JUDGMENT : S.C. MATHUR, J. 1. The Government of Uttar Pradesh issued an Ordinance entitled the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Reserve Pool Teachers) Ordinance, 1978 (U.P. Ordinance No. 10 of 1978). Thereafter this Ordinance was replaced by an Ordinance bearing the same title but the number 22 of 1978. Ordinance No. 10 of 1978 had been enforced on 24-6-1978 and Ordinance No. 22 of 1978 was enforced retrospectively with effect from 24-6-1978. Certain teachers were appointed in High School and Intermediate Colleges in pursuance of the provisions contained in Ordinance Not; 10 and 22 of 1978. The validity of the latter Ordinance was challenged before this Court by Madhyamik Shikshak Sangh. A Division Bench of this Court held the Ordinance to be ultra vires and invalid. In consequence of this decision orders were passed on 21-5-1979 by the State Government requiring termination of services of the teachers appointed under the said Ordinances. For the implementation of the State Government's order the Additional Director of Education issued an order on 29-5-1979. Thereafter the Committees of Managements of the concerned institutions passed orders for termination of services of teachers appointed under the said Ordinances. The present petitions have been directed against this termination of services. While the matter was pending in this Court an appeal was preferred before their Lordships of the Supreme Court against the judgment of this Court whereby the Ordinances were held to be ultra vires. Certain teachers whose services were sought to be terminated through the order dated 21-5-1979 also approached their Lordships of the Supreme Court through petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. The appeals and the writ petitions were heard together and decided by a common judgment dated 27-7-1984. The judgment of their Lordships is reported in 1984 Prabodh Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1984 ALJ 931. Through this judgment their Lordships held that the Ordinances were valid. As a consequence their Lordships further held that the termination of services of the teachers appointed under the Ordinances was invalid. In paragraph-51 of the judgment their Lordships made the following observations 2- 1. Through this judgment their Lordships held that the Ordinances were valid. As a consequence their Lordships further held that the termination of services of the teachers appointed under the Ordinances was invalid. In paragraph-51 of the judgment their Lordships made the following observations 2- 1. We declare the orders of termination of the services of reserve pool teachers to be contrary to law and we quash and set aside the said orders as also the order dated May 21, 1979, of the Government of Uttar Pradesh and the order dated May 29, 1979 of the Additional Director of Education, Uttar Pradesh and all others. If any, to the same effect. 2. We direct that each of the reserve pool teachers who had already been appointed and was continuing in service by reason of the stay orders given either by the Allahabad High Court or by this Court is entitled to continue in service and is entitled to be confirmed in the post to which he or she was appointed with effect from the date on which he or she would have been confirmed in the normal and usual course. 3. We further direct that the remaining teachers in the reserve pool be appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Reserve Pool Teachers)(Second) Ordinance, 1978 (U.P. Ordinance No. 22 of 1978), to substantive vacancies in the posts of teachers in recognised institutions which are required to be filled by direct recruitment as and when such vacancy occurs. 4. This direction will apply to those reserve pool teachers whose services terminated and who had not filed any writ petition or who had filed a writ petition but had not succeeded in obtaining a stay order, and to those reserve pool teachers who had not been appointed in view of the interim orders passed by the High Court and thereafter by reason of the judgment of the High Court in the Sangh's case and who have not filed any writ petition. 2. From the last direction issued by their Lordships of the Supreme Court it is apparent that the judgment given was not only in respect of the teachers who approached (heir Lordships but also in respect of the teachers who had not approached their Lordships. This judgment would be applicable to the present Petitioners also who can be described as reserve pool teachers. This judgment would be applicable to the present Petitioners also who can be described as reserve pool teachers. There is no dispute between the parties that the Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 1788 of 1979 and 2105 of 1979 are entitled to the benefit of the judgment rendered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. In Writ Petition No. 1576 of 1979 also there is no dispute so far as Petitioners 1 to 7 and 9 are concerned. The opposite-party No. 4, the Committee of Management of Higher Secondary School, Itwari, district Sitapur, has raised dispute with regard to Petitioner No. 8 Rajendra Prakash Kairati. Sri D.S. Bajpai, Learned Counsel for the Committee of Management submitted that the Petitioner No. 8 had not been appointed under the Ordinances referred to hereinabove, and, therefore, the judgment rendered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court will not be applicable to him. 3. Section 4 of U.P. Ordinance No. 22 of 1978 provides as follows: 4. Absorption of reserve pool teachers--(1) The Inspector shall maintain in the prescribed manner, a register of "reserve pool teachers" 'consisting of persons who were appointed as teachers in any institution situated ,in the district either by the Management or by the Inspector under Sub-section; (4) of Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971, while the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1977, was in force, and who had actually joined their duties in pursuance of the said provisions between January 9, 1978 and January 19, 1978. (2) Where any substantive vacancy in the post of a teacher in an institution recognised by the board is to be filled by direct recruitment, such post shall at the instance of the Inspector be offered by the Management to a teacher whose Dame is entered in the register referred to in Sub-section (1). (3) .... (4) .... (5) .... Explanation--.......... 4. The benefit of the above Ordinance was available only to the teachers who were appointed between January 9, 1978 and January 19, 1978. Mere appointment during this period was not enough. The further requirement of Sub-section (1) of Section 4 was that the teacher should have actually joined his duties. (3) .... (4) .... (5) .... Explanation--.......... 