JUDGMENT : M. P. Singh, J. 1. The short question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the vacancy for the post of Principal is to be filled in by promotion or by direct recruitment. 2. Durga Narain College Evam Aditya Kumar School, is a recognised and aided institution. It is governed by the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Regional Selection Board Act, 1982. In the instant case, the controversy prior to 1988 is not at all relevant. 3. On 26-8-1988 an advertisement was issued by the Management in the newspaper 'Swatantra Bharat' inviting applications for ad hoc appointment to the post of Principal by direct recruitment. It was also made clear that the aforesaid ad hoc appointment would continue till regular selection by the Secondary Education Service Commission is made. 4. The petitioners made representation before the District Inspector of 1 Schools as well as before the Deputy Director of Education against the said illegal proceedings for making appointment of Principal by direct recruitment. However, nothing was done. The Committee of Management in pursuance of the advertisement aforesaid passed a resolution on 17-9-1988 appointing respondent no. 4 on the post of Principal on ad hoc basis under section 18 of the Act. The papers were sent to the District Inspector of Schools for approval. The management under coercion obtained "no objection" certificate from four senior most teachers of the college including petitioner nos. 2 and 3 certifying that they have no objection to the appointment of respondent no. 4 as Principal of the College. However, subsequently the said "no objection" certificate was withdrawn by the petitioners. 5. The District Inspector of Schools granted approval to the ad hoc appointment of respondent no. 4 as Principal of the college on 16-2-1989. 6. The present writ petition is directed against (he said order dated 16-2-1989. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P. N. Saxena appearing for the contesting respondents. 7. 5. The District Inspector of Schools granted approval to the ad hoc appointment of respondent no. 4 as Principal of the college on 16-2-1989. 6. The present writ petition is directed against (he said order dated 16-2-1989. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P. N. Saxena appearing for the contesting respondents. 7. IN the instant case, the interpretation of section 18 of U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission Act, 1982 is to be considered, which reads as follows :- "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 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." 8. The section quoted above empowers the management to make ad hoc appointment in case the vacancy is not filled up for more than two months by the Commission the appointment could be direct recruitment or by promotion. The method is not provided. A reading of the section shows that it is open for the management to fill up the ad hoc vacancy either by direct appointment or by promotion. But does it give a free hand to the management to adopt any procedure it likes ? No. This Court while interpreting the said provision has laid down clear guideline. While considering the method of appointment a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Km. Bandana Banerji v. Administrator, Arya Kanya Pathshala Inter College, Mirzapur, 1990 UP LB BC 116 had an occasion to interpret section 18 (1) (b) of U. P. Act V of 1982. In that case also, the question was whether the post of ad hoc Principal could be filled up by promotion or by direct recruitment. It was held that ad hoc appointment to the post of Principal should be made only by promotion. 9. In that case also, the question was whether the post of ad hoc Principal could be filled up by promotion or by direct recruitment. It was held that ad hoc appointment to the post of Principal should be made only by promotion. 9. In another case reported in 1990 AWC 310 Charu Chandra Tiwari v. D. I. O. S. Deoria, again the same bench had reiterated the earlier view. Act No. V of 1982 protects the interest of the teachers of the institution and gives them some security and benefit of their being qualified and senior. Any vacancy which is to be filled by ad hoc selection has first to be filled by promotion. 10. Applying the principle enunciated in the case of Charu Chandra Tiwari (supra) and Km. Bandana Banerji (supra), we hold that the appointment of respondent no. 4 as ad hoc Principal which was approved by the District Inspector of Schools on 16-2-1989, was illegal. Accordingly the resolution dated 17-9-1988 and the order dated 16-2-1989 are quashed. The Management is directed to make ad hoc appointment by promotion amongst the senior most teachers within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before it. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed with costs. Petition allowed.