also indicated therein that if the posts are not available then an appropriate report should be forwarded for taking action. The appellant alleges that pursuant to the aforesaid order of the State Government, the District Inspector of Schools again passed an order in favour of the appellant for making payment of salary. 7. It appears that there were other appointments in dispute in relation to 14' employees in other institutions, who had been allegedly appointed against non-existent posts. The State Government on 17.2.2004 passed an order director the Director of Education to adjust those 14 employees including teachers in accordance with law. 8. A dispute arose in relation to the appointment on the post of Clerk in Shri Krishna Inter College, Semara, District-Kushi Nagar, which also came to be a matter relating to the said inquiry. One Daroga Ansari claimed appointment as a clerk which was challenged by one Veer Bahadur Singh in Writ Petition No. 61288 of 2006 and a prayer was made for quashing of the order dated 5.8.2004 whereby Daroga Ansari was directed to be adjusted in the institution Lokmanya Inter College, District-Kushi Nagar. It is in the context of this writ petition that this Court called upon the authorities to explain as to under which provision of law such adjustments were being made. Notice was taken of the order of the State Government dated 17.2.2004 as referred to herein above. The State Government thereafter appears to have vide order dated 27.7.2007 withdrawn the order dated 17.2.2004 as also the earlier order dated 24.2.2003 under which the appellant claims to have been favoured with a financial sanction. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellant Sri Ashwani Kumar Mishra submits that it is here where the appellant came to be affected inasmuch as the sanction of payment of salary was made to the appellant under the order dated• 24.2.2003 and the appellant had no concern with the order of adjustment dated 17.2:2004. The appellant, accordingly, along with 3 other employees of different colleges, filed Writ Petition No. 39090 of 2007 assailing the order of the State Government which has given rise to the present Special Appeal. The appellant, accordingly, along with 3 other employees of different colleges, filed Writ Petition No. 39090 of 2007 assailing the order of the State Government which has given rise to the present Special Appeal. The learned Single Judge clubbed all the writ petitions together in relation to all these disputed employees and decided the same by a common judgment dated 4.12.2009. The petition of the appellant was dismissed holding that the appointment of the appellant was not in accordance with law inasmuch as the committee of management had no authority to proceed to appoint any teacher on ad hoc basis in view of the provisions 6f the V.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 promulgated vide Notification dated 31.7.1981. 10. The appellant aggrieved has preferred this appeal contending that the appointment of the appellant was valid after due intimation on the Notice Board against a regular substantive vacancy and the learned Single Judge has committed an error by dismissing the claim of the appellant. The approval and financial sanction having not been challenged by anybody, the salary could not have been withheld on account of among order dated 17.2.2004 with which the appellant was not concerned. 11. Having heard Sri Mishra and the learned Standing Counsel, we may state at the very outset that neither the District Inspector of Schools nor any of the higher authorities including the State Government ever proceeded to examine the claim of the appellant vis-a-vis the procedure that was followed for making his appointment by the Committee of Management. The District Inspector of Schools who was directed on 29.4.1999 straightaway granted financial sanction on 6.8.1999 without examining the merits of the selection of the appellant. There is not even a whisper in the said order about the procedure adopted by the Committee of Management and its authority to proceed to make appointment which the appellant claims to have been made under the provisions of section 18 of the D.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act read• with the Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981. 12. It is to be noted that this Court had already declared the law in relation to the procedure to be followed in respect of such appointments in the case of Km. Radha Raizada v. Committee of Management, Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter College. 12. It is to be noted that this Court had already declared the law in relation to the procedure to be followed in respect of such appointments in the case of Km. Radha Raizada v. Committee of Management, Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter College. (1994) 3 UPBEC 1551 1We are not repeating the contents of the said Full Bench judgment which has been extensively quoted by the learned Single Judge while culling out the legal principles in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the procedure if prescribed under the Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 has not been followed then any appointment would be per se illegal. 