JUDGMENT H.N. Seth, J. - As the transactions giving rise to these two petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution are closely connected with each other, it will be convenient to deal with them together. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the two petitions are as follows : Authorised Controller of S.A.V. Inter College Bharthana (Etawah), vide his letter dated 21st Oct , 1975, appointed the petitioner Har Swarup Misra on the post of Assistant Mathematics Teacher (Trained Graduate) in temporary capacity. The petitioner joined his duties on 22nd Oct., 1975. While the petitioner was still serving as a teacher, he was, on 17th May 1976, informed by the Principal of the College that vide Government Order dated 17th Feb., 1976 his temporary appointment would stand terminated with effect from 30th June 1916. In the meantime the State Government on 28th June 1976, issued another order on the subject and the petitioner was informed that his services stood extended upto 30th Sept , 1976. Thereafter, Principal of the Institution, vide his communication dated 31st Aug., 1976, relieved the petitioner from his duties. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Principal relieving him from his duties, the petitioner filed writ petition No. 1584 of 1976 before this Court, on 7th Oct., 1976. He claimed that before the period of his temporary appointment came to an end on 30th Sept , 1976 the State Government had vide its order dated 24th Sept., 1976. extended the same upto 15th Nov., 1976 He, therefore, prayed for a writ to quash the order of the Principal dated 30th Sept.,1976 and for other ancillary reliefs. 4. The petitioner also obtained an ex parte interim order from this Court on 17th Oct., 1976, whereunder operation of the impugned order was to remain stayed till 15th Nov., 1976. extended the same upto 15th Nov., 1976 He, therefore, prayed for a writ to quash the order of the Principal dated 30th Sept.,1976 and for other ancillary reliefs. 4. The petitioner also obtained an ex parte interim order from this Court on 17th Oct., 1976, whereunder operation of the impugned order was to remain stayed till 15th Nov., 1976. Subsequently, in view of some other orders passed by the State Government, this Court permitted the stay order dated 7th Oct., 1976 to continue to be operative till 31st Dec., 1976 On 11th Jan., 1977, the respondents filed a counter affidavit stating that after the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner had come to an end on 30th Sept., 1976, the post held by him was filled up by transferring one Sri Om Prakash Gupta, who was a teacher working in another College and there was thus no question of the petitioner continuing to be in the service of the Institution thereafter. In the meantime the State Government had on 21st Jan., 1977 passed another order on the subject. The petitioner filed a rejoinder affidavit refuting the stand taken by the respondent and contended that by virtue of State Government order dated 21st Jan., 1977, his services stood extended upto 20th May, 1977. According to him, the Management was wrongly preventing him from functioning as a teacher and was illegally withholding the salary which fell due to him after 31st Dec., 1976. He accordingly, made an application praying that operation of the interim order dated 7th Oct., 1976 which had continued to be operative till 31st Dec., 1976 be further extended upto 20th May, 1977. However, this time, petitioner's application for further continuance of the interim order was rejected by the Court on 8th Feb., 1977 with an observation that the petitioner could, if so advised, file a Iresh petition for challenging the order transferring Sri Om Prakash Gupta to fill up the post held by the petitioner. However, this time, petitioner's application for further continuance of the interim order was rejected by the Court on 8th Feb., 1977 with an observation that the petitioner could, if so advised, file a Iresh petition for challenging the order transferring Sri Om Prakash Gupta to fill up the post held by the petitioner. The petitioner then filed the connected petition No. 328 of 1977 before this Court on 14th March, 1977 and claimed that the order transferring Sri Om Prakash Gupta to fill up the post occupied by him was vitiated as the same had been passed in contravention of various statutory provisions and prayed that it may be quashed and the respondents be directed to permit him to work as a teacher and to pay him his salary. 5. Before the two petitions could come up for hearing. Governor of the State issued Ordinance No. V of 1977. The petitioner now claims that in view of the provisions contained in the ordinance, he has acquired the status of a permanent teacher of the Institution, in a substantive capacity, with effect from 21st April, 1977. 6. Both the petitions have been contested by the respondents who claim that the order transferring Sri Om Prakash Gupta to fill up the post which was temporarily held by the petitioner, was quite legal and valid. According to them petitioner's temporary appointment had come to an end on 30th Sept., 1976. Accordingly he has no locus standi to question the validity of the order transferring Sri Ora Prakash Gupta as a teacher in the S.A.V. Inter College Bharthana. 7. In order to resolve the controversy between the parties it will be pertinent to examine the facts of the case in the light of relevant statutory provisions. 