4. The benefit of the above Ordinance was available only to the teachers who were appointed between January 9, 1978 and January 19, 1978. Mere appointment during this period was not enough. The further requirement of Sub-section (1) of Section 4 was that the teacher should have actually joined his duties. According to Sri B.G. Saksena, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Petitioner No. 8 had actually worked during the period referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 4. In paragraph 6 of the writ petition it was averred as follows: 6. That consequently the Petitioners were initially appointed as teachers on various dates during 10-1-1978 and 16-1-1978.... Paragraph 6 of the writ petition was replied to through paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party No. 4 wherein it was stated thus: 5. That the contents of paragraph 6 of the writ petition are not admitted as stated and are denied for want of knowledge. In any case, the Petitioner No. 8 was not appointed a teacher in the School by the answering opposite party between 10-1-1978 and 16-1-1978. 5. From the above reply it would be seen that there is no denial on behalf of the opposite-party No. 4 of the Petitioners' allegation that they were appointed on various dates between 10-1-1978 and 16-1-1978. All that is stated in the counter affidavit is that during this period the Petitioner No. 8 had not worked in Higher Secondary School, Itwari, district Sitapur, of which opposite-party No. 4 is the Committee of Management. Section 4 does not restrict the applicability of Ordinance to the teachers appointed in a particular institution, The Register which the District Inspector of Schools in required to maintain under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 is in respect of the entire district. In paragraph-5 of the rejoinder affidavit Petitioner No. 8 has pointed out that he had worked as L.T. grade teacher In the Municipal Inter College, Sitapur, and accordingly by virtue of the provisions of the Reserve Pool Ordinance he was treated as a Reserve Pool teacher entitled to the benefit of Ordinance No. 10 of 1978. In paragraph-5 of the rejoinder affidavit Petitioner No. 8 has pointed out that he had worked as L.T. grade teacher In the Municipal Inter College, Sitapur, and accordingly by virtue of the provisions of the Reserve Pool Ordinance he was treated as a Reserve Pool teacher entitled to the benefit of Ordinance No. 10 of 1978. Sri B.C. Saksena, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Invited our attention to Annexure No. D-3 in support of the plea that the Petitioner No. 8 had been recognised as a reserve pool teacher even by the District Inspector of Schools. Annexure No. D-3 has been filed by the opposite-party No. 4 itself. This is a letter from the District Inspector of Schools to the Manager of the Institution of which opposite-party No. 4 is the Committee of Management. Along with the letter of list of the teachers maintained u/s 4(1) of Ordinance No. 22 of 1978 was also sent. In this list the name of the Petitioner No. 8 finds place at serial No. 10. It is the case of the opposite-party No. 4 itself that the Petitioner No. 8 worked in pursuance of this letter of the District Inspector of Schools. In view of the positive assertion made on behalf of Petitioner No. 8 that he had worked during 10-1-1978 and 16-1-1978 as a teacher in an institution in the district of Sitapur, although not in the institution managed by opposite-party No. 4 and on behalf of opposite-party No. 4 there being merely the plea of lack of knowledge, we accept the plea of the Petitioner No. 8 which finds support from Annexure No. D-3 to the counter affidavit. It is accordingly established that the Petitioner No. 8 had worked as teacher between the periods 9-1-1978 and 19-1-1978 referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 4 and he had actually joined his duties. Without the compliance of these two requirements obviously the name of Petitioner No. 8 could not have been entered in the register. Accordingly the Petitioner No. 8 is also entitled to the benefit of the judgment rendered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. 6. Sri Bajpal tried to argue that Petitioner No. 8 can get no relief against opposite-party No. 4 as no order of appointment was issued in favour of the former either by the latter or by its Manager. Accordingly the Petitioner No. 8 is also entitled to the benefit of the judgment rendered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. 6. Sri Bajpal tried to argue that Petitioner No. 8 can get no relief against opposite-party No. 4 as no order of appointment was issued in favour of the former either by the latter or by its Manager. In our opinion this circumstance is of no consequence as the terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of Ordinance No. XXII of 1978 are mandatory. It provides--" Such post shall at the instance of the Inspector be offered by the management to a teacher whose name is entered In the register referred to in Sub-section (1). "Therefore, once the Inspector requires a management to offer post to a person whose name is entered in the register, the Management has no option but to offer the post to that person. The management complied with the requirement of the Inspector by allowing Petitioner No. 8 to assume his duties as a teacher in the institution. This was enough to make him a teacher in the institution and to claim the benefit of Section 4 of the Ordinance and of the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court. Sri Bajpal also submitted that the Petitioner No. 8 cannot be deemed to have been working in the Institution ever since 15-8-1978 when he was allowed to assume charge of the post in pursuance of the order of the Inspector as the appointment made in academic session 1978-79 stood terminated on 30-6-1979 and thereafter, he continued to hold the post only In pursuance of the interim order of this Court which was granted on 11-7-1979. Once it is held that Petitioner No. 8 is entitled to the benefit of Ordinance No. XXII of 1978 its benefit cannot be denied to him merely because of the break in service which was not a creation of Petitioner No. 8 but was a creation of the State Government or the Committee of Management. 7. In view of the above the writ petitions are allowed and the orders of termination of services passed against the Petitioners in pursuance of the State Government's order dated 21-5-1979 and the order of the Additional Director of Education dated 29-5-1979 are hereby quashed. 7. In view of the above the writ petitions are allowed and the orders of termination of services passed against the Petitioners in pursuance of the State Government's order dated 21-5-1979 and the order of the Additional Director of Education dated 29-5-1979 are hereby quashed. We further clarify that the Petitioners shall be dealt with in accordance with the directions given by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Prabodh Verma's case (Supra). Costs of these petitions shall be easy.