ORDER K.K. Birla, J. - The common arguments have been addressed in both these petitions as many common questions arise in them and they are being disposed of by a common order. 2. In brief, in Amar Shaheed Bhagat Singh Inter College, Rasra, District Ballia (hereinafter referred as the Institution) a post of Lecturer in Mathematics was newly created in 1985. The vacancy was advertised by its Committee of Management respondent No. 2 on 4-9-85. The Selection Committee placed Shyam Narain Pandey (the petitioner of writ petition No. 9746/1986 and respondent No.3 in Writ Petition No. 770 of 1990) at Si. No. 1 and Ashok Kumar petitioner of writ petition No. 770/1990 at Sl. No. 2. By an order dated 10-10-85 the Committee of Management appointed Sri Shyam Narain Pandey on ad hoc basis under S. 18 of the U.P., Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred as the Act) till 30-6-86 or till the appointment of the candidate by the Commission whichever was earlier. His appointment was approved by the D.I.O.S. on 2-11-85. The Manager gave a notice dated 18-5-86 (Ann.-1) of Writ Petition No. 770/1990 that his service will not be required after 20-5-86. Writ Petition No. 9746/1986 has been preferred by Sri Shyam Narain Pandey against that order asserting that his services could not have been terminated till a regularly selected candidate by the Commission joins the post. On stay application an interim order was passed for not interfering with the functioning of Sri Shyam Narain Pandey as Lecturer. 3. Sri Shyam Narain Pandey did not attend to his duties some time from December, 1986. His leave applications were rejected. It came to the knowledge of the Committee of Management that he has joined some other service. Accordingly, Sri Ashok Kumar was appointed on ad hoc basis on the post till some decision was taken regarding Sri Shyam Narain Pandey (Ann.No. 3) of Writ Petition No. 770/1990. Sri Ashok Kumar has been working on this post since 15-1-87. His approval to appointment was given by the D.I.O.S. vide order dated 1-7-87. It appears that in December, 1989 Sri Shyam Narain Pandey wanted to join on this post. Sri Ashok Kumar has been working on this post since 15-1-87. His approval to appointment was given by the D.I.O.S. vide order dated 1-7-87. It appears that in December, 1989 Sri Shyam Narain Pandey wanted to join on this post. By letter dated 16-12-89 (Ann.-5) to the Writ Petition No. 770/1990 the D.I.O.S. informed the Manager of the Institution that the ad hoc appointment of Sri Ashok Kumar was done during the leave vacancy of Sri Shyam Narain Pandey, the services of Sri Pandey have not been terminated in accordance with law and as such it will be proper that Sri Shyam Narain Pandey be permitted to take charge of the post. Being aggrieved by this order Sri Ashok Kumar has preferred Writ Petition No. 770/1990. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. The grievance of Sri Shyam Narain Pandey (hereinafter referred as Sri Pandey) in Writ Petition No. 9746 of 1986 was that according to the terms of the approval his services would terminate on 30-6-86. In case the High Court did not intervene his services would terminate on that date illegally. In this writ on 16-6-86 the following interim order was passed : "Meanwhile, the opposite parties shall not interfere with the functioning of the petitioner as Lecturer in Mathematics in Amar Shaheed Bhagat Singh Inter. College, Rasra, Ballia." In para 4 of the counter-affidavit dated 7th March, 1990 of Sri Pandey filed in Writ Petition No. 770/1990 (hereinafter referred as the leading writ petition), it has been averred that he went on leave w.e.f. 15th December 1986 on personal grounds. It is clear that he did not attend the Institution or discharge his duties from that date till 18th December, 1989. He moved an application for grant of leave w.e.f. 15-12-86 to 17-12-89 and the same was allowed without-pay by the Manager of the Institution by order dated 18th December, 1989 vide Ann.B-2 of the counter-affidavit filed by Sri Shiv Bachan Pandey on behalf of the Institution. It is also evident from the record that during this period Sri Pandey had joined the service as Radio Kendra Adhikari in P.A.C. Sitapur w.e.f. 5-1-1988 vide Ann.-1 of rejoinder affidavit dated 20th March, 1990 of Sri Ashok Kumar. This Annexure is a letter dated 14th February, 1990 written to the D.I.O.S. Ballia. It is also evident from the record that during this period Sri Pandey had joined the service as Radio Kendra Adhikari in P.A.C. Sitapur w.e.f. 5-1-1988 vide Ann.-1 of rejoinder affidavit dated 20th March, 1990 of Sri Ashok Kumar. This Annexure is a letter dated 14th February, 1990 written to the D.I.O.S. Ballia. According to this Sri Pandey was granted casual leave for 21st and 22nd October, 1989 and he had not joined the post after this period: and remained absent without granting of any leave. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after absenting himself from the duties and after joining the service in the P.A.C., the appointment of Sri Pandey here ceased to exist, and he has no lien on the post. The earned leave had not accrued and the granting of the leave for about 2 years to Sri Pandey is illegal and as such he is entitled to continue in service unless a regularly appointed candidate by the Commission joins. 6. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of Sri Pandey that he was an ad hoc appointee, his services have not been terminated in accordance with law, the leave has been granted to him and as such his joining the service after leave is legal. It is also contended that there is an interim order in Writ Petition No. 9746 of 1986 in his favour and as such Sri Ashok Kumar has no right to remain in service after he has joined the duties. 