8. Sections 16-E and 16-F of the Intermediate Education Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) dealt with the subject-matter of selection and appointment of teachers and heads of recognised institutions. The State Legislature passed the U. P. Secondary Education Laws (Amendment) Act 1975. U. P. Act 26 of 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act). Section 14 of the Amendment Act substituted new Ss. 16-E and 16-F in place of the existing Ss. 16-E and 16-F in the Act. The State Legislature passed the U. P. Secondary Education Laws (Amendment) Act 1975. U. P. Act 26 of 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act). Section 14 of the Amendment Act substituted new Ss. 16-E and 16-F in place of the existing Ss. 16-E and 16-F in the Act. Section 22 of the Amendment Act enabled the State Government to pass orders, not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act with a view to remove the difficulties in its working. For some reason the State Government could not immediately on the coming into force of the amendment Act make provision for the constitution of the selection committee in accordance with S. 14 thereof. In absence of such a provision a large number of educational institutions were not in a position to recruit necessary teaching staff and their functioning was adversely effected. As a difficulty in the working of the (institutions?) had arisen and as the State Government expected that the same may be removed shortly, it in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 22 of the Amendment Act, passed a Removal of Difficulties Order on 18th August, 1 975 (hereinafter referred to as the first Removal of Difficulties Order). Cl. 2 (a) of the Order ran thus :- "Notwithstanding anything contained in S. 14 of the aforesaid Act any, substantive or leave vacancy or any vacancy existing or occurring during the current academic session of the bead of the institution or a teacher of the 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 S. 14 aforesaid is appointed against such vacancy." 9. This clause enabled the Managing Committee to fill in substantive or leave vacancy or any vacancy of a teacher existing or occurring during the current academic session on ad hoc basis till such time as the person duly selected in accordance with S. 14 of the Amendment Act was appointed to fill in that post subject, however to the condition that in no case the appointment was to last for more than six months. Sub-clauses (b) and (c) thereof provided for the procedure for making ad hoc appointments in the vacancy of heads of Institution and teachers by promotion from amongst the members of the staff of the same institution. Sub-cl. (d) then laid down that where a vacancy could not be filled in the manner laid down in Cls. (b) and (c), the same could be filled in by the Managing Committee on an ad hoc basis for the same maximum period as laid down in sub-cl. (2) by appointment of outsiders after selection by a committee consisting of three members constituted for the purpose. Since under Cl. (a), ad hoc appointment made under the Removal of Difficulties Order was intended to last only till such time as a person duly selected in accordance with S. 14 of the Amendment Act was appointed against the concerned vacancy, subject, however, to the condition that the appointment is no case was to exceed six months, appointment made under Cl. 2 (d) of the order also was intended to last only till an appointment to fill the vacancy was made in accordance with the procedure laid down in S. 14 of the Amendment Act, subject, however, to the condition that in no case it was to last for more than six months. It appears that aforesaid provision for making ad hoc appointments had been made as it was expected that in the meantime it would be possible to take appropriate action to enable regular appointments being made in accordance with the procedure laid down in S. 14 of the Amendment Act. 10. The Committee of Management of S.A.V. Inter College in exercise of the powers given to it under Cl. 2 (d) of the aforesaid Removal of Difficulties Order, appointed the petitioner as a teacher in trained graduate's grade in temporary capacity vide appointment letter dated 20th Oct., 1975. The appointment letter translated into English reads thus : "In connection with your application you are informed with pleasure that you have been appointed on the trained graduates post in the scale of Rs. 300 - 10 - 350 - EB - 12 - 470 - EB - 16 - 550, in temporary capacity. The appointment letter translated into English reads thus : "In connection with your application you are informed with pleasure that you have been appointed on the trained graduates post in the scale of Rs. 300 - 10 - 350 - EB - 12 - 470 - EB - 16 - 550, in temporary capacity. You should immediately come to the College and submit your report of assuming charge to the Principal." Temporary appointment of the petitioner, in the context, was to last till a regular appointment in accordance with the procedure laid down in S. 14 of the Amendment Act was made to fill in the concerned vacancy and as provided in the Removal of Difficulties .Order this appointment was not to last beyond six months. 