Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Rajendra Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

2. This writ petition was heard on 4.12.2009 and the judgment itself was dictated in open Court dismissing the writ petition. The judgment writer, however, could not take the dictation completely and after a long time submitted a transcription full of several gaps and extraordinary mistakes making virtually impossible to understand as to what has been said there. His explanation was called by my order dated 13.4.2010 on administrative side, besides seeking explanation from Head Private Secretary. Everybody tried to shift burden on others. Since the matter came before me after more than six months and it needed redictation of judgment, in the fitness of things I find it expedient that the writ petition should be listed in the Court again so that counsels may also appear and in their presence it should be dictated again after giving them opportunity to address, if the Court finds such occasion. I, therefore, passed order on 13.4.2010, relevant extract whereof is as under:

“Since the judgment was dictated in the open Court and it requires to be dictated again, list this matter in the Court when I am sitting singly for dictation of the judgment in the Court again in the presence of learned counsel for the parties as it is not appropriate to dictate the judgment again and that too after such a long time particularly when from the judgment it is difficult to discern as to what was considered and what was decided therein.”

3. Sri Rajendra Rai, learned counsel appearing for petitioner taking advantage that the case has been listed again, sought to file a supplementary affidavit taking a stand that some documents earlier could not be placed before this Court and to do justice the said documents may also be looked into. Though it was wholly improper on his part to submit any fresh pleadings and documents at this stage, but the learned Standing Counsel stated that he does not propose to file any further reply since everything is already contained in his earlier counter-affidavit, in the interest of justice, so that for mere technicalities, parties to the litigation, may not suffer, I permitted him to place the said documents.

4. After hearing the parties the judgment is dictated in open Court today itself.

5. The petitioner, claiming to be working as Ad hoc Lecturer (Civics) in Vedic Inter College Somai, Jalaun at Orai (hereinafter referred to as the “College”), has come to this Court by means of present writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents to make payment of salary month to month, with arrears, and, also to direct, the District Inspector of Schools, Jalaun at Orai (hereinafter referred to as the “DIOS”) to grant approval to petitioner’s ad hoc appointment as Lecturer (Civics) and/or this Court may treat ad hoc appointment of petitioner as deemed approved, by operation of law.

6. It is not disputed that College is recognised to impart education up to intermediate under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1921”). For the purpose of recruitment of teaching staff, it is governed by U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1982”) and for the purpose of payment of salary to the staff, (teaching and non-teaching), it is governed by provisions of U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1971”).

7. The facts as borne out and alleged in the writ petition are, that the erstwhile Principal of College attained age of superannuation and retired on completion of Session on 30.6.1990. It is said that on 1.7.1990 the senior most teacher of College was promoted as ad hoc Principal causing a short term vacancy on the post of Lecturer (Civics). The management appointed petitioner in accordance with