7. In para 2 of Writ Petition No. 9746 of 1986 it is averred by Sri Pandey that he was functioning as a Lecturer in Mathematics under S. 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act. 1982 (hereinafter referred as the Act). Clearly enough the ad hoc appointment is an interim measure. The ad hoc appointee is not a permanent teacher. Such person will not have any lien on this post. In the case of Committee of Management of Mahabir Inter. College, Malikpura, Ghazipur v. D.I.O.S. Ghazipur, reported in 1987 Ed Cas 310, Loknath Singh was an ad hoc teacher. He applied for leave from 22-12-86 to 15-5-87 and Sri Sachchidanand Singh was appointed in his leave vacancy after selection. This appointment was approved by the D.I.O.S. by his letter dated 2nd February, 1987. College, Malikpura, Ghazipur v. D.I.O.S. Ghazipur, reported in 1987 Ed Cas 310, Loknath Singh was an ad hoc teacher. He applied for leave from 22-12-86 to 15-5-87 and Sri Sachchidanand Singh was appointed in his leave vacancy after selection. This appointment was approved by the D.I.O.S. by his letter dated 2nd February, 1987. Sri Sachchidanand Singh joined the post on 1st January, 1987. Sri Sachchidanand Singh came back after the leave and wanted to join. The D.I.O.S. also passed the order to the effect that he (Loknath Singh) will be deemed to have joined on 16-5-87. On these facts it has been held by the Division Bench that "after long leave, lien of Sri Loknath Singh to the post came to an end as he was only an ad hoc teacher. In the cited case as well, the petitioner had joined as Vyayam Prashikshak in Zila Yuva Kalyan Evam Pradeshik Vikas Dal. Ghazipur. It was further held that there was no justification on the part of the D.I.O.S. to permit Loknath Singh to join the post on 16th May, 1987. The order passed by the D.I.O.S. permitting Loknath Singh to join after the leave period was quashed and Sri Sachchidanand Singh was held to be entitled to continue as ad hoc teacher. 8. In the case before me vide Ann.-2 in the leading writ petition it comes out that Sri Pandey applied for leave without pay from 1-1-87 to 31-1-87. This was rejected on the ground that no leave becomes due to the wholly temporary teacher. It further mentions that Sri Pandey be also informed about this. According to Sri Pandey he was not informed about the rejection of this application. It is no body's case that his leave up to 31-1-87 was allowed. Even it be so, the fact remains that he had applied for leave without pay up to 31st January 1987, only while he remained absent till the middle of December, 1989. Therefore, in my opinion, Sri Pandey is placed even a worse position than Sri Loknath Singh of the aforesaid cited case. 9. As pointed out earlier, during this period Sri Pandey joined the service as Radio Kendra Adhikari in P.A.C. Sitapur. This is not disputed on behalf of Sri Pandey. On the ,other hand, in his supplementary counter-affidavit he has annexed Ann.-1 to the effect that his application dated 15th December. 9. As pointed out earlier, during this period Sri Pandey joined the service as Radio Kendra Adhikari in P.A.C. Sitapur. This is not disputed on behalf of Sri Pandey. On the ,other hand, in his supplementary counter-affidavit he has annexed Ann.-1 to the effect that his application dated 15th December. 1989 for voluntary resignation was accepted w.e.f. 1st November, 1989. This shows that he remained in another service atleast for about 1 year and 10 months. Sri Pandey's appointment was made on ad hoc basis. Clearly enough, he has no lien on this post. His appointment on the post of teacher will, therefore, in any case come to an end when he had joined the other service. On this ground alone, the order of the D.I.O.S. for permitting him to join the service in December, 1989 is bad. Apart from this, the services of the teachers are to be governed on the lines of the Government servant. By no stretch of imagination, leave for about 2 years could have been granted to Sri Pandey. It may also be pointed out that as given above, Sri Pandey did not even move any application for leave on or about 1st February, 1987 and it appears that it was the first time in December, 1989 that he had moved that application. 10. The provisions of S. 18 of the Act is essentially transitory in nature. Permitting a person t o remain absent for a very long period even without any application and then again permitting him to join such post is completely against the spirit and object of S. 18 of the Act in my opinion. 11. It is contended by the learned counsel for Sri Pandey that Sri Pandey has now resigned the other job. This is immaterial. If Sri Pandey had no subsisting right to join in December, 1989, the fact whether he has resigned from the earlier job, or is doing the job is of no consequence. In view of the above discussions, I am of the opinion that the order of granting leave to Sri Pandey from 15-12-86 to 17-12-89 and the order of the D.I.O.S. for allowing him to join the service are bad and deserves to be quashed. 12. In view of the above discussions, I am of the opinion that the order of granting leave to Sri Pandey from 15-12-86 to 17-12-89 and the order of the D.I.O.S. for allowing him to join the service are bad and deserves to be quashed. 