JUDGMENT N.D. Ojha, J. - It is admitted to the parties that Majidia Islamia Intermediate College, Allahabad, is an institution established and administered by a minority referred to in clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution. One Syed Mohamad Ali was a permanent lecturer in English in the aforesaid College. He got his service transferred to Gorakhpur and a substantive vacancy occurred on 22nd August, 1974. The Committee of Management of the aforesaid College intended to fill in that vacancy by direct recruitment It appears that on that date writ petition No. 700 of 1974 filed by the petitioner, Shri Aley Ahmad Abdi, was pending in this Court and on an application being made by him an order was passed on 4th October, 1974, to the effect that direct recruitment should not be made pending the writ petition. That writ petition was ultimately dismissed on 11th August, 1975. An observation was, however, made by this Court that while making appointment in the aforesaid vacancy the case of the petitioner shall also be considered after giving him an opportunity. There after the Committee of Management proceeded to make a regular appointment a-'d interview letters were issued for 31st August, 1975 The petitioner instituted Writ Petition No. 9410 of 1975 and on an application made by him an order was made that the result shall not be declared. During the pendency of that writ petition the Governor of Uttar Pradesh promulgated U.P. Ordinance No. 18 of 1975 which came into force on 7th July, 1975. By this Ordinance drastic amendments were made in the U.P. Intermediate Education Act particularly in Sections 16-E and 16 F thereof. The U.P. Secondary Education Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 (U. P. Act No 26 of 1975). This Act received the assent of the Governor on 14th August, 1975, and was published in the U.P. Gazette Extraordinary dated 18th August, 1975. By Section 14 of the Ordinance as well as the Act, Sections 16-E and 16-F were substituted and indeed in this process a new section dealing with saving as to minority institutions were inserted being Section 16-FF. It reads : "16-FF. Savings as to minority instruction. By Section 14 of the Ordinance as well as the Act, Sections 16-E and 16-F were substituted and indeed in this process a new section dealing with saving as to minority institutions were inserted being Section 16-FF. It reads : "16-FF. Savings as to minority instruction. - (1) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (4) of Section 16-E and Section 16 F, the Selection Committee for the appointment of a Head of institution or a teacher of an institution established and administered by a minority referred to in clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution shall consist of five members (including its Chairman) nominated by the Committee of Management : Provided that one of the members of the Selection Committee shall - (a) in the case of appointment of the Head of an Institution, be an Expert selected by the Committee of Management from a panel of Experts prepared by the Director - (b) in the case of appointment of a teacher, be the Head of the Institution concerned. (2) The procedure to be followed by the Selection Committee referred to in sub-section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed. (3) No person selected under this section shall be appointed, unless - (a) in the case of the Head of an Institution the proposal of appointment has been approved by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, and (b) in the case of a teacher such proposal has been approved by the Inspector. (4) The Regional Deputy Director of Education or the Inspector, as the case may be, shall not withhold approval for the selection made under this section where the person selected possesses the minimum qualifications prescribed and is otherwise eligible. (5) Where the Regional Deputy Director of Education or the Inspector. as the case may be, does not approve of a candidate selected under this section, the Committee of Management may, within three weeks from t .e date of receipt of such disapproval, make a representation to the Director in the case if the Head of the Institution, and the Regional Deputy Director of Education in the case of a teacher. (6) Every order passed by the Director or the Regional Deputy Director of Education on a representation under sub section (5) shall be final." 2. (6) Every order passed by the Director or the Regional Deputy Director of Education on a representation under sub section (5) shall be final." 