JUDGMENT A. N. Dixita, J. - The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been preferred seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to treat the petitioners in service and to pay all their salaries and dues. 2. During the pendency of the petition, the name of the petitioner No. 1, Sri Lallan Singh had been deleted as per order dated 27-11-1979 leaving Shri Subhash Chandra Pandey as the sole petitioner. 3. The college is a recognised and aided institution and is duly governed by the scheme of administration as provided in the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 as amended upto date. The petitioner who had passed his B. A. Examination from the Gorakhpur University with Hindi, Geography and Military Science as his subjects, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in a clear vacancy on an ad hoc basis in the L.T. Grade in the said College in accordance with the U.P. Secondary Education (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1976. The appointment was made consequent to his selection by the Selection Committee of the said college for the period of 6 months vide an order of appointment dated 20-10-1975 by the Secretary of the said College. Necessary approval in respect of the appointment was obtained. The petitioner continued to work till 17-2-1976 when the Government issued the Second U. P. Secondary Education (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1978 whereby the words 'not exceeding six months" were substituted by the words "not extending beyond June 30, 1976" in sub-clause (a) of clause (2) of the First Removal of Difficulties Order, 1975 and consequently the services of the petitioner were deemed to have been extended upto June 30, 1976. The petitioner was served with the order of termination on 28-6-1976 by the Secretary-cum-Manager of the said College. In the meantime the Government issued the Third U. P. Secondary Education (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1976 on 28-6-1976, whereby the words June 30, 1976 were substituted by the words September 30, 1976 and thus the services of the petitioner were automatically extended upto 30-9-1976. After the summer vacations the petitioner joined his duties on the reopening of the College i.e. on 8-7-1976. The petitioner was again served with the termination order dated 17-7-1976 on 21-7-1977 by the Principal of the said college. Such termination was without any approval of the District Inspector of Schools. After the summer vacations the petitioner joined his duties on the reopening of the College i.e. on 8-7-1976. The petitioner was again served with the termination order dated 17-7-1976 on 21-7-1977 by the Principal of the said college. Such termination was without any approval of the District Inspector of Schools. Representations were made by the petitioner to the District Inspector of Schools as well as to the Receiver who had been appointed by the District Magistrate on the account of the disputes between the two groups of the Committees of Managements of the said College by letter dated 29-7-1976. The District Inspector of Schools wrote a letter to the Principal of the said college warning him for acting contrary to the provisions of the Act. The petitioner vide order dated 16-8-1976 of the Receiver was again allowed to work upto 30-9-1976. On 24-9-1976, the Government issued the Fourth U P Secondary Education (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1976, whereby the term of the ad hoc teachers was extended upto 15 11-1976 In spite of the protestations of the petitioner he was not allowed to work beyond 30-9-1976, but later on the services of the petitioner were extended upto 15-11-1970 by an order of the receiver dated 3-11-1976 The Government again extended the period of the services of ad hoc teachers upto 31-12-1976 by issuing the fifth U. P. Secondary Education (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1976, but the petitioner was again not allowed to work after 15-11-19 r6. The petitioner further represented that according to the G O dated 2-12-1976 bis services have been confirmed and accordingly he should be permitted to work on the post as Teacher Representation was again made to the District Inspector of Schools on 10-12-1976. As no reply was forthcoming the petitioner sent various representations to the authorities as well as to the Principal of the college on 22-2-1976 In the meantime the Governor of U. P. issued an Ordinance (Ordinance V of 1977), by which the services of all the ad hoc Teachers were confirmed. 4 The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been illegally and unlawfully removed from the services though he continued to work as teacher till 21-4.1977 The petitioner has further contended that the promotion of Virendra Kumar Sharma and Baij Nath Singh against the posts of the petitioners Nos. 4 The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been illegally and unlawfully removed from the services though he continued to work as teacher till 21-4.1977 The petitioner has further contended that the promotion of Virendra Kumar Sharma and Baij Nath Singh against the posts of the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 respectively was illegal and against the provisions of law, inasmuch as they were promoted at a time when there were no vacancies. Such orders dated 16-11-1976 were without justification and the respondents had no jurisdiction to appoint or promote teachers under the Act. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by means of this writ petition. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that in view of the various Removal of Difficulties Orders issued from time to time and ultimately in view of Section 16-GG of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the services of the petitioner stood regularised and confirmed and as such he was entitled to continue in service and also to the payment of his salary. 7. No counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents Nos. 1 to 4. Sri Baijnath Singh and Sri Ram Sagar Prasad, Prabhari Pradhanacharya (officiating Principal) of the said College have filed their counter-affidavits, but during the hearing of the writ petition none came to oppose the petition. 8. For a clear appraised , the petitioner has provision of 16-GG are recited herein below : - "16-GG. Regulation of appointment of ad hoc-teachers. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 16-E, 16-F and 16-FF, every teacher of an institution appointed between August 18, j975 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 upto the 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 : Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed as entitling such teacher to any pay or allowance for any such period of break in his service. (2) Every teacher deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity under sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be on probation from the date of commencement of this section. (3) Nothing in this section shall be construed to entitle any teacher to - (a) substantive appointment on any post if on the date of commencement of this section, such post has already been filled or selection for such past has already been made in accordance with this Act or the regulations made thereunder ; or (b) substantive appointment if such teacher was related to any member of the Committee of Management or the Principal or Headmaster of the institution concerned. Explanation. - For the purposes of this sub-section, a person shall be deemed to be related to another if - (a) They are members of a Hindu undivided family ; or (b) they are husband and wife ; of (c) the one is related to the other in the manner indicated in the Second Schedule". 9. Section 16-GG lays down that notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 16-E and 16-F 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 being possessed of the prescribed qualifications as per provisions of the Act shall be deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity with effect from the date of the commencement of the section. It is further enjoined in the said section that the deeming provisions would endure for the benefit of such teachers who had been continuously serving the institution from the date of their appointments upto the date of commencement of the Section 16-GG i.e. April 21, 1977. It is further enjoined in the said section that the deeming provisions would endure for the benefit of such teachers who had been continuously serving the institution from the date of their appointments upto the date of commencement of the Section 16-GG i.e. April 21, 1977. It may, however, not be necessary to refer to the history of the enactment of Section 16-GG as the said section itself creates a legal fiction for the regularisation of appointment of ad hoc teachers appointed in aided and recognised institution between 28th August, 1975 and 30th September, 1976. The deeming provision is, however, applicable when the conditions precedent prescribed thereunder are fulfilled. It has been provided amongst the conditions that there must be a clear vacancy against which the appointment on an ad hoc basis is made and the concerned teacher is possessed of requisite qualifications. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further urged that consequent upon the alleged termination of the services of the petitioners one Sri Baij Nath Singh who has been appointed as a teacher has joined his duties. There is no justification for the appointment of Sri Baij Nath Singh in view of the U. P. Secondary Education (Removal of Difficulties) Order issued from time to time as petitioner continued in service The petitioner was manifestly prevented from discharging bis duties. Order for termination of services of the petitioner was passed in derogation to UP Secondary Education (Removal of Difficulties) Orders issued from time to time. It is clear that the petitioner was willing to work but was not permitted to do so on account of the passing of the termination order which indeed was in violation of the U P. Secondary Education (Removal of Difficulties) Order, issued from time to time Thus the appointment of Sri Baij Nath Singh would not be deemed to be regular as there was no vacancy inasmuch as the petitioner would be deemed to be in service. Thus the appointment of Sri Baij Nath Singh was apparently made to frustrate the joining of the petitioner. 11. It is further provided that the teacher must have been continuously in the service of the institution from date of appointment upto 21-4-1977 the date on which Section 16-GG came into force. Thus the appointment of Sri Baij Nath Singh was apparently made to frustrate the joining of the petitioner. 11. It is further provided that the teacher must have been continuously in the service of the institution from date of appointment upto 21-4-1977 the date on which Section 16-GG came into force. It seems that in very many cases for some reasons or the other the teachers appointed on an ad hoc basis were prevented from discharging their duties by the Management or the Principal seeking refuge on the pretext or the other and as such in order to protect to the interest of such teachers the legislature enacted an explanation to Section 16-GG whereby it was provided that if there be any break in the service an any ad hoc teacher for any reason not arising out of his misconduct or volition for such break, shall be disregarded. The proviso to the Section 16-GG further lays down that the break in service of ad hoc teachers may be disregarded for the purpose of giving benefit of Section 16-GG for the purpose of regularisation of their service. However, all such teachers shall not be entitled to salary or allowance for the period of break in service. 12. From the material on record, we find that the petitioner was appointed on an ad hoc basis on 20-10-1975 and he had joined his services in pursuance of the appointment order. It is distinctly clear from the records that the petitioner on more than one occasions was not allowed to join his duties but was later permitted to do so on his representing to the authorities. The petitioner had to represent to vindicate his grievances against the illegal activities either of the Principal or of the Receiver from time to time to the authorities whereupon he could seek redressal of his grievances. The petitioner was willing and was attending the institution. Petitioner was possessed of necessary qualification and his appointment vide letter dated 20-10-1975 was made against a clear vacancy In view of such conditions as enjoined in Section 16-GG the petitioner was entitled to the benefit thereof. The petitioner has also claimed the benefit of the salary with effect from the month of October, 1976. Petitioner was possessed of necessary qualification and his appointment vide letter dated 20-10-1975 was made against a clear vacancy In view of such conditions as enjoined in Section 16-GG the petitioner was entitled to the benefit thereof. The petitioner has also claimed the benefit of the salary with effect from the month of October, 1976. 13 In view of the proviso to Section 16-GG (supra) of the Act, petitioner is not entitled to his salary for the period of break in service and no mandamus can, therefore, be issued for the payment of the arrears of his salary or allowance. 14 We are as such of the view that in pursuance of Section 16-GG of the Act the petitioner has acquired right to hold the post of the teacher the said College in a substantive capacity The petitioner, however, is not entitled to his salary for the period of break in service The petitioner is entitled to continue in service and to draw his salaries and other allowances in accordance with the law. 15. In the result, the petition is allowed in part. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.