JUDGMENT B.L. Loomba, J.-All these Writ Petitions raise common question of fact and law and are taken up to be disposed of together. 2. The petitioners were appointed as teachers in the various institutions by the Management Committees thereof on ad hoc basis under the provisions of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 as modified from time to time. There is no averment in the writ petition that these appointments were made in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2 read with Paragraph 5 of the Removal of Difficulties Order. In other words none of these appointments was made on the basis of quality point marks as provided in Paragraphs 2 and 5, read with appendix to the Removal of Difficulties Order. 3. Duration of ad hoc appointments as per the order of appointment initially was for a period of six months from the date of the appointment or when the candidate recommended by the Commission or the Boards joins the post, whichever earlier. Through amendment made under the Third Removal of Difficulties Order it was provided that every appointment of an ad hoc teacher under Paragraph 2 shall cease to have effect when a candidate recommended by the Commission or Boards, as the case may be, joins the post This means that irrespective of the terms of the appointment under the order of appointment an ad hoc appointed has a right to continue for so long as a candidate selected by the Commission or Boards, as the case may be, joins the post. 4. In the meantime a new Section 33-A was inserted in U.P. Act No. 5 of 82 through U.P. Ordinance No. 12 of 85 which provided for regularisation of certain category of teachers who were appointed directly in accordance with her provisions of Paragraph 2, read with Paragraph 5 and Appendix V to the U.P. Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981. The petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of regularisation under this provision inasmuch as they were not selected on the basis of quality point marks through the District Inspector of Schools concerned. They have challenged the validity of Sections 33-A on the ground of discrimination. The petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of regularisation under this provision inasmuch as they were not selected on the basis of quality point marks through the District Inspector of Schools concerned. They have challenged the validity of Sections 33-A on the ground of discrimination. Validity of Section 33-A came to be considered in Chandrika Prasad Yadav v. State of U.P., 1986 Education Cases 233, wherein it was held that this section is not hit by Article 14 of the Constitution and that the classification is perfectly legitimate, reasonable and relatable to the object sought to be achieved. We respectfully agree with the view adopted under the said decision and the challenge to the validity of Section 33-A accordingly fails. 5. In some of the writ petitions regularisation under Section 33-A has been claimed but for obvious reasons the petitioners are not entitled to such benefit because only those teachers who were directly appointed in accordance with the procedure laid down in paragraphs 2 and 5 of the Removal of Difficulties Order and who satisfy other requirements laid down in Sub-section (1) of Section 33-A were entitled to be regularised. The petitioners having not been so selected are not entitled to the benefit of regularisation under Section 33-A. 6. The petitioners have no legal right to hold the posts in question except for specified duration as is provided under the Third Removal of Difficulties Order the appointment of an ad hoc appointee shall cease to have a leet when a candidate recommended by the Commission or the Boards, as the case may be, joins the post. 7. Further a reserve pool teacher will have also a preferential claim against an ad hoc appointee. 8. 7. Further a reserve pool teacher will have also a preferential claim against an ad hoc appointee. 8. For the reasons as above, each of the writ petition is disposed of with the order that if the petitioner possessed requisite qualifications for the post and was duly appointed by the management by direct recruitment or promotion, his appointment shall be deemed to have been renewed on the expiry of 30th June being the date of such appointment and the District Inspector of Schools shall treat the petitioner validly appoint and continue in service and pay the salary of the post to him until petitioner is relieved by a reserve pool teacher or by a candidate recommended by the Commission or the Board, as the case may be joins the post, whichever may be earlier. In the facts of the case the parties shall bear their own costs. Interim orders, if any, shall stand discharged.