2. In Section 2 of the parent Act, clause (c) was inserted, namely, 'prescribed' means prescribed by regulations, and since prescribed, means prescribed by regulations and no regulations had been framed simultaneously with the commencement of the Act on 18th August, 1975, a difficulty was felt in making appointments in the minority institutions on substantive basis as contemplated by Section 16-FF. To remove this difficulty and other difficulties in giving effect to certain provisions of the Amending Act a notification was issued simultaneously on 18th August, 1975, containing the U.P. Secondary Education (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1975. Clause 2 of this order will be relevant for dealing with the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties and as such it is expedient to quote it here. It reads : "2. (a) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 14 of the aforesaid Act, any substantive or leave vacancy or any existing or occurring during the current academic session of the Head of Institution or, a teacher of an Institution may be filled in by the Committee of Management, on ad hoc basis in the manner provided hereunder till such period, not exceeding six months in any case, as a person duly selected in accordance with Section 14 aforesaid is appointed against such vacancy. (b) The vacancy of the Head of Institution shall be filled - (i) in the case of Intermediate College, by the seniormost teacher of the Institution in the lecturers grade - (ii) in the case of High School raised to the level of Intermediate College or a Junior High School raised to the level of High School, during the current academic session by the Headmaster of such High School or Junior High School, as the case may be : Provided the seniormost teacher or the Headmaster, as the case may be, possesses a good record of service and administrative ability. (c) the vacancy of, a teacher in the lecturers grade or L. T. grade or C. T. grade, shall be filled in by the seniormost teacher of the institution in the L. T. grade, C. T. grade and J. T. C./B. T. C, grade respectively. (c) the vacancy of, a teacher in the lecturers grade or L. T. grade or C. T. grade, shall be filled in by the seniormost teacher of the institution in the L. T. grade, C. T. grade and J. T. C./B. T. C, grade respectively. (d) where any vacancy cannot be filled in the manner laid down in the preceding clauses, the same may be filled .a on ad hoc basis for the same maximum period as laid down in clause (a), by appointment of outsiders after selection by a Selection Committee consisting of three members, which may be constituted for the purpose on an ad hoc, basis by the Committee of Management. (e) Any person to be eligible for being appointed under clauses (b), (c), (d) shall possess the minimum qualifications prescribed in appendix A referred to in regulation 1 of Chapter II of the Calendar of the Board of High School and intermediate Education. (f) where on account of difference or dispute or for any other reason there is no Committee of Management in effective control of the affairs of an Institution or has not been recognised as such by the Inspector and no Authorised Controller has been appointed by the State Government in respect of such Institution, the powers of the Committee of Management in the foregoing clauses shall in the case of appointment of the Head of Institution be exercised by the Inspector and in the case of appointment of a teacher be exercised by the Head of the Institution concerned. (g) All appointments made under the foregoing clauses shall as soon as may be reported to the Inspector giving particulars of qualifications and experience in respect of each person and the Inspector shall have the power to disapprove any appointment made in contravention of the foregoing provisions upon which the appointment in question shall cease. The decision of the Inspector in this regard shall be final." 3. It is not disputed that the period of six months specified in clause (21 of this order was extended from time to time until new Regulations were framed dealing with the procedure for appointments under Section 16-FF of the Act which came into force on 7th July, 1976. Writ Petition No. 9410 of 1975 was ultimately dismissed on 12th September, 1977. Against that judgment, the petitioner filed Special Leave petition in the Supreme Court. Writ Petition No. 9410 of 1975 was ultimately dismissed on 12th September, 1977. Against that judgment, the petitioner filed Special Leave petition in the Supreme Court. This petition was decided on 17th March, 1978 by the following order "permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition and to challenge to order of 19th September, 1977, and raised all the contentions which have now been raised before us." 4. It appears that after the dismissal of writ petition no. 9410 of 1975 on 12th September, 1977, the Committee of Management in pursuance of the selection held on 31st August, 1975, appointed Sri. M. Y Khan, respondent No. 3, as a lecturer in English on 19th September, 1977. The present writ petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the aforesaid order and consequent upon the order of the Supreme Court dated 17th March, 1978, referred to above, an application for amendment of the writ petition was made. This application was allowed and the pleas which will be dealt with by us later in this judgment were introduced. It has not been disputed before us that the pleas which will now be dealt with by us and which were permitted by this Court to be raised by allowing the amendment application were the pleas which were raised before the Supreme Court in the Special Leave petition which was finally decided on 17th March, 1978. 