11. However, because of certain reasons, appropriate action to enable the Management Committee to make appointments in accordance with S. 14 of the Amendment Act could not be taken for quite some time and the State Government had to exercise its power under S. 22 of the Amendment Act a number of times. On 17-2-1976 the State Government passed another order entitled U. P. Secondary Education (Removal of Difficulties) II Order 1976, preamble of which ran thus :- "And whereas difficulty in giving effect to certain provisions of S. 14 of the aforesaid Act still continues and it is necessary to extend the period of ad hoc appointments made under U. p. Secondary Education (Removal of Difficulties) Order 1975." (emphasis supplied) Clause (4) of the Order provided that under sub-Cl. (a) of Cl. (2) of the First Removal of Difficulties Order 1975, for the words, "not exceeding six months," the words, "not extending beyond June 30, 1976" were to be substituted. Consequently the appointments made under the 1975 Removal of Difficulties Order, for the period till regular appointment in accordance with S. 14 of the Amendment Act was made and duration of which was not to exceed six months, could now, subject to the same condition, last upto 30th June, 1976. Accordingly, the petitioner in this case was rightly informed by the Principal vide letter dated 17th May, 1976 that in view of the Government Order, his appointment was to continue upto 30th June 1976. 12. Accordingly, the petitioner in this case was rightly informed by the Principal vide letter dated 17th May, 1976 that in view of the Government Order, his appointment was to continue upto 30th June 1976. 12. Before, however, the appointment of the petitioner came to an end on 30th June, 1976, the State Government issued a third Removal of Difficulties Order on 28th June, 1976 whereunder for the words "not extending beyond 30th June, 1976," in Cl. 2 (a) of the First Removal of Difficulties Order (substituted by second Remove) of Difficulties Order) were substituted by the words, "not extending beyond 30th Sept., 1976." Consequently the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner was now to last upto 30th September, 1976 unless in the meantime a regular appointment to fill in the vacancy had been made after following the procedure laid down in S. 14 of the Amendment Act. As no regular appointment to fill up the post had been made Principal of the Institution again vide his letter dated 31st Aug., 1976 rightly informed the petitioner, that his ad hoc appointment was to come to an end on 30th Sept., 1976. 13. According to the respondent. Cl. 2 (a) of the First Removal of Difficulties Order (as amended by second and third Removal of Difficulties Order) provided that, the ad hoc appointment made thereunder was to end on the expiry of the period for which it had been made. In the instant case the Principal had, vide his letter dated 31-8-1976, clearly informed the petitioner that his services were to come to an end on 30th Sept., 1976. The management also did not take any step to extend petitioner's service beyond that date. Petitioner's appointment letter, properly construed and interpreted in the light of surrounding circumstances, clearly indicated that he had been appointed on ad hoc basis for specified period and that his services were to come to an end on the expiry of that period i.e. on 30th sept., 1976. It was, therefore, not at all necessary to give any notice etc. to the petitioner before treating his services as having come to an end on that date. Further, the District Inspector of Schools had, on 9th Sept., 1976, directed that two Assistant Teachers, viz., Om Prakash Gupta and Surjan Chandra Pandey were being transferred to the Institution for being appointed in the trained graduates grade. to the petitioner before treating his services as having come to an end on that date. Further, the District Inspector of Schools had, on 9th Sept., 1976, directed that two Assistant Teachers, viz., Om Prakash Gupta and Surjan Chandra Pandey were being transferred to the Institution for being appointed in the trained graduates grade. These teachers were to assume charge on 1st Oct , 1966. Consequently, the vacancy in which the petitioner had been working on ad hoc basis had been filled in a regular way and in accordance with regulations 55-62 of Chap. III of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act and the petitioner could not, under the Removal of Difficulties Order, claim to remain in service after a regular appointment to filling in the vacancy, in accordance with regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, had been made. 14. We are unable to accept the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel. Object underlying the first Removal of Difficulties Order clearly was to enable the management of educational institutions to make stopgap arrangement by appointment (sic) teacher on ad hoc basis for the duration it was not possible for to make regular appointment in accordance with the procedure laid down in S. 14 of the Amendment Act. The Removal of Difficulties Order envisaged that in case a regular appointment as aforesaid was made within a period of six months the ad hoc appointment made thereunder was to stand determined on the making of such regular appointment, otherwise it was to stand terminated on the expiry of six months. The outer limit of six months for such ad hoc appointments envisaged by the 1st Removal of Difficulties Order, was under the subsequent Removal of Difficulties Order (i.e. 2nd, 3rd and 4th Removal of Difficulties Order) extended up to 15-11-1976. Accordingly, in the normal course the ad hoc appointment made in pursuance of the Removal of Difficulties Order was to, unless regular appointment in accordance with S. 14 of the Amendment Act was made earlier, last upto 15-11-1976. Accordingly, in the normal course the ad hoc appointment made in pursuance of the Removal of Difficulties Order was to, unless regular appointment in accordance with S. 14 of the Amendment Act was made earlier, last upto 15-11-1976. Even if for the sake