JUDGMENT D.S. Bajpai, J. - Writ petition No 4017 of 1985 has been filed by petitioners, Ayodhya Prasad Bajpai and Rakesh Kumar Pathak, inter alia, praying for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 5-6-1985 (Annexure 10) and the order dated 11-7-1985 (Annexure 11) passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Rae-bareli (hereinafter referred to as the Inspector for brevity) by which he directed stoppage of payment of salary to the petitioners on the posts of Lecturers in Civics and Sanskrit respectively with immediate effect even though they had been appointed and their services continued as Lecturers by the Committee of Management of the College by Annexures 9 and 8 respectively dated 2nd March, 1982 on an ad hoc basis in pursuance to U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Third) Order, 1981 by which the appointment with condition that as and when the Service Commission makes regular selection for appointment on the said posts and candidates selected reported for duty and joined the said posts, the appointments would cease to be effective. 2. The petitioners have asserted that by subsequent order, dated 18th July, 1985 the Inspector directed the termination of the petitioners services. The case of the petitioners is that Shiv Bhajan Lal Janhit Inter College, Raipur, district Rae-bareli (hereinafter referred as the College) is an institution recognised and is governed by the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and the Regulations framed thereunder (hereinafter referred as the Act and the Regulations respectively). The appointing authority of the petitioners under the Act is the Committee of Management which appointed them initially as Lecturers on their respective posts on 20th November, 1979. These appointments are said to have been made in substantive vacancies after due advertisement and proper selection being held as envisaged under the Act and that ever since 20th November, 1979 the petitioners have been doing teaching work and performing their duties. Their case is that although there existed three vacancies of Lecturers including the two posts held by the petitioners, yet the Committee of Management under the directions of the Inspector made appointment of the petitioners on 12-11-1979 on ad hoc basis for a period to continued till 20th May, 1980, issued to the petitioners dated 10-12-1980 (Annexures 4 and 5 respectively). The Inspector by letter dated 31st March, 1981 accorded approval to the appointment of the petitioners up to 20th May, 1981 with the same condition as indicated herein above. This letter of approval is on record as Annexure 8 By another order it appears that recovery of salary from the petitioners for the period 1-7-1981 to 30-9-81 amounting to Rs. 2,542 was directed and the decision of the Inspector was communicated to the petitioners by the Committee of Management. The petitioners along with, one Ashok Kumar Trivedi filed Writ Petition No. 5209 of 1983 in this Court in which a writ of certiorari was prayed for to quash the directions of the Inspector about the recovery of salary as also the decision of the Committee of Management for deduction of the salary. This writ petition was initially admitted and while admitting the petition, this Court directed stay of recovery from the petitioners salary and the aforesaid writ petition was pending when the instant writ petition was filed Thereafter appointment letters were issued from time to time extending the appointment of the petitioners and the petitioners continued to be in service without break. The events subsequent thereto have been indicated herein above. Ultimately the impugned order contained in Annexure 10 directing stoppage of payment of salary to the petitioners was passed. Despite the fact that the Committee of Management pointed out to the Inspector that since the petitioners were continuously working since 1979 and they having approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India against the order of this Court on application for interim relief and their Special Leave Petition being still pending, the salary of the petitioners was not liable to be withheld, but no action was taken thereon The order of 11th July, 1985 referred herein above informed the Management that since some reserve pool teachers had not been appointed till then, pool teachers and they were directed to join on the posts of the petitioners. The petitioners have relied on the provisions of Paragraph 3 by which Paragraph 3 of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 has been substituted which is as follows : "3. The petitioners have relied on the provisions of Paragraph 3 by which Paragraph 3 of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 has been substituted which is as follows : "3. 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." It is on this basis that the petitioners assert that they were entitled to continue in service till duly recommended candidates by the Commission or Board joined on the posts held by the petitioners and as no appointments had been made nor even recommendation received by the Commission or the Board, no other person was entitled to join the said post. This Court on 1-11-1985 stayed the operation of the impugned order terminating the services of the petitioners and directed the opposite parties to pay salary to them. The two reserve pool teachers sought to be appointed in their place i. e. Mata Pher Pandey and Rajendra Kumar Trivedi were directed by the Court to be impleaded by order dated 21st January, 1986. These teachers filed an application for vacation of interim order along with an application for impleadment and the same was allowed by virtue of which the opposite-parties 4 and 5, Mata Pher Pandey and Rajendra Kumar Trivedi, were allowed to do teaching work in the College and were further allowed to draw their salary. These two newly impleaded opposite-parties filed their respective counter-Affidavits and the petitioners filed their rejoinder-Affidavit thereto. 