JUDGMENT B.D. Agarwal, J. - This group of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution gives rise to common issues. 2. The short question is whether even though the services of the teachers appointed by the Management under Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 (U.P. Act, 5 of 1982) or the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Orders framed thereunder have not been otherwise duly terminated and there is no candidate recommended for appointment by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission or selected by Regional Selection Board, the teachers concerned may not continue on ad hoc basis beyond June 30, 1986. The petitioners are teachers placed in the lecturers, grade, LT. grade or C.T. grade in educational institutions recognised under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The management appointed them in exercise of powers under section 18 of the Act or the Removal of Difficulties Orders made from time to time. For purposes of the payment of salary which in view of Section 10 (1) 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) is the liability of the State Government, the respective District Inspector of Schools/Regional Inspector of Girls, Schools, as the case may be accorded approval to the appointment made was within the sanctioned strength and dispute does not exist in regard to the qualifications requisite being possessed by the candidates. The Inspectorate has, however, declined approval for the period subsequent to June 30, 1986 under the impression presumably that section 18 (3) (c) of the Act does not permit it. ..With the result the petitioners would cease and not be eligible to salary either beyond the stipulated date. Aggrieved, they have approached this court. 3. 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 Eduction 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. 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 effected the availability of suitable teachers and the standard of education. It was therefore, considered necessary to constitute Secondary Education Services Commission at the State level to select Principles, Lecturers, Headmasters and L. T. Grade Teachers and Secondary Education Selection Board at the Regional level to select and make available suitable candidates for comparatively lower posts in C.T/T.T.C./S.T.C. grades for such institutions." 4. 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 Schools, 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 such as a teacher in the C.T. grade can be made by the Management only on the recommendation of the Secondary Education Selection Board (for short, the Board) vide Section 16. 5. The Commission established by the State Government is to comprise of persons of eminence in the field of education, judicial Services or the State Education Services (Section 4). A mong its powers and duties is included "to make recommendation regarding the appointment of selected candidates and their promotion." Section 9(d). To carry this out the Commission is enjoined - "9. (a) to prepare guidelines on matters relating to the method of recruitment and promotion of such categories of teachers as are specified in the Schedule ; (b) to conduct examinations where considered necessary, hold interviews and make selection of candidates for being appointed as such teachers ; (c) to select and invite experts and to appoint examiners for the purposes specified in clause (b) : 6. Vacancy has to be notified by the .Management to the Commission in the manner laid down in Rule 4 of the U.P. Secondary Teachers Services Commission Rules, 1983 (for short, the Rules) read with section 10 of the Act. Vacancy has to be notified by the .Management to the Commission in the manner laid down in Rule 4 of the U.P. Secondary Teachers Services Commission Rules, 1983 (for short, the Rules) read with section 10 of the Act. Under (the Rules) as amended with effect from July 1, 1983 the term `vacancy' it gives a very wide coverage placing thereunder vacancy arising out as a result of death, retirement, resignation, termination, dismissal, creation of new post or appointment or promotion of the incumbent to any higher post in a substantive capacity. These Rules provide for qualification of teachers procedure for recruitment, appointment etc. The Commission has also framed Regulations with the approval of the State Government in exercise of the powers under Section 34 of the Act. These Regulations provide for holding selection, conducting examination where necessary or for holding interview and lay down the procedure to be followed by the Commission and for discharging its duties and performing its functions under the Act. The Regulations were amended on July 18, 1983. Again in exercise of powers under Section 34 with the previous approval of the State Government the Commission made the U.P. Secondary Education Services (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Regulations, 1983. 7. For purposes of the appointment of a teacher (other than teacher specified in the Schedule), such as' an Assistant teacher in the C.T. grade, the Act envisages the constitution of Regional Selection Boards vide (Section 12) (hereinafter referred to `as the Board'). The Board shall have the power to make selection of candidate for being appointed as such teachers in institutions located within its respective territorial jurisdiction (Section 14). 