JUDGMENT S.N. SAHAY, J. 1. KRISHNA Dutt Singh and Saheb Singh, petitioners, have filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14439 of 1987 for a writ of mandamus directing the District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur and the Committee of Management of Shri Ramrekha Singh Intermediate College, Urwa Bazar, Gorakhpur, opposite parties, to pay the salary of the petitioners regularly including the past arrears. The petitioners have also prayed that the opposite parties may be restrained from interfering in the working of the petitioners on their respective posts till the promotion of the petitioner No. 1 is decided by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission or fresh candidates recommended by the Commission are appointed. 2. THE case of the petitioners is that Krishna Dutt Singh, petitioner No. 1, was promoted and that it was decided by the Committee of Management to promote Krishna Dutt Singh in L.T. grade and to appoint Saheb Singh, petitioner No. 2, in C.T. grade, on adhoc basis. THE case of the petitioners was referred by the Committee of Management to the District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur for approval. THE District Inspector of Schools by his order dated April 25, 1987 accorded approval to the promotion of Krishna Dutt Singh from C.T. grade to L.T. grade on adhoc basis and to the appointment of Saheb Singh in C.T. grade on adhoc basis and further laid down the condition that the salary of the petitioners would be payable from February, 1987 to May 20, 1987. This stipulation was made on the basis of the fact that Krishna Dutt Singh had been promoted in place of Jagdish Singh, who had been in his turn promoted as a Lecturer on adhoc basis. It was also laid down that the aforesaid arrangement would automatically come to an end on the reversion of Jagdish Singh to his original post. THE Manager of the College issued formal letters to the petitioners in accordance with the terms and conditions subject to which the approval was granted by the District Inspector of Schools. After that, the petitioners made various representations to the District Inspector of Schools for directing payment of salary to be made to them even after May 20, 1987 and eventually they filed the writ petition. After that, the petitioners made various representations to the District Inspector of Schools for directing payment of salary to be made to them even after May 20, 1987 and eventually they filed the writ petition. It may be mentioned that the petitioners also moved an application for an ad-interim order for payment of salary and upon this application a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble B. N. Misra and Hon'ble S. K. Mookerji, JJ. passed an order dated July 22, 1987 that the petitioner No. 1 shall continue in his post in L.T. grade until a candidate duly selected by the Commission joins the post held by him or the teacher, on whose promotion petitioner No. 1 had been promoted, reverts to his original post and that petitioner No. 2 shall continue in C.T. grade until petitioner No. 1, on whose promotion petitioner No. 2 was appointed in C.T. grade, reverts to his original post. 3. IN this writ petition one Jai Prakash Singh has applied for being impleaded as opposite party No. 3. He has also moved a seperate application to vacate the ad interim order passed by this Court on July 22, 1987. He has claimed that Krishna Dutt Singh, who is a Biology Teacher, is not qualified to be promoted in L.T. grade in the vacancy caused by the promotion of Jagdish Singh as Lecturer. On the other hand, he should have been promoted in place of Jagdish Singh, as he was a Science Teacher and was teaching the subjects of Science, namely, Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry. It is on this ground that Jai Prakash Singh has applied for being made a party in the writ petition and for getting the stay order dated July 22, 1987 vacated. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the District Inspector of Schools. It is stated therein that the Committee of Management is not empowered to make any appointment by way of promotion on regular basis without prior selection and the approval by the Commission and as such the promotion made in L.T. grade and appointment made in CT. grade are only adhoc and cannot be continued beyond May 20, 1987 for which the approval had been given by the District Inspector of Schools. The petitioner Jai Prakash Singh has filed a separate writ petition, being Civil Misc. grade are only adhoc and cannot be continued beyond May 20, 1987 for which the approval had been given by the District Inspector of Schools. The petitioner Jai Prakash Singh has filed a separate writ petition, being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16052 of 1987 and has prayed that a writ of certiorari may be issued to quash the order dated October 21, 1986 passed by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission to the effect that Jai Prakash is not qualified for promotion in L.T. grade in the vacancy caused by the death of Shoaib Ahmad on December 31, 1984 because he had not to his credit five years continuous service in C.T. grade. There is a further prayer for granting a mandamus directing the respondents to promote Jai Prakash Singh as Science Teacher in L. T. grade on substantive basis and not to interfere with his functioning as such and also to make payment of salary to him from July 1, 1987 onwards. It is averred that before joining the above mentioned College Jai Prakash Singh had worked in Lalitraj Singh Junior Higher Secondary School, Dhubauli Gorakhpur in J. T. C. grade from July 22, 1976 to May 31, 1977 and in C. T. grade from July 1, 1977 to May 31, 1978 and, therefore, it is not correct to say that he had not completed five years continuous service in CT. grade He has also challenged the validity of the provisions, which require the completion of five years continuous service in C. T. grade on the date of occurrence of the vacancy. 