5. Before dealing with the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner, we consider it expedient to dispose of a preliminary objection raised by the counsel for respondent no. 2. namely, the Committee of Management of the College. It was urged that the order dated 12th September, 1977, passed by this court dismissing writ petition No. 9410 of 1975 operated as res judicata and it was not open to the petitioner to challenge the appointment of respondent no. 3 dated 19th September, 1977, in the present writ petition. We find it difficult to accept this submission in view of the order passed by the Supreme Court in the Special Leave petition which had been filed against this very judgment dated 12th September, 1977. By that order the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the Special Leave petition with liberty to file fresh petition and to challenge the order dated 19th September, 1977, and all the Contentions which were sought to be raised before the Supreme Court. By that order the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the Special Leave petition with liberty to file fresh petition and to challenge the order dated 19th September, 1977, and all the Contentions which were sought to be raised before the Supreme Court. Since the contentions which have been raised by the counsel for the petitioner in support of the present writ petition are contentions which had been raised before the Supreme Court and where specifically permitted to be raised in a fresh petition as aforesaid it cannot be said that the petitioner is not entitled to raise these contentions in the present writ petition and even if there may be any finding contrary to the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner it cannot for this reason operate as res judicata. 6. New we revert to the submission made by counsel for the petitioner. It was urged that the Selection which was made on 31th August, 1975 by the Committee of Management as also the appointment of respondent no. 3 made on 19th September, 1977, were not in accordance with the previsions of the Act and the Removal of Difficulties Order, 1975, referred to above and consequently the same deserved to be quashed. Having heard counsel for the parties we are of opinion that there is substance in this contention. In the U.P. Intermediate Education Act as it stood prior to its amendment there was no provisions specifically dealing with a minority institutions such as the one contained in Section 16-FF. This section was introduced for the first time by the Ordinance and the Act referred to above. The said section lays down the procedure for appointment of Head of an institution oi a teacher of an institution established and administered by a minority retired to in clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution. A Selection Committee has to be appointed under Sub-section (1) thereof and in view of Sub-section (2) the procedure to be followed by the Selection Committee is to be such as may be prescribed by Regulations. It is true that there were Regulations framed under the parent Act, but it goes without "saying that since there was no provision such as the one contained in Section 16-FF in the parent Act, no Regulations dealing specifically with the appointment of a Head of an institution or a teacher of a minority institution were framed. It is true that there were Regulations framed under the parent Act, but it goes without "saying that since there was no provision such as the one contained in Section 16-FF in the parent Act, no Regulations dealing specifically with the appointment of a Head of an institution or a teacher of a minority institution were framed. None has at least been brought to our notice. Apparently, therefore, no appointment as contemplated by Section 16 FF could be made unless Regulations were framed and it was in order to meet such a situation that a notification containing the Removal of Difficulties Order, referred to above, had to be issued, in view of clause 2 of the Removal of Difficulties Order, appointment to a vacancy existing or occurring during the current academic Session of the Head of the institution or a teacher of an institution had to be made by the Committee of Management on ad hoc basis in the manner provided therein, in view of Sub clause (c) of clause 2 of the said order the vacancy of a teacher in the lecturer's grade or L. T. grade or C. T. grade was to be filled in by the seniormost teacher of the institution in the L. T. grade, C.T. grade and J T.C./B T.C. grade respectively. The case of the petitioner has been that he was the seniormost teacher in the L. T. grade and consequently In view of Sub-clause (c) it was he who deserved to be appointed on ad hoc basis as contemplated by clause 2 of the Removal of Difficulties Order, 1975. It vas urged by the counsel for the respondent no. 3 that there was some resolution of the Committee of Management to the effect that the petitioner was not fit to be appointed as a Lecturer in English. There is, however, nothing on the record to substantiate this submission. It vas urged by the counsel for the respondent no. 3 that there was some resolution of the Committee of Management to the effect that the petitioner was not fit to be appointed as a Lecturer in English. There is, however, nothing on the record to substantiate this submission. Further even if it be accepted for the sake of argument that there was any such resolution, appointment