Judgment B.D. Agarwal, J. 1. THE Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 (U. P. Act 5 of 1982) was enacted inter alia with the following object : "THE appointment of teachers in secondary institutions recognised by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education was governed by the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and regulations made thereunder. It was felt that the selection of teachers under the provisions of the said Act and the regulations was sometimes not free and fair. Besides, the field of selection was also very much restricted. This adversely affected the availability of suitable teachers and the standard of education. It was, therefore, considered necessary to constitute Secondary Education Service Commission at the State Level, to select Principals, Lecturers, Headmasters and L. T. Grade teachers, and Secondary Education Selection Boards at the regional level, to select and make available suitable candidates for comparatively lower posts in " C. T./J. T. C./B. T. C. grades for such institutions." 2. THE Act came into force on July 14, 1981. Under the scheme of the Act, the appointment of the Principal of an Intermediate College, Lecturer of an Intermediate College, Headmaster of a High School, trained grade teachers of Higher Secondary School, cannot be made except on the recommendation of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission). Likewise the appointment of a teacher of categories other than the above mentioned can be made by the Management only on the recommendation of the Secondary Education Selection Board (for short, the Board) vide Section 16. To this General Rule there is exception provided in Section 18 which reads as under :- "18. Ad hoc Teachers.- (1) Where the management has notified a vacancy to the Commission in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and- (a) the Commission has failed to recommend the name of any suitable candidate for being appointed as a teacher specified in the Schedule within one year from the date of such notification ; or (b) the post of such teacher has actually remained vacant for more than two months, then, the management may appoint, by direct recruitment or promotion, a teacher on purely ad hoc basis from amongst the persons possessing qualifications prescribed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or the regulations made thereunder. (2) THE provisions of sub-section (1) shall also apply to the appointment of a teacher other than a teacher specified in the Schedule on ad hoc basis with the substitution of the expression ' Board' for the expression 'Commission'. (3) Every appointment of an ad hoc teacher under sub-section (1) or subsection (2) shall cease to have effect from the earliest of the following dates, namely- (a) when the candidate recommended by the Commission or the Board, as the case may be, joins the post ; (b) when the period of one month referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 11 expires ; (c) thirtieth day of June following the date of such ad hoc appointment " In exercise of powers reserved under Section 33 of the Act the State Government issued on July 31, 1981 U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order 1981. This was followed by other Removal of Difficulties Orders with the details whereof we are not concerned in the present. Suffice it may to note that the management is given the power to appoint by promotion or by direct recruitment a teacher on purely ad hoc basis in accordance with the provisions of the Removal of Difficulties Order in the case of a substantive vacancy caused by death, retirement, resignation or otherwise. Such appointment is to cease to have effect when a candidate recommended by the Commission or the Board as the case may be, joins the post. It is a matter of common knowledge that the Commission constituted under the Act is by and large unable to recommend any suitable candidate for appointment within the period contemplated u/Sec. 18 (1) (a). The Board has not even been constituted till date. In consequence the management has had to fall back extensively upon ad hoc appointment u/Sec. 18 (1) in order to fill in the vacancies. In view of Section 10 of the U. P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 (U. P. Act 24 of 1971) the State Government is under obligation to pay salaries of teachers and employees of every institution due in respect of any period after March 31, 1971, though the Government may no doubt recover any such amount by attachment of the income from the property belonging to or vested in the institution. The District Inspectors of Schools have in general, it has been noticed, declined recommendation for purposes of the payment of salary to ad hoc teachers for the period beyond June 30, immediately following the ad hoc appointment. The ad hoc teachers continued in service as a result, in view of the appointment given to them by the management but with the salary denied for no fault on their part. The docket of the Court which is full already, is being over-loaded with writ petitions on this score day in and day out. 3. THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is representative in character being filed by the U. P. Madhyamik Shikshak Sangh a Society registered under the Society Registration Act, for and on behalf of the ad hoc teachers. The theme is the same as we come across other petitions filed on the subject by certain teachers in their individual capacity. The Sangh asserts moreover that ad hoc teachers in large number find it difficult to approach the Court for appropriate relief. The Court has successively given its decisions also on the point, which have remained unattended to save perhaps in relation to the parties specifically arrayed in particular cases. The relief claimed by the petitioner in the circumstances is : To issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pay the salaries of all ad hoc teachers appointed u/Sec. 18 of the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission Act, who are continuing after 30th of June, 1986 and after 30th of June of the other following years and whose services have not been terminated and no fresh appointee from the Commission has joined on the post held by them, the opposite parties shall pay their salaries and arrears of salaries and continue to pay the same ". 4. WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their consent proceed to dispose of the petition finally at this stage. 4. WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their consent proceed to dispose of the petition finally at this stage. The question is whether even though the service of the teacher initially appointed u/Sec. 18 of the Act has not been terminated in accordance with law and the Commission has not recommended the name of any suitable candidate for being appointed as a teacher, the management is not to be deemed to have renewed the ad hoc appointment of the teacher on the expiry of June 30 immediately following the date of such appointment. This is not res-integra. This court has in no uncertain terms and authoritatively pronounced its verdict on the issue in a series of decisions each by a Division Bench and with remarkable degree of unanimity viz. : (1) Committee of Management, Sanatan Dharam Intermediate College, Daulatpur, distt. Mainpuri v. District Inspector of Schools, Mainpuri, 1985 Ed. Cases 322 (2) Shiva Chandra Misra v. District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad, 1986 AWC 429 (3) Ramji Pathak v. District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad, 1986 UP LB EC 344 (4) Narendra Bahadur Singh v. District Inspector of Schools, Ballia, 1986 AWC 768 (5) Murli Prasad v. State of U. P. etc., 1986 UP LB EC 274. 