Hon’ble Arun Tandon,J.—This writ petition has been filed for following reliefs:“(a) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 to treat the petitioner as a validly appointed teacher in the college.(b) To issue an appropriate, writ order or direction commanding the respondent nos. 1 and 2 not to interfere in the rights of the petitioner to continue to be a teacher in pursuance of her appointment.(c) To issue an appropriate writ order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.(d) To award the costs of this writ petition in favour of the petitioner.”2. In paragraph-2 of the present writ petition it has been stated that a vacancy qua the post of Drawing and painting was caused in the college, namely, Arya Kanya Pathshala Inter College, Muzaffarnagar. The same was advertised in news papers enclosed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It is against this vacancy that the petitioner applied and had been selected. He was issued appointment letter dated 29th January, 1981. Petitioner joined in pursuance thereof on 2nd February, 1981. However, the District Inspector of Schools, Muzaffar Nagar vide letter dated 4th February, 1981 vide letter dated 12th February, 1981, however, no further action was taken. Therefore, present writ petition has been filed. February, 1981 refused to accord approval to the appointment of the petitioner as the vacancy was within the reserved category for Backward Class Category candidate. A copy of the order of the District Inspector of Schools has been enclosed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The Manager of the institution is stated to have replied to the letter of the District Inspector of Schools dated 43. I have heard Sri D.K.Deewan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.4. The facts disclosed in paragraph-2 of the present writ petition do not indicate as to in which grade the post fell vacant in the subject of Drawing and Painting in the institution. However, from the advertisement enclosed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, it appears that a post of Lecturer in the subject of Drawing and Painting was advertised along with another vacancy for teaching junior high school classes.5. The advertisement further records as follows:“Dono sthan anusuchit jati, anusuchit janjati tatha pichhadi jati ke ummidwaron ke liye surakshit hai. However, from the advertisement enclosed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, it appears that a post of Lecturer in the subject of Drawing and Painting was advertised along with another vacancy for teaching junior high school classes.5. The advertisement further records as follows:“Dono sthan anusuchit jati, anusuchit janjati tatha pichhadi jati ke ummidwaron ke liye surakshit hai. In jatiyon meyn se yogya abhayarthi na milney par riktiyan samanya abhyarthino se bhari jayegi.”6. The details of news paper whereby the said vacancy was published is not disclosed. The advertisement, even otherwise, makes no sense, inasmuch as two vacancies cannot be reserved for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Backward Class Category at the same time. The advertisement should specifically disclose as to which vacancy is for which reserved category. The Selection Committee proceedings disclose a merit list, which has been prepared containing the name of three persons, wherein the name of the petitioner is at serial No.1 for the post of Lecturer, although he is a member of General Category. Under which provision of law, such selection has been made on the basis of interview marks only has not been disclosed in the present writ petition. The order of the District Inspector of Schools refusing to accord approval to such appointment offered to the petitioner records that the vacancy was for reserved category for Back Ward Class Category and despite there being a Backward Class Category candidate available duly qualified, petitioner has been selected. The order of District Inspector of Schools has not been challenged on merits or even otherwise, before this Court.7. This Court may record that U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Ordinance, 1981 (Ordinance No. 8 of 1981) was enforced on 10th July, 1981. Under the ordinances, the power to make substantive appointment was withdrawn from the Committee of Management.8. If the case of the petitioner is that she had been appointed in accordance with the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and then this Court may only record that the procedure prescribed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act has not been followed in the matter of appointment. Neither any selection committee under Section 16-F was constituted nor selection has been held in accordance with the procedure prescribed thereunder.9. This Court has no hesitation to record that the entire claim set up by the petitioner is farce. Neither any selection committee under Section 16-F was constituted nor selection has been held in accordance with the procedure prescribed thereunder.9. This Court has no hesitation to record that the entire claim set up by the petitioner is farce. Because of such illegal appointment claimed by the petitioner based on half facts without disclosing any statutory rules, wherein such appointment could be justified at the hands of the Committee of Management, petitioner obtained an interim order from this Court staying the operation of the order of Regional Inspectress of Girls School dated 4th February, 1981, which order was not even challenged in the present writ petition. The result of the interim stay order has been that the petitioner has drawn salary from the State exchequer since 1981.10. The petitioner is completely ineligible to draw the salary from the State exchequer. On a pointed query made by this Court to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he stated that the appointment has been made under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act. However, he could not substantiate the contention so raised by referring to any averment in the writ petition, wherein the requirement of the constitution of the selection committee under Section 16E read with Section 16F and the procedure prescribed for selection could be said to have been followed.11. In view of the aforesaid, this Court feels that the persons like the petitioner, who with the help of the Management succeed, is drawing the salary from the State exchequer without being appointed after following the statutory procedure prescribed must be put to terms. Therefore, not only the entire salary which the petitioner has drawn is to be recovered, exceptional cost is also to be imposed.12. So far as the petitioner is concerned, the present writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.50,000/-. The same shall be deposited by the petitioner by way of bank draft drawn upon a nationalised bank before the Registrar General of this Court within three months from today, who shall transmit the same in the account of High Court Legal Services Committee, Allahabad. In case of default, the same shall be recovered by the District Magistrate from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue.13. This Court will not become a party to such fraudulent appointment and withdrawal of money in the name of salary by such a petitioner. In case of default, the same shall be recovered by the District Magistrate from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue.13. This Court will not become a party to such fraudulent appointment and withdrawal of money in the name of salary by such a petitioner. The Manager of the institution is equally responsible for the situation created.14. This Court, however, finds that there is nothing on record to establish that steps were taken to serve respondent No.2 in terms of the order of this Court dated 30th April, 1981. Since the order to be passed by this Court may adversely reflect upon the Management of the institution, it is appropriate that the Manager may be issued notice to show cause as to why entire salary paid to the petitioner on the basis of fraudulent appointment made in the institution contrary to the statutory rules applicable, may not be directed to be recovered from the assets of the Management.15. It is only for this purpose that the matter shall be listed before this Court again on 22nd December,2010.16. Learned Standing Counsel may forward a copy of a certified copy of this order to the District Inspector of Schools, Muzaffar Nagar who shall communicate the same to the Manager of the institution, so that he may submit the explanation qua the facts noticed above.17. Put up this petition on 22nd December, 2010 for further orders._____________