3. These two newly impleaded opposite-parties filed their respective counter-Affidavits and the petitioners filed their rejoinder-Affidavit thereto. 3. Thereafter, it appears that the Committee of Management of the College filed Writ Petition No. 5560 of 1985 impleading Mata Pher Pandey and Rajendra Kumar Trivedi, opposite-parties 4 and 5 respectively, in the aforementioned writ petition as opposite-parties 2 and 3 and the petitioners therein Ayodhya Prasad Bajpai and Ashok Kumar Pathak in the aforesaid writ petition as opposite-parties 5 and 6 respectively praying for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned orders dated 25-9-1985, 27-9-1985 and 5-6-1985 contained in Annexures 12, 13 and 7 respectively to the said writ petition with a further prayer that the opposite-party No 1, the Inspector, be directed not to thrust the services of the opposite-parties 2 and 3 on the institution and also from making payment of salary to these opposite-parties with a farther direction that the opposite-parties 5 and 6 i. e. petitioners in Writ Petition No. 4017 of 1985 be directed to receive their salary regularly. 4. In the said writ petition also opposite-parties 2 to 4 filed their counter-affidavit and a rejoinder-Affidavit was filed by the petitioner in reply thereto. Thus the controversy for all intents and purposes in the two writ petitions is the same and that is to the effect whether Ayodhya Prasad Bajpai and Rakesh Kumar Pathak, petitioners in Writ Petition No. 4017 of 1985, were entitled under law to continue on the posts of Lecturers in Civics and Sanskrit respectively on which they were originally appointed as far back as on 12-11-1979 on ad hoc basis having been regularised on the said posts or in their place opposite-parties 4 and 5 in Writ Petition No. 4017 of 1985 who are opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 in Writ Petition No. 5568 of 1985 had a right of being appointed in their place being reserve pool teachers. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavits exchanged between the parties. 5. 2 and 3 in Writ Petition No. 5568 of 1985 had a right of being appointed in their place being reserve pool teachers. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavits exchanged between the parties. 5. The position of law as it emerges, and as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the two writ petitions, is that in view of a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Committee of Management of Sanatam Dharm Intermediate College, Daulatpur, district Mainpuri v. District Inspector of Schools, Mainpuri and another, 1985 U. P Local Bodies and Educational Cases 496, ad hoc teachers holding the posts on which no appointments had been made by the Commission, which is not disputed in the instant case the petitioners were to continue thereon and also in view of the undisputed fact that the Committee of Management was also in favour of paying salary to these teachers and has come to the Court seeking redress on behalf of the teachers as in the case of the Committee of Management of Sanatan Dharm Intermediate College (supra) their salaries had to be prayed and the only reason for non - payment of their salary was the stand taken by the opposite-party is fallacious since there is no gain saying the fact that the intention of enacting Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Service Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982, so far they are relevant, are cited herein below : "1. Adhoc 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. (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 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 posts ; (b) when the period of one month referred in Sub-section (4) of Section 11 expires ; (c) thirtieth day of June following the date of such ad hoc appointment." 6. Before coming into force of the said Act Ordinance No. 8 of H81 was issued, but since the constitution of the Board for selection of teachers was likely to take some time, the Governor issued the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 on July 31, 1981 which is known as First Removal of Difficulties Order and the preamble of this Order reads as under : "And whereas the establishment of the Commission and the Selection Board is likely to take some time and even after the establishment of the said Commission and Boards, it is not possible to make selection of the teachers for the first few months ; and whereas a number of vacancies in the posts of teachers in various institutions recognised under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, exist and the failure or delay in tiling up of such vacancies is likely to create difficulties ; Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers under Section 33 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Ordinance, 19X1 (U.P. Ordinance No. 8 of 1981), the Governor is pleased to direct that the provisions of the said Ordinance shall have effect subject to the provisions of the following order." 