8. To the general rule contained in Sections 16/12 referred above namely that there shall be no appointment except upon recommendation of the Commission or the Board, as the case may be, there is exception expressly provided in Section 18 and 33. Section 18 is material and read as under 18. Ad hoc teachers. 8. To the general rule contained in Sections 16/12 referred above namely that there shall be no appointment except upon recommendation of the Commission or the Board, as the case may be, there is exception expressly provided in Section 18 and 33. Section 18 is material and read 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 suit- able 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 the appointment of a teacher (other than a teacher specified in the Schedule) on od 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 sub-section (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. 9. Section 33 relates to power to remove difficulties providing that the State Government may, for the purposes of removing any difficulty, by a notified order, direct that the provisions of the Act shall, during the period specified in the order, have effect subject to adaptations byway of modification, addition or omission as may be deemed necessary or expedient. The power given to the State Government is not uncontrolled or unfettered. Its use is conditional and restricted. The existence of arising of a difficulty is the sine quo non for the exercise of the power. The power given to the State Government is not uncontrolled or unfettered. Its use is conditional and restricted. The existence of arising of a difficulty is the sine quo non for the exercise of the power. By necessary implication, though not expressly so stated, the difficulty must be such a^arises in giving effect to the provisions of the Act and not a difficulty arising aliunde or an extraneous difficulty. The extent of exercise of such power is limited to implement or give effect to the Act. Vires of Section 33 is indeed not under attack before us. The section does not impart finality to the decision of the State Government as to the existence of difficulty nor does it contemplate a change of the scheme and essential provisions of the Act. M.U. Sinai etc. v. Union of India and others, AIR 1975 SC 797 M/s. Gamman India Ltd. v. Union of India etc., AIR 1974 SC 960 . 10. The difficulty in implementing the basic scheme of the Act in the instant case does exist per se as the Commission has necessarily to follow an elaborate procedure which is both time consuming and cumbersome to finalise the selection of candidates while vacancies in the large number of institutions in the State continue to multiple. And this would be the problem before the Board also in different regions as and when it is constituted. In the larger interest of the students' community Government has had to introduce the Removal of Difficulties Orders in the form of stop gap arrangements. Section 18 no doubt makes provision for ad hoc appointments but that also entails compulsory waiting for certain period for the recommendation of the Commission which as the experience has shown is rarely available within the specified period, and, hence the necessity to bridge the gap through the medium of the Removal of Difficulties Orders. 11. Shortly after the Act commenced, the State Government felt the necessity to issue the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Orders, 1981 dated July 31, 1981. This was followed by the other Removal of Difficulties Orders made in quick succession namely - (1) Removal of Difficulties (Second) Order dated September 11, 1981. (2) Removal of Difficulties (Third) Order dated January 30, 1982. (3) Removal of Difficulties (Fourth) Older dated April 14, 1982. 12. This was followed by the other Removal of Difficulties Orders made in quick succession namely - (1) Removal of Difficulties (Second) Order dated September 11, 1981. (2) Removal of Difficulties (Third) Order dated January 30, 1982. (3) Removal of Difficulties (Fourth) Older dated April 14, 1982. 12. The State Government was alive to the situation that the establishment of the Commission and the Board was likely to take some time and also that even after the establishment of the Commission and the Board, it might not be possible to make selection of the teachers for the first few months while vacancies already existed and would continue to multiply. The Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 was introduced to meet this exigency as the preamble thereto also recites. Para 2 enumerated the vacancies against which ad hoc appointments could be made and para 3 stated that such appointment was to cease "when the candidate recommended by the Commission or the Board joins the post" or when the period of six months from the date of such ad hoc appointment expired, which ever took place earlier. The hopes entertained were evidently, belied. Keeping in view the long delay entailed in the process, the State Government came up soon with the Removal of Difficulties (Second) Order, 1981. It is significant that thereunder the scope of vacancies in respect whereof the ad hoc appointments could be made was widened as is clear from the substitution made of para 2 of the First Order in these terms - "The management of an institution may appoint by promotion or by direct recruitment, a teacher on purely ad hoc basis in accordance with the provisions of this Order in the case of a substantive vacancy caused by death, retirement resignation or otherwise." 