5. COUNTER-affidavits have been filed on behalf of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission, respondent No. 2, and the Manager of the College, respondent No. 4. They have justified the stand taken by the Commission on the ground that the services rendered by Jai Prakash Singh in Lalitraj Singh Junior Higher Secondary School cannot be taken into account. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the remaining respondents Nos. 1, 3 and 5. 6. JAI Prakash Singh has filed a rejoinder affidavit and while reiterating the pleas raised by him in the writ petition, has also challenged the validity of the appointment of one Surendra Pratap Singh, who was selected by the Commission as a result of direct recruitment in the vacancy caused by the death of Shoaib Ahmad. 1, 3 and 5. 6. JAI Prakash Singh has filed a rejoinder affidavit and while reiterating the pleas raised by him in the writ petition, has also challenged the validity of the appointment of one Surendra Pratap Singh, who was selected by the Commission as a result of direct recruitment in the vacancy caused by the death of Shoaib Ahmad. Both the above mentioned writ petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 7. SO far as the case of Jai Prakash Singh is concerned, it is sufficient to say that he was not eligible for promotion in L. T. grade in the vacancy caused by the death of Shoaib Ahmad because he had not put in atleast five years continuous service as Teacher on the date of occurrence of vacancy i.e. December 31, 1984 in C. T. grade. The Commission was right in taking the view that the services rendered by Jai Prakash Singh in C. T. grade in a Junior Higher Secondary School cannot be taken into account. 8. LEARNED counsel representing Jai Prakash Singh has however, contended that sub-rule (1) of rule 9 of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1985 is arbitrary inasmuch as it fixes the date of occurrence of vacancy as the relevant date for determining whether a teacher working in L. T. or C. T. grade has put in at least five years' continuous service. Sub rule (1) of rule 9 provides that where any vacancy is to be filled by promotion, all teachers working in L. T. or C. T. grade who possess the minimum qualifications and have put in atleast five years' continuous service as teacher in the concerned subject on the date of occurrence of vacancy shall be considered for promotion without their having applied for the same. The Secondary Education Services Commission has been established under the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 for the selection of teachers in institutions recognised under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Under section 10 of the first-mentioned Act, the management of an institution is required to notify the vacancy to the Commission for purposes of making appointment of a teacher and the procedure of selection of candidates for appointment of such teachers shall be such as may be prescribed. Under section 10 of the first-mentioned Act, the management of an institution is required to notify the vacancy to the Commission for purposes of making appointment of a teacher and the procedure of selection of candidates for appointment of such teachers shall be such as may be prescribed. In this connection, it is further provided in section 32 that the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the Regulations made thereunder insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the said Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder shall continue to be in force for the purposes of selection of a teacher. 9. UNDER the Intermediate Education Act, every post of teacher could be filled, vide section 16-E, by direct recruitment and also by promotion to the prescribed extent. In accordance with regulation 5 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Act, forty per cent of the total number of sanctioned posts in the L.T. grade shall be filled only by promotion from amongst the teachers working in the C.T. grade. According to regulation 6, where any vacancy in the L.T. grade is to be filled by promotion, all teachers working in the C.T. grade having a minimum of five years' continuous service to their credit on the date of occurrence of vacancy shall be considered by promotion, without their having applied for the same, provided they possess the minimum qualifications for teaching the subject in which the teacher in the L.T. grade is required. 10. THUS it will appear that under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, forty per cent of the total number of sanctioned posts was to be filled only by promotion and when it was warranted that a vacancy in the L.T. grade shall be filled by promotion from amongst the teachers working in the C.T. grade, it was required that a teacher should fulfill two conditions to be considered for promotion, that is to say, (i) he should have the prescribed minimum qualifications for teaching the subject, and (ii) he should have a minimum of five years' continuous substantive service to his credit on the occurrence of the vacancy. And it was further provided that service rendered by a teacher in the C.T. grade in any other recognised institution shall count for eligibility, unless interrupted by removal, dismissal or reduction to lower post. And it was further provided that service rendered by a teacher in the C.T. grade in any other recognised institution shall count for eligibility, unless interrupted by removal, dismissal or reduction to lower post. When the Secondary Education Services Commission Act and the Rules framed thereunder came into operation, the provision relating to the prescribed extent namely, forty per cent of the total number of sanctioned posts, for filling vacancies by promotion was saved by section 32 of the Act and the remaining part of the Scheme in the provisions was adopted and given statutory recognition by means of sub rule (i) of rule 9 of the Rules. The only change which was effected by this sub-rule was that the requirement as to five years' continuous substantive service was replaced by five years' continuous service in the concerned subject. 