JUDGMENT M. L. Bhat, J. - Through the medium of this writ petition, the Petitioner challenges the appointment of Respondent No. 5 as lecturer on adhoc basis as also the decision of the Committee of Management of the institution and seeks a direction on directing the Respondents to fill up the post of lecturer in Military Science on regular basis, by means of promotion from amongst the Assistant Teachers in L.T. Grade and not to resort to any direct recruitment for filling up the said vacancy. 2. The facts relevant for the decision of this petition may be put in brief compas. 3. The Petitioner states that he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade in the college by means of an order dated 16-12-82, and was functioning continuously on the post upto 12-6-85. The Petitioner's services as Assistant Teacher are said to have been, regularised u/s 33-A of the 1982 Act. The Petitioner is Bachelor of Science (Agriculture), Bachelor of Education, Master of Arts in Economics and Master of Arts in Military Science. The Petitioner's examination in Military Science is said to have concluded on 17-5-89. He was given provisional mark-sheet on 3-10-89 and final mark-sheet on 16-10-89. He is said to have informed the management the fact of his passing the Master of Art in Military Science examination on 5-10-89. 4. In the institution in question there are said to be 14 posts of lecturers. Out of which 6 have been filled up by direct recruitment and 4 by promotion. Four posts are still substantively vacant and have not been filled on regular basis. One post, out of 4 vacancies is filled up by granting promotion to one Sri J. P. Gupta on adhoc basis. He is likely to be promoted on regular basis under Rule 9 of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission Rules, 1983. Against 40% quota reserved for promotees 6 posts of lecturers are to be filled up by promotion from amongst the existing teachers in L.T. Grade. One of the posts of lecturer in Military Science has fallen vacant as a consequence of retirement of the incumbent of the said post. The said post is to be filled up by promotion of L.T. Grade teacher. One of the posts of lecturer in Military Science has fallen vacant as a consequence of retirement of the incumbent of the said post. The said post is to be filled up by promotion of L.T. Grade teacher. It is stated that in a arbitrary manner the committee of management notified the vacancy to the D.T.O.S. in September 1989, for being filled up by direct recruitment. This post had fallen vacant on 30-6-89. The papers have ultimately been forwarded by the Deputy Director of Education to the Secondary Education Service Commission on 30-11-89 for being notified as a vacancy meant by direct recruitment to be filled up under 1982 Act directly. A period of two months had not elapsed when the committee of management held a meeting on 13-8-89 (should be 23-8-89) and passed a resolution holding that the Petitioner did not possess qualification on the date of Occurrence of vacancy and he was not eligible for promotion and resolved to fill up the post by direct recruitment. Before the occurrence of vacancy advertisement notices were issued in "Dainik Jagran" on 25-6-89 inviting applications for the said post from direct recruits. The committee of management resolved to appoint Respondent No. 5 on adhoc basis and sent necessary papers to Respondent No. 3 on the basis of the resolution of the committee of management, impugned order was passed by the Respondent No. 3 on 11-12-89. 5. Decision of the managing committee, with regard to the Petitioner's being ineligible, dated 13-8-89/23-8-89 is said to be perverse. The decision of the managing committee with regard to the Petitioner, is contrary to section 18 of the Act as also against the provision of Removal of Difficulties Act. The adhoc appointment of Respondent No. 5 could not be made in terms of section 18 of the Act. The management seems to have; rushed through the matter to preclude the Petitioner from being considered for the post. The Petitioner had already appeared in the examination of Master of Arts in Military Science in May, 1985 which fact was conveyed to the management of the college and he has passed the same in October, 1985 which fact j#& also conveyed to the management. Action of he Respondents to make adhoc appointment directly is illegal and against the provisions of the Act. 6. Action of he Respondents to make adhoc appointment directly is illegal and against the provisions of the Act. 6. In his counter-affidavit Respondent No. 5 has stated that in anticipation of retirement of the incumbent of post on 30-6-89, the management of the college has sent the necessary papers to the Commission through D.I.O.S. for notifying the vacancy on 29-4-89. That no Assistant teacher in L.T.