13. The Removal of Difficulties (Third) Order, 1982 went a step further a head and by deleting the limitation contained, in the original Para 3 that ad hoc appointment could not last beyond six months, it substituted the following : - "Every appointment of an ad hoc teacher under Paragraph 2 shall cease to have effect when a candidate recommended by the Commission or the Board, as the case may be, joins the post." 14. Under the Removal of Difficulties Orders thus the management is empowered to appoint by promotion or by direct recruitment, a teacher on ad hoc basis in. Under the Removal of Difficulties Orders thus the management is empowered to appoint by promotion or by direct recruitment, a teacher on ad hoc basis in. the case of a substantive vacancy caused by death, retirement, resignation or otherwise and such appointment may continue till a candidate recommended by the Commission or the Board, as the case may be, joins the post. In case of a short term vacancy also meaning thereby' a vacancy which is not substantive and is of limited duration" the management may make ad hoc appointment which may continue till such vacancy ceases to exist (vide paras 2/3 of the Removal of Difficulties (Second) Order, 1981. The power conferred on the management to fill in substantive vacancies on ad hoc basis following the norms laid in the Removal of Difficulties Orders is, it will be noticed, in addition or supplemental to the power conferred by Section 18 of the Act. This flows clearly from the purpose which section 33 of the Act is designed to subserve in its terms. The Removal of Difficulties Orders occupy the field and provide the requisite mechanism for so long as the Act in all its relevant provisions cannot be implemented. True these in a sense amount to tinkering with what the Act lays down (including in Section 18), but then this is the departure which Section 33 sanctions, and there is really speaking no conflict arising. The Commission has to follow an elaborate procedure which is both time consuming and cumbersome in order to be in position to draw the panel. The unfortunate feature is that during these five years and above the Board could not even be created in any of the regions. For purposes of implementing Section 18 also there must be a time lapse but to let vacancies remain unfilled might be detrimental to the larger interest of the students' community. To evolve some machinery, therefore, to take care of the interregnum lest there be a vacuum created was a sheer necessity, and the Removal of Difficulties Orders arc intended to accomplish this object. To evolve some machinery, therefore, to take care of the interregnum lest there be a vacuum created was a sheer necessity, and the Removal of Difficulties Orders arc intended to accomplish this object. To put this, in other words, the management is empowered to act under the Removal of Difficulties Orders even though this be in modification of the provisions made in Section 18 of the Act; And there can be no dispute that it is a little consequence whether in the resolution or the order passed the reference is to Section 18 of the Act or the Removal of Difficulties Orders. The material fact is the existence of power; a recital of the course thereof even if erroneous has to be ignored. In our considered opinion, the management was competent in these ceases, where though the requisites of Section 18 were not fulfilled to appoint the concerned petitioners under the Removal of Difficulties Orders and such appointment of ad hoc teachers shall cease to have effect when a candidate recommended by the Commission or the Board, as the case may be, joins the post. 15. In so far as the interpretation and effect of Section 18 (3) (c) of the Act is concerned, the issue 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 Ananimity viz - (1) Committee of Management, Sanatan Dharam Inter College, Daulatpur district Mainpuri v. District Inspector of School, Mainpuri, 1985 Education C 322 : 1985 UPLBEC 496. (2) Shiv Chandra Misra and another v. District Inspector of Schools Allahabad and others, 1986 AWC 429 : 1986 UPLBEC 248. (3) Ramji Pathak v. District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad, 1986 UPLBEC 344. (4) Narendra Bahadur' Singh v. District Inspector of Schools, Ballia and another 1986 AWC 768. (5) Murli Prasad and others v. State of U.P. etc., 1986 UPLBEC 274. (6) U.P. Madhyamik Shikshak Sangh v. State of U.P. and another, WP No. 10071 of 1986, decided on September 22, 1986 reported in 1987 UPLBEC 18. 16. (4) Narendra Bahadur' Singh v. District Inspector of Schools, Ballia and another 1986 AWC 768. (5) Murli Prasad and others v. State of U.P. etc., 1986 UPLBEC 274. (6) U.P. Madhyamik Shikshak Sangh v. State of U.P. and another, WP No. 10071 of 1986, decided on September 22, 1986 reported in 1987 UPLBEC 18. 