11. IT is required by sub-rule (1) of rule 9 that a teacher in C.T. grade, who claims to be promoted in the L.T. grade should not only possess the minimum academic qualifications prescribed therefore but should also have sufficient teaching experience, so that he may be able to discharge his duties efficiently pertaining to the teaching of the subject in higher classes. Normally, a vacancy should be filled on the date on which it arises, so that there may be no vacuum and the continuity in teaching work may be maintained and the interests of the students may not suffer. IT is only in exceptional circumstances that a vacancy may be filled at a date later than the date on which it has arisen. When a post is allowed to remain vacant, it naturally causes dislocation in teaching work and disrupts the smooth running of the institution. Therefore, the date of occurrence of vacancy is the reasonable date which in the ordinary course of nature may be regarded as relevant for taking into account the academic qualifications and teaching experiences of a candidate who claims to be promoted. 12. IT may be pointed out that in case of promotion, no candidate is required to apply for the same. 12. IT may be pointed out that in case of promotion, no candidate is required to apply for the same. Where the selection is to be made by direct recruitment, the vacancy is to be advertised by the Commission and applications are to be invited from the intending candidates, In case of direct recruitment, no candidate can be expected to have any knowledge of the vacancy, so that he may be able to assess whether he fulfils the prescribed conditions and should apply or not for the post. But there is no such problem with a teacher who claims promotion, because he is a teacher working in C.T. grade in the same institution and he is expected to know about the vacancy and his own ability and standing for being considered for the post. Therefore, having regard to the scheme of the Act and the rules, the circumstances prevailing at the commencement thereof, the object of the statutory provision, it appears to us that the choice of date as the date of occurrence of vacancy in sub-rule (1) of rule 9 cannot be regarded as arbitrary or capricious; it has been selected on a rational basis and has reasonable nexus with the object of the enactment. 13. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that the relevant date should have been the date of selection and not the date of occurrence of vacancy. The procedure for the selection by promotion is given in sub-rule (3) to (6) of rule 9. The management shall prepare a list of teachers referred to in sub-rule (1) and forward it to the Commission through the Inspector with a copy of seniority list, service records including the character rolls and a statement in the proforma given in appendix ' A '. Within three weeks of the receipt of the list from the Management, under sub-rule (3) the Inspector shall verify the facts and forward the list to the Commission. The Commission shall, after calling for such additional information as it may consider necessary, intimate the name of selected candidate or candidates to the Inspector with a copy to the Manager of the Institution. The Inspector shall, in his turn, send the name of the selected candidate to the Manager of the concerned institution and thereafter the process relating to actual appointment shall be completed. 14. The Inspector shall, in his turn, send the name of the selected candidate to the Manager of the concerned institution and thereafter the process relating to actual appointment shall be completed. 14. THE completion of procedure for selection of teachers by promotion, as indicated above, will naturally take some time. Neither the Commission will be in a position to know nor the candidate will be able to ascertain the date of selection which would be uncertain. THE inherent uncertainty of the date of selection with reference to which the five years' period of continuous service might be determined according to the provisions of rule 9 (1) may give rise to various kinds of malpractices such as favourtism, nepotism etc. in the actual working of those provisions. In order to favour a particular candidate or to exclude a particular candidate from consideration, the time gap may be prolonged or shortened by the Management or other authorities in respect of, the performance of various acts assigned to them by or under rule 9. Therefore, the choice of date of selection as the relevant date for determining the requisite period of continuous service would not be reasonable and would have no nexus with the object of the rule, as it would not serve the purpose. THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this behalf must fail accordingly. When a statutory provision is assailed on the ground that it is arbitrary and contravenes Article 14 of the Constitution, it must be shown in every case that there is some nexus between the basis of the classification and the object intended to be achieved by the statute. This was firmly laid down in the case of Pandurangarao v. Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, AIR 1963 SC 268 . The test of rational basis of the statutory provision and its nexus with the object of the statute has been repeatedly followed in a number of cases. This was firmly laid down in the case of Pandurangarao v. Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, AIR 1963 SC 268 . The test of rational basis of the statutory provision and its nexus with the object of the statute has been repeatedly followed in a number of cases. For instance, the fixation of a date for determining the long tenure of temporary teachers for the purposes of regularisation was upheld in Sushma Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1985 SC 1367 ; the fixation of different age of retirement for various categories of employees of Life Insurance Corporation of India and for employees joining service after a particular date was held to be valid in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. S. S. Srivastava, AIR 1987 SC 1527 ; the rule prescribing 58 years of age for retirement of officers recruited subsequent to 19th July, 1969, i.e. after nationalisation of banks was held to be constitutional ; and the provisions of section 31-B of the U.P. Higher Educational Services Commission Act, 1980 fixing a particular date as the cut-off date for the regularisation of the services of ad hoc teachers was adjudged to be not arbitrary or irrational in Uttar Pradesh Tadarth Shikshak Niyamitikaran Abhiyan Samiti v. State of U. P., AIR 1987 SC 1772 . In the last mentioned case it was observed that it was clearly not in public interest to allow the Management of affiliated Colleges to continue making ad hoc appointments indefinitely and a line had to be drawn some where and so the adoption of 3rd January, 1984 as the cut-off date, that being the date of expiry of the Second Removal of Difficulties Order, could not be characterised as arbitrary or irrational and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 15. WITH regard to the choice of a date, it was laid down in Union of India v. Parameshwaram Match Works Ltd., AIR 1974 SC 2349 that the choice of a date as a basis for classification cannot always be dubbed as arbitrary even if no particular reason is forthcoming for the choice, unless it is shown to be capricious or whimsical in the circumstances. When it is seen that a line or a point there must be and there is no mathematical or logical way of fixing it precisely, the decision of the legislarure or its delegate must be accepted unless it can be said that it is very wide of the reasonable mark. In Sushma Sharma's case (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court have gone to the extent of holding that even a handy date-handy in the sense that it cane quickly in the minds of some people-may be fixed by the Statute. 16. OUR attention has not been drawn to any case in which the contention raised on behalf of Jai Prakash Singh has been specifically dealt with. There are, no doubt, some cases, which are cited at the bar, but they refer to different matters. In Smt. Shanti Devi Verma v. Deputy Director of Education, 1982 Education Cases 226, the provisions of section 16-E (3) of the .Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and Regulation 6 (1) of Chapter II of the Regulations framed thereunder, were considered by a learned single Judge and it was held that even though the appointment of the petitioner in the instant case was in breach of Sec. 16-F (2) of the Act, nevertheless, such appointment was a regular and not void. In view of the fact that at the crucial time when the petitioner's services were going to be terminated she had already acquired full qualifications for her job and, therefore, she should not be visited with such penalty at the instance of the management. In Harish Chandra Misra v. The District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur, 1986 UP LB EC 169 a Division Bench had the occasion to consider the provisions of the aforesaid Regulation 6 (1). After referring to the earlier cases including the case of Smt. Shanti Devi Verma (supra) it was held that two things required by Regulation 6 (1), namely, five years' experience and the minimum qualifications for teaching have to be established with reference to the date of occurring of the vacancy. If on that date a person applying for the post did not possess any of the two qualifications, he would not be qualified. 17. THE provisions of Rule 9 of U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1983 were considered in Dharampal Singh Chauhan v. State of U. P., 1987 Education Cases 279. If on that date a person applying for the post did not possess any of the two qualifications, he would not be qualified. 17. THE provisions of Rule 9 of U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1983 were considered in Dharampal Singh Chauhan v. State of U. P., 1987 Education Cases 279. It was held that the requirements of the rule should be that any teacher working in L. T. grade, who has put in at least five years' continuous service as a teacher on the date of occurrence of vacancy, shall be considered for promotion. THE field of operation of Rule 9 is in regard to promotion both to L. T. grade as well as to the Lecturer's garde and has its effect on teachers working both in C. T. grade as well as in L. T. grade. By the use of the expression 'as the case may be' the framers of the rules intended that the teachers desirous for being considered for promotion from L. T. grade as a Lecturer should have atleast five years' continuous service as a teacher in L. T. grade. Similar will be the situation for a teacher being promoted to the L. T. grade from C. T. grade. 