7. Paragraph 2 of this Order permits "the appointment by promotion or by direct recruitment of a teacher by the Committee of Management on ad hoc basis and the period of this appointment was provided in paragraph 3, paragraph 2 provides as under : "2. Paragraph 2 of this Order permits "the appointment by promotion or by direct recruitment of a teacher by the Committee of Management on ad hoc basis and the period of this appointment was provided in paragraph 3, paragraph 2 provides as under : "2. Every appointment of an ad hoc teacher under paragraph 2 shall cease to have effect from the earliest of the dates, namely, - (a) When the candidate recommended by the Commission or the Board joins the post; or (b) when the period of six months from the date of such ad hoc appointment expires." Thereafter clause (3) of the First Order was substituted by paragraph 3 of the Third Order, 1982 which is as under : "3. Every appointment of an ad hoc teacher under paragraph 2 shall cease to have effect when a candidate recommended by the Commission or the Boards, as the case may be, joins the post." 8. The Division Bench repelled the contention that the petitioners could not get benefit of these Orders because they were to operate as long as the Board was not constituted, as contemplated in Section 18 of the Act, and the provisions of the Removal of Difficulties Order would not apply. Relying on an earlier decision of this Court in the case of Syed Ali Adil Jafri v. State, 1984 UPLBEC 498, the Court held : "Even otherwise the argument is fraught with greater danger if it is accepted it is capable of causing untold misery and hardship to the teachers and can give rise to a pigment situation, as in this case, that a person who has been duly appointed by the management. Whose appointment has been approved and against whom there is no charge, yet he may not be paid his salary because 30th of June has intervened. Such could not have been the legislative intention and in case the Court comes to the conclusion that construing the provisions literally results in an anomalous situation, then the Court can certainly read down the provisions in such a manner that it may not only carry out the intention of the legislature but it may not result in hardship to the teachers as well. There is no provision in the Act that in case 30th June, 1982 falls and no regular appointment has been made then what would be the consequence." The Court thereafter held : "Therefore, from whatever aspect it is considered the order of Inspector of Schools stopping payment of salary as no fresh proposal was made cannot be sustained." The decision of this Court, therefore, is on all fours with the facts and circumstances of this case and is fully applicable herein. On the other hand learned Counsel for the opposite-parties has placed reliance on a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case Prabodh Verma and others v. State of U.P., 1984 All LJ 931, where the Court was pleased to uphold the constitutional validity of Sections 1 and 4 of U.P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Reserve Pool Teachers) Ordinance, 1978 (Ordinance 10 of 1978) and U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Reserve Pool Teachers (Second) Ordinance, 1978 (Ordinance No. 22 of 1978) and directed : "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 filed by direct recruitment as and when such vacancy occurs." 9. We are of the considered opinion that opposite-parties 4 and 5, Mata Pher Pandey and Rajendra Kumar Trivedi in Writ Petition No. 4017 of 1985 and opposite-parties 2 and 3 in Writ Petition 5560 of 1985, are entitled to get benefit of the directions of their Lordships of the Supreme Court and will most certainly be considered for appointment to the posts of teachers if they are in the reserve pool in accordance with law as per provisions of Second Ordinance, 1978 (U.P. Ordinance 22 of 1978) as and when substantive vacancies in the posts of teachers arise but not against the posts already held by petitioners Ayodhya Prasad Bajpai and Rakesh Kumar Pathak in Writ Petition No. 4017 of 1985 who have been arrayed as opposite-parties 5 and 6 respectively in Writ Petition No. 5560 of 1985, in view of the decision of the Divisional Bench in the case of Committee of Management of Sanatan Dharm Intermediate College, Daulatpur (supra). 10. 10. In the result, the two writ petitions succeed and are allowed and the orders of the District Inspector of Schools dated 5-6-1985 and 11-7-1985 (Annexures 10 and 11 respectively) in Writ Petition No. 4017 of 1985 are hereby quashed as also the orders dated 25-9-1985 (Annexure 12), and 27-9-1985 (Annexure 13) and 5-6-1985 (Annexure 7) to the Writ Petition No. 5560 of 1985 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Rae Bareli, stand quashed, Let a writ of certiorari issue accordingly. As indicated herein above, opposite-parties, Mata Pher Pandey and Rajendra Kumar Trivedi, opposite-parties 4 and 5 in Writ Petition No. 4017 of 1985 who are opposite-parties 2 and 3 in Writ Petition No. 5560 of 1985 will be appointed by the District Inspector of Schools, Rae Bareli under the provisions of U.P. Ordinance 22 of 1978 to substantive vacancies in the post of teachers in recognised institutions which are required to be filled in by direct recruitment as and when such vacancy occurs provided they have been brought on the register of reserve pool teachers in accordance with law. The petitioners shall also be entitled to get their salary and to work on the posts which were held by them without any break at the time of the presentation of the, writ petition. It is, however, made clear that in case the aforesaid opposite parties, Mata Pher Pandey and Rajendra Kumar Trivedi, have actually worked and received their salary,they will not be called upon to refund the amount received by them. This is in consonance with the directions of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the decision dated 8-5-1986 passed in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 2890 of 1980 which is on the record of Writ Petition No. 4017 of 1985. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.