JUDGMENT A. Banerji, J. - The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying that suitable order or direction be issued to the opposite parties to give effect to rights accrued to the petitioner under U.P. Secondary Education (Removal of Difficulties) Orders and to consider petitioner as probationer on post of teacher of C. T. grade in the said College. 2. Petitioners case briefly put is that he had been selected for appointment in the College in the vacancy caused by the termination of the services of Shri Shadi Lal Dwivedi. The petitioner was appointed on 1-11-1975 and continued to serve the institution but it appears that Shri Shadi Lal Dwivedi filed Suit No. 467 of 1975 for declaration that the order of termination of his services dated 19-8-1975 passed by the Authorised Controller was illegal and void. This suit was decreed and the Authorised Controller thereafter appointed him on his post on 21st March, 1977 and he took charge of the post on the same date. Shri Shadi Lal Dwivedi was treated as confirmed teacher from 24-9-1975. Since the petitioner was appointed on the vacancy caused by the termination of services of Sri Shadi Lal Dwivedi, his services could not be continued on the post after Sri Shadi Lal Dwivedi had been reinstated. Meanwhile the petitioners services stood terminated on 15-11-1976 and he did not work on that post from 16-11-1976. However, on 21-11-1976 he was appointed in the leave vacancy of Sri Radhey Shayam Sharma and he continued as such till 20th April, 1977. He has claimed that he is entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the Removal of Difficulties Orders - Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Orders. He has, therefore, prayed that he should be treated as continuing in the post of teacher in the institution and that the order terminating his service, dated 30th April, 1977 was bad in law. 3. The fact of the matter is that the petitioner is not working in the institution after 30th April, 1977. He moved an application for directing the respondents not to interfere in his working as a teacher in the College but no interim order was passed by this Court. It is not disputed by the learned counsel that the petitioner ceased to work after 30th April, 1977. 4. He moved an application for directing the respondents not to interfere in his working as a teacher in the College but no interim order was passed by this Court. It is not disputed by the learned counsel that the petitioner ceased to work after 30th April, 1977. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised a contention that ever since his first appointment he continued to serve the institution as a teacher and was, therefore, entitled to the benefits of the provisions of Section 16-GG of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act and also the U.P. Secondary Education (Removal of Difficulties) Orders passed from time to time by the Government. In our opinion, none of these provisions come to his (rescue). 5. The petitioner was appointed initially in vacancy caused by the termination of the service Shadi Lal Dwivedi a teacher in the institution. Sri Shadi Lal Dwivedi filed a suit and obtained a decree against the order of termination and he was reinstated. Consequently, the vacancy in which the petitioner was appointed never matured in clear vacancy with the result that his service cannot be deemed to be in a clear vacancy caused by the termination of the services of Sri Shadi Lal Dwivedi. The fact that the petitioner ceased to work between 15th November, 1976 and 22nd November, 1976 is (proof of the fact) that there was no continuity in service. The facts on the record further show that on 22-11-1976 he was appointed in the leave vacancy of Sri Radhey Shyam another teacher. Although he continued to work for a period of almost l years in this leave vacancy but this was not in continuation of his earlier appointment. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that person appointed in leave vacancy is also entitled to the benefit of the Removal of Difficulties Orders passed from time to time by the Govt, and he cited a Division Bench decision of this Court in Uma Shankar Pandey v. Dist. Inspector of Schools, Deoria, 1984 Ed Cas 341 : (1985 Lab IC 210). Inspector of Schools, Deoria, 1984 Ed Cas 341 : (1985 Lab IC 210). It is true that the Court has observed that the appointment of Shri Pandey was made in leave vacancy and that the provisions of the Removal of Difficulties Orders came to his aid but on a perusal of the judgment it is apparent that this leave vacancy ultimately matured into a clear vacancy. Consequently, the Division Bench was right in extending the principle in this particular case. The facts of the present case are entirely different. Here the leave vacancy did not mature into a clear vacancy, but, on the other hand, Sri Radhey Shyam Sharma in whose leave vacancy the petitioner was appointed, came back to his post and as such there was no vacancy, what to speak of a clear vacancy. Section 16-GG requires that if a teacher was appointed on an 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, he shall 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. In the present case there was no clear vacancy in which the petitioner could be appointed neither when Sri Shadi Lal Dwivedi services were terminated nor when Sri Radhey Shyam Sharma went on leave. We, therefore, do not find any substance in these arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. For the reasons indicated above, we find no merits in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. However, we leave the parties to bear their own costs.