made was still not in accordance with the aforesaid Removal of Difficulties Order Sub clause (d) of clause 2 of the order contemplates that where any vacancy cannot be filled in the manner laid down in Sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c), the same may be filled in on ad hoc basis for the same maximum period as laid down in clause (a), by appointment of outsiders after selection by a Selection Committee consisting of three members which may be constituted for the purpose on an ad hoc basis by the Committee of Management. It has not been disputed by either counsel for respondent no. 2 or respondent no. 3 that the Committee of Management had not constituted any Selection Committee consisting of three members to make Selection of a teacher on ad hoc basis as contemplated by clause (d). Obviously, therefore, the appointment of respondent no. 3 on 19th September, 1977 cannot be treated to be on ad hoc basis within the meaning of clause 2 of the Removal of Difficulties Order, 1975. It is in this back ground that the respective submissions of the counsel for the parties with regard to the applicability of Section 16 GG have to be considered. 7. Section 16-GG, inter alia, provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 16-E, 16-F and 16-FF every teacher of an institution appointed between August 18, 1975 and September 30, 1976 (both dates inclusive) on ad hoc basis against a clear vacancy and possessing prescribed qualifications or having been exempted from such qualifications in accordance with the provisions of this Act, shall, with effect from the date of commencement of this section, be deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity, provided such teacher has been continuously serving the institution from the date of his appointment up to the commencement of this section This section came into force on 21st April, 1977. It was urged by the counsel for respondents nos. It was urged by the counsel for respondents nos. 2 and 3 that in view of Section 16 GG, respondent no. 3 shall be deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity. According to counsel since declaration of result of the inter views held on 31st August, 1975, was stayed by an interim order passed in Writ Petition No. 9410 of 1975 and since that writ petition was ultimately dismissed, the appointment of respondent no. 3 will be deemed to have been made on 31st August, 1975, which falls within the two dates mentioned in Section 16-GG. We find it difficult to agree with this submission. When Section 16-GG talks of an appointment made on ad hoc basis between 18th August, 1975 and 3th September 1976, only that appointment in the context pointed out above, can be treated to fall within its ambit which has been made in the manner prescribed by clause 2 of the Removal of Difficulties Order, 1975. An appointment made otherwise than in accordance with or in contravention of the provisions contained in the aforesaid order will not fall within the ambit of Section 16-GG. Further, when respondent no. 3 was actually appointed on 19th September, 1977, how can it be said that be had been continuously serving the institution from the date of his appointment up to the commencement of Section 15-GG namely, 21st April, 1977, as contemplated by the said section. 8. It is true that when the appointment of respondent no. 3 was made on 19th September, 1977, the new regulations had came into force on 7th July, 1976, but for that reason alone the same cannot be treated to be a valid substantive appointment inasmuch as it was not made in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 16-FF and the new regulations. Even according to respondent no. 3 his appointment was made in accordance with the old regulations. For the reasons stated above the appointment of respondent no. 3 made on 19th September, 1977, cannot be treated to be a valid appointment. 9. Another submission made by the counsel for the petitioner was that the petitioner was entitled to be promoted to the post of Lecturer in English in view of Regulation 5. Since the appointment of respondent no. 3 made on 19th September, 1977, cannot be treated to be a valid appointment. 9. Another submission made by the counsel for the petitioner was that the petitioner was entitled to be promoted to the post of Lecturer in English in view of Regulation 5. Since the appointment of respondent no. 3 is being quashed and the Committee of Management wilt have to make a fresh appointment in accordance with law, it would be open to the petitioner to press this claim before the Committee of Management and for this reason we find it unnecessary to make any comment in regard to the merit of this submission. 10. In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed and the impugned order of appointment of respondent no. 3 dated 19th September, 1977 is quashed. Respondent no. 2 would now take steps in accordance with law to make a fresh appointment on the post of Lecturer in English in the aforesaid College. It would be open to respondent no. 2 to make such interim arrangement for the period till a regular appointment is made as may be open to it in law so that the students of the College may not suffer. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.