JUDGMENT M.L. Bhat 1. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to the effect that he continues to be a C.T. grade teacher on adhoc basis in P. J. M. Intermediate College, Sharkot district Bijnor. The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 6-12-1988. The facts giving rise to the present controversy are summarised as under. 2. The petitioner states that due to illness of one C.T. grade teacher, Radhey Shyam, he was asked to take classes without payment of salary by the District Inspector of Schools. He started teaching from 17-7-1984. This is reflected by the certificate of the Principal dated 22-2- 1988, a copy whereof is placed on record as an annexure. The said Radhey Shyam is said to have applied for six months leave w.e.f. 1-8-1988 to 31-1-1989 on account of his illness which was sanctioned by the committee of management. To fill up the short-term vacancy process was initiated by the college and an advertisement notice dated 21-7-1988 was issued by the management. In pursuance of the said advertisement notice the petitioner applied for being appointed as adhoc teacher in short-term leave vacancy. The petitioner was selected for adhoc appointment on the post. Since he was already working on the post without pay, therefore, he was allowed to continue on the post. Papers for his adhoc appointment were not forwarded by the management of the college till 28-10-1988. The management wrote a letter to the District Inspector of Schools on 29-10- 1988 along with the papers. The adhoc appointment of the petitioner was thereafter approved by a letter dated 26-11-1988 by the District Inspector of Schools A copy of the said letter is placed on the record as an annexure The petitioner says that the papers for approval were received by the District Inspector of Schools on 29-10-1988 but he had not taken decision within seven days as required by Rule 2 (3) (iii) of the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties (Second) Order, 1981). Therefore, the petitioner's services will be deemed to have been approved after expiry of one week from 29-10-1988. The petitioner's adhoc appointment was approved on 1-11-88 though it should have been approved from 1-8-1988. The order dated 26-11-1988 was modified by the District Inspector of Schools on 6-12-1988 which made the salary of the petitioner payable after 26-11-1988, from the date of actual joining. The petitioner's adhoc appointment was approved on 1-11-88 though it should have been approved from 1-8-1988. The order dated 26-11-1988 was modified by the District Inspector of Schools on 6-12-1988 which made the salary of the petitioner payable after 26-11-1988, from the date of actual joining. A copy of this order is also placed on the record as an annexure. The order of the District Inspector of Schools is said to be illegal because the petitioner was already working and his appointment was also approved, therefore, he could not be granted pay after 26-11-1988; The pay was to be granted to him with effect from his joining. The said Radhey Shyam, C.T. grade teacher, had died on 21-12- 1988. Due to his death the short-term leave vacancy was converted into a substantive vacancy. After reopening of the institution in 1989 the petitioner was not allowed to work on the post of C.T. grade teacher. The respondents have taken the stand that since the petitioner's appointment was in leave term vacancy and the leave term vacancy had come to an end, therefore, the petitioner's services had automatically come to an end and he was not entitled to be appointed on the post. The petitioner's case is that he is entitled to continue on the post till the post is filled up through regular selection by the Regional Selection Board. On the aforesaid grounds the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus and certiorari. 3. In their reply the respondents have stated that the petitioner used to take classes of any subject in place of teacher, who was absent. Because of his visiting the college regularly and impressing the Principal of the college who developed soft corner for him. The certificate issued to the petitioner in this regard is said to be incorrect It is stated that the petitioner started taking classes without salary after November, 1985. It is stated that the substantive vacancy is to be filled up under the Removal of Difficulties (First) Order, 1981 for which a different procedure is prescribed; 4. In his rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has reiterated his assertions and claimed that after the short-term leave vacancy was converted into a substantive vacancy he was entitled to continue on the post till regular selection was made. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter. 5. In his rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has reiterated his assertions and claimed that after the short-term leave vacancy was converted into a substantive vacancy he was entitled to continue on the post till regular selection was made. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter. 5. The petitioner has relied on some judgments of this Court. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No 7786 of 1986. Rafiq Ahmad v. State of U. P. and others decided on 10-3-1988, a Division Bench of this Court held that the adhoc appointment on short-term leave vacancy, which was converted into a substantive vacancy due to resignation or continued absence of the incumbent is to continue till the services of adhoc teacher are dispensed with in accordance with law or the Board makes selection of teacher and the selected teacher joins the post. In another Division Bench judgment of this Court in the writ petition, Sri Anand Prakash v. District Inspector of Schools, Bareilly and others, decided on 1-12-1987, it was held that the petitioner in that case, who was appointed in leave vacancy and the appointment was approved by the District Inspector of Schools and if the original incumbent had resigned from the post, the petitioner's services could not be terminated. He will continue on the post till a regularly selected candidate is appointed on the post or the services of the petitioner are terminated in accordance with law. Writ Petition No. 14794 of 1991, Manjuvati v. The State of U. P. and others, decided on 30-7-1991 the court considered the question of continuation of adhoc teacher till the vacancy was filled up by regular selection. The petitioner in that case was allowed to continue on the post until a candidate duly selected joined the post. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the institution of CT. grade teacher has been abolished. The considerations for appointment of LT. grade teacher will not apply to CT. grade teacher. It is stated that the Removal of Difficulties (Second) Order, 1981 will not apply. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the institution of CT. grade teacher has been abolished. The considerations for appointment of LT. grade teacher will not apply to CT. grade teacher. It is stated that the Removal of Difficulties (Second) Order, 1981 will not apply. The present case is governed by the Removal of Difficulties (First) Order, 1981: Under para 5 of the Removal of Difficulties (First) Order, 1981 it is laid down that when any vacancy cannot be filled up by promotion under para 4 of the said order, the same be filled up by recruitment in accordance with sub-clause (2) to (5) of section 5. Section 4 of the said order provides that every vacancy in the post of teacher in Lecturer's grade is to be filled up by promotion by senior-most teacher of the institution in the trained graduate (L.T. grade). Every vacancy in the post of teacher is to be filled up by the senior-most teacher in the institution in the trained under-graduate (CT. Grade). Every vacancy in the post of teacher in the trained Undergraduate (CT. grade) is to be filled up by promotion by senior-most teacher in the institution in the J.T..C. or B.T.C grade. Under the Removal of Difficulties (Second) Order of 1981 it is provided by section 5 of the said order that the management of an institution may appoint by promotion or by direct recruitment, a teacher on purely adhoc basis in accordance with the provisions of this order in the case of a substantive vacancy caused by death, retirement, resignation or otherwise. 7. The admitted position in this case is that the petitioner was first appointed in a leave vacancy for a short-term. The said vacancy was converted into substantive vacancy because of the death of the original incumbent of the post. The petitioner continued to hold the post. The respondents want to terminate the petitioner's services on the ground that the leave vacancy had ceased to exist. He could not be continued on the adhoc basis. This question was considered in writ petition No. 7988 of 1987, decided on 20-5-1988 by a Division Bench of this Court. A short-term vacancy, if converted in the substantive vacancy, will make no difference so far as the right of adhoc appointee on the said post is concerned. He could not be continued on the adhoc basis. This question was considered in writ petition No. 7988 of 1987, decided on 20-5-1988 by a Division Bench of this Court. A short-term vacancy, if converted in the substantive vacancy, will make no difference so far as the right of adhoc appointee on the said post is concerned. The petitioner of that case was appointed on adhoc basis and permitted to continue till regular selection was made. The post against which the petitioner in that case was appointed in a short-term vacancy later on became permanent with the resignation of the incumbent of the post. The regular appointment was to be made for the said post by the commission. The adhoc appointee, who had been appointed when the vacancy was short-term was permitted to continue till the post was filled by a regular selection. The counsel for the respondents has tried to distinguish the judgment by saying that it was a post of LT. grade and CT. grade teacher. He has stated that with the abolition of CT grade teacher this authority will have no application. The authority has laid down the principle for the teachers who are appointed on adhoc basis in short-term vacancy which later on was converted into a substantive vacancy. It was held that if the post is held on adhoc basis by a person when the said post was short-term vacancy, the adhoc appointee cannot be terminated when the post became substantive. Therefore, this authority will apply to the facts of the present case. 8. The petitioner's services cannot, therefore, be terminated or they cannot be treated to have come to an end if the leave vacancy has ceased to exist and the same has become now a substantive vacancy. The petitioner was appointed from 26-11-1988 on adhoc basis. His appointment in fact should have been effective from 1-8-1988 because he was appointed earlier and his approval was duly approved by the District Inspector of Schools. Therefore, from the date he joined as adhoc teacher in pursuance of the advertisement notice he is entitled to draw pay for the work rendered by him. The grant of approval should have been passed within seven days from the date the District Inspector of Schools received the papers but that was not done. Therefore, from the date he joined as adhoc teacher in pursuance of the advertisement notice he is entitled to draw pay for the work rendered by him. The grant of approval should have been passed within seven days from the date the District Inspector of Schools received the papers but that was not done. However, it is a case in which the petitioner is entitled to draw pay from the date he has joined in pursuance of the advertisement notice. He is entitled to draw salary for the work done by him. Even if his approval was delayed by the District Inspector of Schools the petitioner is entitled to continue on the post on adhoc basis till a regular selection is made for the post by the Commissioner in accordance with law. His services can be dispensed with only in accordance with the procedure laid down in this regard. His services will not be terminated on the ground that leave vacancy on which he was originally appointed has ceased to exist. The said vacancy is converted into a substantive vacancy against which the petitioner has been working. Therefore, he is entitled to continue as adhoc teacher till the post is filled up by a regularly selected candidate or till his services are dispensed with in accordance with the procedure laid down by law, 9. For the reasons stated above the petition succeeds. The writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to treat the petitioner as adhoc teacher on the post which has now been converted into a substantive post due to the death of Mr. Radhey Shyam. He is entitled to continue till the regular selection for the post is made by the Commission in accordance with law. His services can be dispensed with only by following the procedure established by law. 10. The respondents are also directed to make payment of salary to the petitioner with effect from 1-8-1988 when he joined on the post in pursuance of the advertisement notice of the respondents and he be paid the unpaid salary for the work done by him. The letter dated 6-12-1988 of the District Inspector of Schools is, therefore, quashed as being against the rules. The petitioner is continuing on the post by the interim order dated 24-1-1989. That interim order shall be replaced by this order.