16. In Committed 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 under Section 8 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 Shiv Chandra Misra and another and 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 under Section 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 scoping payment of salary to a teacher validly appointed under Section 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, recommend the candidate for appointment on the post held by the ad hoc appointees. 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." 17. In the last mentioned case viz. U.P. Madhyamik Shikshak Sangh the Division Bench of which one of us (B.D. Agarwal J.) was a member expressed agreement with this view, and observed - "We are not persuaded to attribute 10 the Legislature on intention which is benefit 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. 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..' 18. Feeling concerned at the attitude adopted by the Inspectorate dispute the pronouncements of the Court and in order that the law on the subject be informally observed and unnecessary harrassment caused to the prejudice if the teachers be averted, this Court in that case issued a general direction enjoining upon the State Government to issue specified guidelines to the State Inspectorate. There was also reliance placed on the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in in Comptroller and Auditor General of India v. K.S. Jagannathan and another, (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 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 or given had it properly and lawfully exercised it discretion." 19. The Court felt constrained to observe moreover "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 second the feasibility of suitability amending the Act so as to make provisions for additional machinery to cope with the volume and nature of work relating to the selection of suitable candidates or appointment as teachers for also the object underlying is not sub served. The ad holism is after all not meant to be perpetuated. The setting up of the Boards envisaged by the Act can perhaps brook no further delay. 20. Much to our regret, we are not referred to any such directive having been issued till date. Nor has the Board been established in any of the Regions and the Commission continues as before with the enormous load on itself. In Ratan Lal and others v. State of Haryana and others, (1985) 4 SCC 43 the Supreme Court strongly deprecated the policy of the State Government under which 'ad hoc' teachers are denied the salary and allowance for the period of the summer vacation by resorting to the fictional breaks. In this context it was observed : - "These ad hoc teachers arc unnecessarily subjected to an arbitrary "hiring and firing" policy. These teachers who constitute the bulk of the educated unemployed are compelled to accept these jobs on an ad hoc basis with miserable conditions of service. The Government appears to be exploiting this situation. This is not a sound personnel policy. These teachers who constitute the bulk of the educated unemployed are compelled to accept these jobs on an ad hoc basis with miserable conditions of service. The Government appears to be exploiting this situation. This is not a sound personnel policy. It is bound to have serious repercussions on the educational institutions and the children studying there. The policy of ad holism followed by the State Government for a long period has led to the breach of Article i 6 of the Constitution. Such a situation cannot be permitted to last any longer. It is needless to say that the State Government is expected to function as a model employer." 21. We still hope the State Government would realise that the process breeds frustration and uncertainty in the teaching profession. The resulting loss to the excellence of education is not difficult to imagine. It is not perhaps realised that the salutary object of the "Act is likely to be defeated if action is not taken swiftly to put an end to he ad holism in this sphere. The provisions contained in Section 18 of Act or the Removal of Difficulties Orders are essentially transitory in nature ; there ought to be measures taken lest these stop gap arrangements are perpetuated. For so long as that is not done, the transitory provisions must continue to be observed in their true letter and spirit and the attitude of hiring and firing such teachers on the expiry of June 30 in successive years cannot be sustained. 22. In the light of the discussion made above, we direct that till the services of the petitioner are terminated in accordance with law or the candidates recommended by the Commission, or, the Board, as the case may be, join the post held by the petitioners, the District Inspectors of Schools the Regional Inspector of Girls Schools concerned shall treat the appointment of the petitioners as continuing as if the same did not automatically cease under clause (a) or clause (c) of sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 and shall ensure also that the salary admissible to the petitioners continues to be paid to them regularly in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971. The petitions are allowed accordingly. The petitions are allowed accordingly. There will be order as to the costs.