of argument it be assumed that it was open to the Managing Committee to make an appointment for a shorter duration not conterminous with the making of an appointment in accordance with S. 14 of the Amendment Act it will have to be seen whether in the instant case the petitioner was in fact appointed for any such shorter period. Normally, it will be possible to construe such ad hoc appointments as appointments made for a shorter duration only if the appointment order specifically says so. An ad hoc appointment made without specification of period has, in the context to be treated as an appointment lasting till such time as a regular appointment to fill in the concerned vacancy is made in accordance with the procedure laid down in S. 14 of the Amendment Act. In that instant case, petitioner's appointment letter did not specify the period for which he had been appointed. It merely stated that the petitioner had been appointed in a temporary capacity, which in the context could only mean that petitioner's appointment was to last till such time as the concerned vacancy was not filled by making an appointment in accordance with the procedure laid down by S. 14 of the Amendment Act. However, the appointment remained subject to the statutory restriction on it was not to extend beyond the date mentioned in the first Removal of Difficulties Order as modified by subsequent Removal of Difficulties Orders. As a matter of fact, this is how petitioner's letter of appointment was interpreted by the respondents when they acquiesced in his continuing to remain in service up to 30th Sept., 1976. In this context, the letter dated 31st Aug, 1976 (Annexure III) whereby the Principal informed the petitioner that his service was to come to an end on 30th Sept , 1976. cannot be construed as an action of the Managing Committee in appointing the petitioner up to a specified date. In this context, the letter dated 31st Aug, 1976 (Annexure III) whereby the Principal informed the petitioner that his service was to come to an end on 30th Sept , 1976. cannot be construed as an action of the Managing Committee in appointing the petitioner up to a specified date. By means of that letter the Principal merely informed the petitioner that as per various Removal of Difficulties Orders passed by the State Government his appointment was to come to an end on 30th Sept , 1976. Indeed this was the true legal position on that date. Subsequently, on 24th Sept , 1976 the State Government passed the 4th Removal of Difficulties Order laying down that the outer limit to which an ad hoc appointment could now be extended, was (15-11-76) instead of 30-9-1976 Accordingly, the petitioner became entitled to continue in service up to 15th Nov., 1976 unless in the meantime a regular appointment to fill in the vacancy by following the procedure laid down in S. 14 of the Amendment Act had been made. . 15. As explained above, according to various Removal of Difficulties Orders mentioned above, ,ad hoc appointments made thereunder were to last till the vacancy was filled in by making appointment under section 14 of the amendment Act. It means that the Government at that time intended that the vacancy on which the ad hoc appointment had been made was to be filled in only in the manner prescribed in S. 14 of the aforesaid Act and in no other manner. Section 14 of the Amendment Act did not contemplate the filling in of such vacancy by transferring a teacher from one institution to another institution. No selection in accordance with the procedure laid down in S. 14 of the Amendment Act had been made and the petitioner's appointment which was, by virtue of Fourth Removal of Difficulties Order, to last upto 15th Nov. 1976, did not come to an end on 30th Sept. 1976 and as there was no vacancy no question of filling in the same by transferring a teacher from another institution arose. 1976, did not come to an end on 30th Sept. 1976 and as there was no vacancy no question of filling in the same by transferring a teacher from another institution arose. In the circumstances the order of the District Inspector of Schools, transferring Shri On Parkash from another institution, with a view to fill up the post held on ad hoc basis by the petitioner, could not affect petitioner's right to hold that post up to the 15th of Nov. 1976. 16. Even though appointments already made were to lapse on 15th Nov., 1976 the State Government did not issue any Removal of Difficulties Order like the earlier ones before that date. Consequently, the ad hoc appointment already made under the earlier Removal of Difficulties Order lapsed on 15th Nov., 1976. The State Government, however felt that some provision had to be made to safeguard the services of such teachers and as the difficulty in giving effect to the provisions of the Amendment Act still continued, it passed the Fifth Removal of Difficulties Order on 27th Nov. 1976. Clause (7) of that order provided that where the Committee of Management had a post by appointing a person under the Removal of Difficulties Order 1975, such post was to be held by that person till 31st Dec. 1976 or till a regular appointment, in accordance with the Act and the Regulation made thereunder, whichever was earlier, had been made. It is not disputed that after the State Government made the fifth Removal of Difficulties Order no regular appointment, in accordance with the Act and the Regulations made thereunder, had been made. Accordingly, the petitioner became entitled to hold the post on which he had been appointed on ad hoc post till 31st Dec. 1976. 