12. It is contended by the learned counsel for Sri Pandey that Sri Pandey's services were not terminated in accordance with law and the interim order dated 16-6-86 of this Court in the other writ petition is operating in his favour. Much stress has been laid on the interim order which is already quoted above. 13. The basis of Sri Pandey's writ petition was that the approval of Sri Pandey's appointment was till 30-6-86 unless some order was passed by the High Court, his services will terminate on 30-6-86. Annexure-1 to the main petition is an intimation dated 18th May, 1986 to Sri Pandey to the effect that his services are no more required after 20th May, 1986. In the writ petition preferred by Sri Pandey, there is no mention in this regard. That writ petition had been filed on 11th June, 1986. It is now quite established that the practice of terminating the services of the teachers before the summer recess or on the expiry of June, 30th and then to employ them again after a lapse of few days was unfair. In a subsequent decision in the case of Umesh Chandra v. D.I.O.S., reported in 1987 UPLBEC 105 also this view has been taken and it has been held that "the provisions contained in S. 18 of the 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." 14. The interim order in the other writ petition was passed with a view that Sri Pandey be allowed to function as a teacher beyond 30-6-86 as well. On the point of repetition it may be stated that the order of termination of the service w.e.f. 20-5-86 was not brought to the notice of the Court, even then this interim order might have been given. On the point of repetition it may be stated that the order of termination of the service w.e.f. 20-5-86 was not brought to the notice of the Court, even then this interim order might have been given. On the basis of this interim order Sri Pandey continued to function as teacher and the D.I.O.S. also insisted the compliance of the order of this Court by the letters dated 20-6-86 and 14-7-86. Sri Pandey did work till the middle of December, 1986 on account of the interim order. But in my opinion, the interim order simply removes the obstacle in the functioning as a teacher but by no stretch of imagination it can be interpreted so as to allow the petitioner (Sri Pandey) to remain absent from the job for a long period of about 2 years and then come back to join again on the basis of this interim order. Therefore, in my opinion this interim order will also be of no help to Sri Pandey as far as his joining in December, 1989 is concerned. 15. It is contended on behalf of Sri Pandey that his services have not been terminated in accordance with law. There does not appear to be a written termination order, but in view of the discussions made above I am of the opinion that after Sri Pandey remained absent for a long period even without a proper application and also joined another service, his services came to an end even without a formal order of termination. The view taken in the above cited case reported in 1987 Ed Cas 310 also supports this proposition. Otherwise too, the conduct of Sri Pandey is such that he does not deserve to be given any relief regarding his service in the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 16. The approval of ad hoc appointment of Ashok Kumar has been made vide order dated 1st July, 1987 (Ann. 4) of the leading writ petition. This approval has been given effect from the date of joining till the return of Sri Shyam Narain Pandey from leave of the order of the Hon'ble High Court or the joining by the candidate selected by the Commission. 4) of the leading writ petition. This approval has been given effect from the date of joining till the return of Sri Shyam Narain Pandey from leave of the order of the Hon'ble High Court or the joining by the candidate selected by the Commission. It has been contended by the learned counsel for Sri Pandey that according to the terms of the appointment Sri Ashok Kumar had no lien after Sri Pandey had come back from leave. In view of the discussions made above, it is clear that Sri Pandey had left the service. The import of the interim order dated 16-6-86 has been considered above. Sri Ashok Kumar has already been serving regularly for about 2 years. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the principle laid down in the above cited case reported in 1987 Ed Cas 310 I am of the opinion that Sri Ashok Kumar is entitled to continue in service till a regularly selected candidate by the Commission joins the post. Therefore, W.P. No. 770 of 1990 deserves to be allowed and W.P. No. 9746 of 1986 deserves to be dismissed. 17. Before passing the final orders one more aspect needs consideration. According to Sri Pandey and the committee of Management of the Institution, in view of the orders of the D.I.O.S. Sri Pandey had started teaching. On 16-2-90 an interim order hash been passed in the leading writ petition that until further orders the D.I.O.S. shall not pay any salary to the respondent No. 2. Sri Pandey has been working at present. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it will be proper that Sri Pandey may be paid salary from the period from which he is working till November, 1990. 18. In the result, writ petition No. 9746 of 1986 is dismissed and writ petition No. 770/1990 is allowed. The impugned order dated 16-12-89 is quashed. It is directed that Sri Ashok Kumar petitioner shall be permitted to work on the post and will be paid his salary regularly w.e.f. December, 1990. In the interest of justice, Sri Shyam Narain Pandey may be paid salary till November, 1990, if he has been working during this period. The interim orders passed in both the writ petitions are discharged.