13. In the instant case, it is the admitted position that no advertisement was made and the notice was simply alleged to have been transcribed on the Notice Board of the institution. This clearly demonstrates that the provisions of sub-clause (2) of Clause 5 of 1981 Order were not followed. Apart from this, the management itself convened the Selection Committee on 19.12.1991 and passed a resolution to appoint the appellant and also proceeded to issue the letter of appointment. This was also in violation of the procedure prescribed under Clause 5 (3) of the 1981 Order. The District Inspector of Schools was, therefore, obliged to have considered these aspects before granting financial approval on 6.8.1999 which was admittedly not done. In this view of the matter, the judgment of the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted with inasmuch as there is no valid approval by the District Inspector of Schools. 14. Proceeding further, the District Inspector of Schools was directed under the judgment dated 22.12.2000 in a writ petition filed by the appellant himself to consider the inquiry report of the District Magistrate and pass a fresh speaking order after giving an opportunity to the• appellant. The District Inspector of Schools admittedly did not pass any order nor did he examine the claim of the appellant ensuring compliance of the judgment dated 22.12.2000. Thus, the judgment of this Court, having not been complied with, the State Government rightly passed the order on 19.2.2001 setting aside the order of the District Magistrate dated 15.2.2001. Learned Counsel contends that the order of the District Magistrate was simply a restoration of the earlier position and, therefore, it was absolutely unnecessary for the State Government to have passed the order on 19.2.2001. Learned Counsel contends that the order of the District Magistrate was simply a restoration of the earlier position and, therefore, it was absolutely unnecessary for the State Government to have passed the order on 19.2.2001. We are unable to agree for the simple reason that the District Magistrate had no authority to suggest that the restraint on the payment of salary of the appellant was unjustified. Secondly, the State Government was right in commenting that the District Magistrate has exceeded his jurisdiction and rightly set side the order dated 15.2.2001. 15. When the matter came to be assessed by the State Government• on 24.2.2003 on the report submitted, then too the individual case of the appellant was not considered in the light of what has been stated herein above. The State Government, nowhere indicates any consideration of the merits of the selection of the appellant and simply issues a direction that if the appointment has been made against a substantively vacant post, then payment of salary can be ensured. This, in our opinion, was again an exercise by the State Government without disclosing any reason for the acceptance of the claim of the appellant. The learned Single Judge has, therefore, rightly held that the said order was withdrawn in the year 2007 and to that extent the same was justified. 16. The issue of adjustment did arise in the case of Daroga Ansari and Veer Bahadur Singh which related to a different institution. No doubt the proceedings, that were undertaken by the learned Single Judge, was in relation to the said writ petition and other writ petitions but while proceeding to examine facts, the learned Single Judge rightly called upon the State Government to explain as to how such adjustments were being made. The State Government taking stock of the situation came to the conclusion that the previous exercise undertaken was being cancelled after consideration of the material on record. It is this order which is being assailed by the appellant on the ground that it was totally unrelated to the exercise that was undertaken in respect of the claim of the appellant. 17. It is true that the appellant's case did not fall within the scrutiny relating to the adjustment of post which was made the basis for inquiry in the writ petition filed by Veer Bahadur Singh. 17. It is true that the appellant's case did not fall within the scrutiny relating to the adjustment of post which was made the basis for inquiry in the writ petition filed by Veer Bahadur Singh. Nonetheless, the State Government was considering the order dated 24.2.2003 which was the basis of the adjustment order dated 17.2.2004. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the order dated 24.2.2003 was unnecessarily mentioned therein cannot be countenanced in view of the fact that this entire scam was being scrutinized by the State Government in relation to a total number of 99 posts including the 46 posts that were subject matter of the order dated 24.2.2003. In the course of such inquiry, the learned Single Judge, while dealing with the claim of the appellant, arrived at the conclusion that the appointment of the appellant was not in accordance with rules and was de hors the then existing provisions. 18. Learned Counsel for the appellant has been unable to break the ice insofar as the finding of the learned Single Judge against the appellant is concerned where it has been found that the appointment of the appellant was not in accordance with the procedure prescribed in law. The undisputed facts as indicated above are that the appellant failed to establish that his appointment was made in accordance with the procedure as discussed herein above. Accordingly, the appeal insofar as it relates to the appellant cannot succeed. The appeal is hereby dismissed. Appeal Dismissed.