Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
(2.) Admittedly, petitioner was initially engaged as part-time Teacher on 10.07.1989. It is said that a substantive vacancy occurred in 1997 in Sri Chandra Gupta Maurya Intermediate College, Madhoopur, District Mirzapur wherein petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc basis as Assistant Teacher but his salary has not been paid.
(3.) The facts, as stated in writ petition, clearly show that while making ad-hoc appointment of petitioner, neither procedure prescribed in Section 18 of U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "1982 Act") read with First Removal of Difficulties Order (Clause-5) was followed nor the vacancy was requisitioned to Commissioner. Therefore valid appointment was not made. Hence, appointment of petitioner being in violation of procedure prescribed, is void ab-initio and would not confer any right upon petitioner in view of law laid down in Prabhat Kumar Sharma and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 1996 10 SCC 62 wherein it was held that procedure laid down in Removal of Difficulties Order is mandatory and has to be observed in words and spirit. An appointment made inconsistent with the said procedure is void ab-initio and will not confer either any right upon the incumbent to hold the post or to continue in service or to claim salary from State exchequer. The relevant observations made by Apex Court in Prabhat Kumar Sharma is as under: "Any appointment made in transgression thereof is illegal appointment and is void and confers no right on the appointees.";