17. Again by Cl. (3) of the Sixth Removal of Difficulties Order dated 21st Jan. 1977 such ad hoc appointments were extended up to 20th May, 1977 or till a person was appointed to fill in that post in a regular manner. As in the instant case, no regular appointment, after making of either the Fifth or the Sixth Removal of Difficulties Order, had been made, the petitioner continued to be entitled to hold the post on which he had been appointed on ad hoc basis, up to 20th May, 1977. 18. As in the instant case, no regular appointment, after making of either the Fifth or the Sixth Removal of Difficulties Order, had been made, the petitioner continued to be entitled to hold the post on which he had been appointed on ad hoc basis, up to 20th May, 1977. 18. In the meantime, on 21st April 1977, Governor of the State issued an Ordinance entitled the U.P. Education Laws Amendment Ordinance, 1977 being Ordinance No. V of 1977, Section - 36 of the aforesaid amendment inserted a new S. 16 (gg) in the Intermediate Education Act 1921, which runs thus : Regularization of appointment of ad hoc teachers : (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Ss. 16J(e). 16 (f) and S. 16 (ff) every teacher of an institution appointed between August 18, 1975 and September 30, 1976 (both days inclusive) on ad hoc basis against a clear vacancy and possessing prescribed qualifications or having been exempted from such qualification in accordance with the provisions of this Act shall, with effect from the date of commencement of the 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 commencement of this section. Explanation: For the purposes of this sub-section the period during which any break in service of teacher has occurred between the date of his ad hoc appointment and the date of commencement of this section for any reason, not arising out of his misconduct or his own volition shall be disregarded." 19. It is not disputed that in this case the petitioner was appointed as a teacher in a substantive vacancy on an ad hoc basis. The date of appointment fell between 18th August 1975 and 30th September 1976. He also possessed the requisite qualifications for appointment as a teacher. There was (sic) interruption in his service for any reason arising out of his misconduct or on account of his own volition. Accordingly, notwithstanding that there was a break in petitioner's service between 15th Nov., 1976 and 27th Nov., 1976 and again between 1st Jan. 1977 and 21st Jan. 1977, these breaks had to be, as provided in explanation is S. 36 of Ordinance No. V of 1977, disregarded. Accordingly, notwithstanding that there was a break in petitioner's service between 15th Nov., 1976 and 27th Nov., 1976 and again between 1st Jan. 1977 and 21st Jan. 1977, these breaks had to be, as provided in explanation is S. 36 of Ordinance No. V of 1977, disregarded. It will be deemed that notwithstanding that break, the petitioner had continued to be in employment and that he had been appointed in a substantive capacity. 20. It was urged on behalf of the respondents that in the instant case, as the petitioner in fact did not serve that institution after 1st Jan. 1977 it could not be said that he had continuously been serving the institution up to 21st April 1977, the date when Ordinance No. V of 1977 came into force. Accordingly, he ceased to be a teacher of the institution and cannot derive any benefit from Ordinance No. 5 of 1977. 21. We are unable to accept this submission. A person is deemed to be serving the institution so long as he continues to be in its employment, notwithstanding the fact that the Management does not take work from him or that he is for reasons, beyond his control, prevented from working as such. In the instant case, it has been found that throughout the relevant period the petitioner continued to be in the employment of the institution He was, during the period 15-11-1976 to 27-11-1976 and 1-1-1977 to 21-4-1977 prevented from working as a teacher for reasons (sic) connected with his volition or misconduct. Accordingly, it has to be taken that the petitioner had throughout been serving the institution right up to the date when Ordinance V of 1977 came into force i.e. on 21-4-1977. Since the petitioner possessed the necessary qualification for being appointed to the post, it would be deemed that he had been appointed thereto in a substantive capacity. 22. In view of the aforesaid discussion we are of the opinion that the petitioner's appointment continued to be operative throughout and that in the meantime he has acquired the status of a permanent teacher as laid down in Ordinance No 5 of 1977. There was absolutely no occasion for the respondents to fill the concerned vacancy by transferring a teacher from another institution. There was absolutely no occasion for the respondents to fill the concerned vacancy by transferring a teacher from another institution. Both the orders dated 31st Aug., 1976 relieving the petitioner from his duties and the action of the respondents in filling up the vacancy by transferring a teacher from another institution, were illegal and liable to be set aside. 23 In the result, both the petitions, succeed and allowed. The order of the Principal dated 30th Sept. 1976 relieving the petitioner from his duty as also that passed by the District Inspector of Schools transferring Om Prakash Gupta as Assistant teacher of S.A.V. Inter College are quashed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner as continuing in service of the S.A.V. Inter College as an Assistant Teacher in Mathematics. Parties to bear their own costs in both the petitions.