JUDGMENT B. Amit Sthalekar, J. The petitioner in this writ petition is aggrieved by the order dated 13.11.2001 whereby the District Inspector of Schools, Mau (DIOS) has declined grant of approval to the Adhoc appointment of the petitioner. 2. Briefly stated the case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a L.T. Grade Teacher on Adhoc basis through letter dated 8.7.1995 in pursuance of an advertisement for the said post in the Janta Inter College, Ranipur District Mau. It is also stated that the appointment was approved by the DIOS by order dated 31.3.1997, copy of which is stated to have been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. However, with effect from 16.8.1997 the salary which was being paid to the petitioner has been stopped. The petitioner filed writ petition no. 17456 of 2000 which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 13.2.2001 with a direction to the DIOS to decide the petitioner's pending representation. It is in pursuance thereof that the impugned order dated 13.11.2001 has been passed. 3. I have heard Shri Siddhartha Varma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Mata Prasad, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents. 4. In the writ petition it has been stated that one Satya Ram Singh, a permanent L.T. Grade Teacher was promoted to the post of Hindi Lecturer in the Lecturer Grade on Adhoc basis. In paragraph 8 of the writ petition it is stated that the vacancy was advertised and out of several candidates, the petitioner was selected as a L.T. Grade Teacher on Adhoc basis. Copy of the advertisement has not been filed by the petitioner. A perusal of the letter of appointment of the petitioner (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) mentions that the petitioner has been appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in the Grade of 1400 - 2300 for a period of one year on probation. This letter does not refer to any advertisement in which the petitioner may have been selected and it also does not indicate as to how the vacancy arose and against which vacant post of Assistant Teacher, the petitioner was appointed. The appointment letter has been issued by the Manager of the Janta Inter College, Ranipur Mau and it also does not indicate as to whether prior to appointment the sanction of the DIOS was taken. The appointment letter has been issued by the Manager of the Janta Inter College, Ranipur Mau and it also does not indicate as to whether prior to appointment the sanction of the DIOS was taken. Annexure-2 to the writ petition is stated to be the letter of approval. This is dated 31.3.1997 and in the subject matter it is mentioned as Adhoc appointment. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents so far as the averments with regard to the post being advertised or not it has been stated that the advertisement in the year in question may have been issued but from enquiries made from the management of the Institution it has been found that no person by the name of Satendra Kumar Singh i.e. the petitioner was ever working in the Institution. In paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit it has categorically been stated that in the Institution there were 22 sanctioned posts of Teachers and 22 persons are already teaching and at the relevant point of time, when the Adhoc appointment of the petitioner is alleged to have been made in July, 1996 the status of the vacancy position has not been clarified by the Manager of the Institution. However, it has been stated that unless there is an existing post and unless the procedure prescribed for filling up such vacancy is complied with no right would vest in the petitioner to claim a valid appointment. In paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit it is categorically stated that no such appointment letter is available in the office of the concerned DIOS. In paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit the respondents have refrained from saying that the appointment letter is a forged document and instead it has been stated that the letter of appointment cannot be said to be a forged one because the copy of the said letter is not available in the original records of the concerned DIOS. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submitted that since the respondents are not in a position to state that the letter of appointment is a forged document, therefore, it must be presumed that the same is genuine. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submitted that since the respondents are not in a position to state that the letter of appointment is a forged document, therefore, it must be presumed that the same is genuine. No such reasoning can be culled out from the pleadings of the parties inasmuch as in the counter affidavit all that has been stated by the respondents is that they are not in a position to state whether the letter is forged or not simply because the said letter does not exist in the official records of the concerned DIOS. The stand of the respondents throughout is that the Manager of the Institution has himself stated that no such person by the name of Satendra Kumar Singh is or was teaching in the Institution in question. Alongwith the writ petition the peitioner has filed his salary bills but that in itself does not lead to the presumption that his appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher was valid and approved by the DIOS. As already noted above no copy of the advertisement has been brought on record for holding selection against the post of L.T. Grade vacated by Shri Satya Ram Singh on his promotion in the lecturer's Grade. Even if it is assumed that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher by the order dated 8.7.1995, the fact that his appointment has been approved by the concerned DIOS cannot be presumed in the face of the categorical denial of the respondents in their counter affidavit as already noted above and the stand of the management before the DIOS that no person by the name of Satendra Kumar Singh i.e. the petitioner, was ever working in the Institution. 7. Reference may be made to the provisions of Section 10 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982. Section 10 of the Act, 1982 lays down the procedure of selection by direct recruitment and provides that in the matter of making appointment of a teacher by direct recruitment the management shall determine the number of vacancies existing or likely to fall vacant during the year of recruitment as also the number of vacancies to be reserved for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes and shall notify the vacancy to the Board. Thus, it is clear that the appointments of Teacher after coming into force of the Act, 1982 by way of direct recruitment shall only be made through the Commission according to the procedure prescribed. 8. Section 11 of the Act, 1982 provides for preparing of a panel of persons found most suitable for appointment. The panel shall be forwarded by the Board to the Authority referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 10. After the receipt of the panel the said authority shall intimate the Manager of the Institution the names of the selected candidates in respect of the vacancies notified under sub-section (1) of Section 10 and thereafter the management shall issue appointment letter to the selected candidates. The amended provisions of Section 10 and Section 11 to the Act, 1982 have been inserted in the Act by substitution by the U.P. Act 25 of 1998 w.e.f. 20.04.1998. Even assuming that the petitioner was appointed on 8.7.1995 when the procedure laid down in Section 10 and Section 11 did not exist nevertheless the procedure for appointment of Teachers was prescribed in Section 16-E of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 which required that the Head of Institution and teachers of an Institution shall be appointed by the Committee of Management in the manner prescribed. Sub-section 2 of Section 16-E requires that every post of Head of Institution or teacher of an Institution shall except to the extent prescribed for being filled by promotion, be filled by direct recruitment after intimation of the vacancy to the Inspector and advertisement of the vacancy containing such particulars as may be prescribed, in at least two newspapers having adequate circulation in the State. 9. In the present case admittedly the appointment of the petitioner through letter dated 8.7.1995 has not been made by adopting the procedure prescribed under section 16 E (2) of the U.P Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or under Section 10 of the Act, 1982 through the Commission and therefore such an appointment on the face of it is an illegal appointment and will not confer any right upon the petitioner to claim a valid appointment or for payment of salary. 10. In this view of the matter and on the facts as emerging from the records, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 13.11.2001. 11. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.