5. IN Committee of Management, Sanatan Dharam Intermediate College (supra), the Division Bench observed that the Legislature could not have intended that the management should repeat the exercise of making ad hoc appointment of a teacher u/Sec. 18 on the expiry of June 30, following the date of such ad hoc appointment even though the Commission has not recommended name of any candidate for substantive appointment. This was endorsed by another Division Bench in Shiva Chandra Misra (supra) and another Division Bench in Narendra Bahadur Singh, 1986 AWC 768 at page 770 observing : "We are clearly of the opinion that the legislature cannot have intended that the same exercise as was involved in the initial ad hoc appointment u/Sec. 18 should be repeated on the expiry of 30th June following the date of appointment. The District Inspector of Schools will, therefore, not be justified in stopping payment of salary to a teacher validly appointed u/Sec. 18 merely because of the fact that 30th June following the date of appointment has elapsed even though the Commission may not have, in the meantime, recommended the candidate for appointment to the post held by the ad hoc appointee. This is the only way in which sub-section (3) of Section 18 can be reasonably construed and the various clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section (3), reconciled. Any other constructions would clearly lead to wholly unnecessary harassment to the teachers validly appointed under section 18 of the Act." See also Ramji Pathak 1986 UP LB EC 344 ; Murli Pd. v. State of U. P., 1986 UP LB EC 274. We are in respectful agreement with this view. We are not persuaded to attribute to the legislature an intention which is bereft of sound reasoning. Since there has been appointment made of a teacher duly qualified and his services do not stand terminated otherwise in accordance with law, it may not be assumed that the legislature could have intended that the exercise be repeated from year to year on the expiry of June 30 in successive years. No useful purpose might be expected to be served in this manner ; on the contrary the interest of the institution is better served by retaining the ad hoc teacher for so long as a permanent appointee on the recommendation of the Commission is not available to fill in the post. 6. IT is not a little surprising to us that despite the pronouncements of the Court repeatedly made, the District Inspectors of Schools should have persisted in declining the payment of salary to such teachers after June 30, immediately following initial appointment. With a view that the law on the subject is observed uniformally and the unnecessary harassment caused in the prejudice to the teachers is averted, we have considered it necessary to issue a general directive in the present case. With a view that the law on the subject is observed uniformally and the unnecessary harassment caused in the prejudice to the teachers is averted, we have considered it necessary to issue a general directive in the present case. Should there be any doubt relating to the power of the Court in this behalf, the answer is contained squarely in the recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court reported in Comptroller and Auditor-General of India v. K. S. Jagannathan, (1986) 2 SCC 679 at page 692 :- "There is thus no doubt that the High Courts in India exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or to pass orders and give necessary directions where the government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised the discretion conferred upon it by a statute or a rule or a policy decision of the government or has exercised such discretion mala fide or on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring the relevant considerations and materials or in such a manner as to frustrate the object of conferring such discretion or the policy for implementing which such discretion has been conferred. In all such cases and in any other fit and proper case a High Court can, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or pass orders and give directions to compel the performance in a proper and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the government or a public authority, and in a proper case, in order to prevent injustice resulting to the concerned parties, the court may itself pass an order or give directions which the government or the public authority should have passed given had it properly and lawfully exercised its discretion." Before parting with the case, we feel it necessary also to observe that in the light of the experience gained during the period of nearly five years in which the Act has remained operative, it is high time the State Government takes into account the feasibility of suitably amending the Act so as to make provision for additional machinery to cope with the volume and [nature of work relating to the selection of suitable candidates for appointment as teachers for else the object underlying is not subserved. The ad hocism is after all not meant to be perpetuated. The setting up of the Boards envisaged by the Act can perhaps brook no further delay. The ad hocism is after all not meant to be perpetuated. The setting up of the Boards envisaged by the Act can perhaps brook no further delay. In the light of discussion made in the above, we direct the respondents, namely, the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Director of Education (Secondary) U. P. to issue, as soon as may be, directions to the District Inspectors of Schools directing them to consider : (i) If the teacher concerned possesses qualifications prescribed in the Intermediate Education Act 1921 or the regulations made thereunder and has been duly appointed by the management by direct recruitment or promotion ; (ii) If the Commission/Board, as the case may be, has failed to recommend the name of a suitable candidate for being appointed as a teacher, despite the vacancy being notified ; or (iii) If the post of such teacher has actually remained vacant for more than two months ; (iv) If the services of the teacher appointed on ad hog basis have not otherwise been terminated, according to law ; and (v) If these ingredients are satisfied, the management must be deemed to have renewed the ad hoc appointment of the teacher on the expiry of June 30, following the date of such appointment and the District Inspectors of Schools have to treat the teachers validly appointed on ad hoc basis u/Sec. 18 as continuing in service and pay salary to them notwithstanding the expiry of June 30 following the date of such appointment till the services of such ad hoc teachers are terminated in accordance with law or till the candidate recommended by the Commission or the Board as the case may be, joins the post, whichever may be the earlier. 7. THE petition is allowed accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. 8. THE Registrar is directed to send a certified copy of this Judgment to the Chief Secretary, U.P. Lucknow, for necessary action. Petition allowed.