18. THE learned counsel has also referred to the case of Harihar Singh v. Deputy Director of Education, 1985 UP LB EC 299. In that case the order of the Deputy Director passed on the representation of the Committee of Management under Chapter II Regulation 6 (3) of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 was challenged. THE representation was made by the Committee of Management against the disapproval of the name of one Sri Harihar Singh by the District Inspector of Schools and it was prayed that the promotion of Sri Harihar Singh to the post of lecturer in History may be approved. No other relief was sought in the representation. No question regarding appointment of two other persons Sri Satish Chandra Srivasatva and Sri Avinash Chandra was raised in the representation. Subsequently it was held that it was not open to the Deputy Director of Education to set aside the regular appointment of Sri Satish Chandra Srivastava and Sri Avinash Chandra as lecturers while disposing of the representation and direct that the posts be deemed to have been filled both in ad hoc capacity. Subsequently it was held that it was not open to the Deputy Director of Education to set aside the regular appointment of Sri Satish Chandra Srivastava and Sri Avinash Chandra as lecturers while disposing of the representation and direct that the posts be deemed to have been filled both in ad hoc capacity. After recording this finding a further observation was made and it seems that it was by way of obiter dicta that as far as Sri Avinash Chandra is concerned, he had become qualified for appointment by acquiring M. A. degree after the post on which he had been promoted fell vacant and so any irregularity in his appointment would be cured as he was qualified on the date on which the proposal to promote him was sent to the District Inspector of Schools by the Committee of Management for the second time. In this connection a reference was made to the case of Smt. Shanti Devi Verma, cited above. THE precise question relating to the validity of the date of occurrence of vacancy as the relevant date was not raised and decided in the case of Harihar Singh. Therefore, it is of no avail to the petitioner, Jai Prakash Singh, in so far as the controversy in the present writ petition is concerned. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not tenable and in our opinion, the fixation of date of occurrence of vacancy as the relevant date for determining five years continuous service, envisaged in sub-rule (1) of rule 9, referred to above, is neither arbitrary nor irrational nor violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Jai Prakash Singh was not eligible for promotion because he had not completed five years' continuous service in C T. grade on 31-12-1984 the date of occurrence of the vacancy. The writ petition filed by him is accordingly liable to be dismissed. 19. WE may, however, notice one submission advanced on behalf of Jai Prakash Singh. Jai Prakash Singh was not eligible for promotion because he had not completed five years' continuous service in C T. grade on 31-12-1984 the date of occurrence of the vacancy. The writ petition filed by him is accordingly liable to be dismissed. 19. WE may, however, notice one submission advanced on behalf of Jai Prakash Singh. The contention was that even if the petitioner was not eligible on the date of occurrence of the last vacancy caused by the death of Shoeb Ahmad, he had in any case become eligible by the time the subsequent vacancy came into existence by the promotion of Jagdish Singh in the lecturer's grade as by that time the petitioner had completed five years of continuous service in C. T. grade. That being so, it was urged that the petitioner should have been promoted. WE are expressing no opinion on this contention as it will be for the Commission to look into this aspect of the matter when it is considering the case of regular promotion to the L. T. Grade in regard to the subsequent vacancy caused by the promotion of Jagdish Singh. WE leave the matter at that. 20. WE will next turn to writ petition no. 14439 of 1987. In this case the grievance of the petitioner is that their appointments should not have been limited to 20-5-1987 and that they should have been allowed to continue on ad hoc basis till the posts were filled by a regular appointment. The contention is supported by several decisions of this Court (By way of illustration-see Shiv Chandra Misra v DIOS Allahabad, 1986 AWC 429=1986 Education Cases 35). The view taken by this Court is that ad hoc appointments made under section 18 of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission Act, Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act continue even beyond the period of six months till a regular appointment is made through the Commission or Selection Board or the services of the ad hoc teachers are otherwise terminated in accordance with law. That being so, the petitioners were clearly entitled to be treated as continuing till a regular appointment is made through the Commission or the services of the petitioners are otherwise terminated in accordance with law or if the persons in whose vacancy the petitioners were appointed are reverted to the post held by the petitioners. That being so, the petitioners were clearly entitled to be treated as continuing till a regular appointment is made through the Commission or the services of the petitioners are otherwise terminated in accordance with law or if the persons in whose vacancy the petitioners were appointed are reverted to the post held by the petitioners. In view of what has been stated above while writ petition No. 16502 of 1987 fails and is dismissed, writ petition no. 14439 of 1987 succeeds and is allowed. The petitioners shall be treated as continuing in service from 20-5-1987 until the posts on which they have been appointed on ad hoc basis are filled by regular appointments, from the Commission or Selection Board or their services are terminated in accordance with law or the incumbents of the posts on this promotion they were appointed revert to the post.