- Grade of the college was qualified for promotion on the post of lecturer in Military Science. Therefore, advertisement was issued by the college on ': 25-6-89. Respondent No. 5 is said to have applied for the post. According to him, he was duly qualified for being appointed. The Selection committee had met thereafter on 23-8-89. The said Selection Committee selected Respondent No. 5 on the post of Assistant lecturer, Respondent No. 5 had joined the post on 25-8-89 and since then he was working on the said post. In this manner the Respondent No. 5 claims to have been duly appointed as adhoc lecturer. The Petitioner is said to have not been qualified for promotion. The Petitioner is said to have represented his case before the Deputy., Director of Education who made some query from the management of the college. The management has sent their reply to the D.D.E. on 23-10-89 ' It was stated by the management that the vacancy of the post had' occurred on 30-6-89. The Petitioner was not qualified for promotion on that date as he did not possess requisite educational qualification, he could not' be promoted, as such, aa adhoc lecturer. On the date of occurrence of vacancy, the Petitioner is said to have not been qualified at all for the post of lecture; D.I.O.S.: was requested by the management of the college to give approval to the appointment of the teachers from the date of their joining the duties in the college for purposes of payment of their salary. The Respondent No. 5 was working in:, the college since 25-8-89 audit was said about him that he was entitled for payment of salary w.e.f. his initial appointment 7. The Petitioner is said to have been appointed as Assistant teacher in L.T. Grade on substantive basis on 12-6-85, therefore, he did not have five years,' experience in teaching on the date of occurrence of vacancy i.e., W-90-6-89. The Petitioner is said to have been appointed as Assistant teacher in L.T. Grade on substantive basis on 12-6-85, therefore, he did not have five years,' experience in teaching on the date of occurrence of vacancy i.e., W-90-6-89. The Petitioner did not have requisite M. A. Degree in Military Science date of vacancy which had occurred on 30-6-89. 8. The Petitioner being L.T. Grade teacher in the college front. 12-6-85 is, admitted. However, his first appointment is said to have been made on 26-2-89 on the date of vacancy the Petitioner was not qualified for promotion. The strength of cadre of lecturers given by the Petitioner as 14 is not denied, it is also not disputed that the post of lecturer in the college in Military Science had fallen vacant on 30-6-89. It is stated that under Rule 9, the Petitioner was not qualified for being appointed as lecturer. Respondent' No, 5 justifies his own appointment as lecturer. 9. A supplementary counter affidavit also has been filed by Respondent-No, 5 which is in reply to the supplementary rejoinder affidavit in which the! Petitioner has stated that vacancy for the post of lecturer was conveyed to the Commission on 14-9-89 and the appointment could riot be made before two months from date of declaration of vacancy. The appointment of lecturer was to be mad near about 14-1189, and on that date the Petitioner was fully qualified. Rajendra affidavit and supplementary rejoinder affidavit have been filed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner's case is that Ms result was declared in the 1st week of October, 1989. Declaration of his result would date back to May, 1989 when his examination was concluded. He is said to have five years teaching experience. The Petitioner is said to have remained in continuous service since 16-12-82 and tie was regularised in service on 12-6-85. So he had in 1989 the requisite teaching experience. In his supplementary affidavit, the Petitioner has stated that on 13-7-89 the D.I.O.S. Meerut had prohibited the managing committee from making adhoc appointment in absence of the vacancy having been notified by the Commission. Copy of the said communication is Annexure-1 to the supplementary-rejoinder-affidavit. 10. learned Counsel for the parties were heard on merits of the case and material on record was examined by me. 11. Reliance is placed by both the sides on the provisions of UP. Copy of the said communication is Annexure-1 to the supplementary-rejoinder-affidavit. 10. learned Counsel for the parties were heard on merits of the case and material on record was examined by me. 11. Reliance is placed by both the sides on the provisions of UP. Secondary Education Service Commission, Act and Rules framed thereunder. Section 18(1)(a) and (b) of the Act reads as under. 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 adhoc basis from amongst the persons possessing qualifications prescribed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or the regulations made thereunder. Sub-Section (2) of the Act provides that Sub-Section (1) applies to the appointment of a teacher on adhoc basis. Sub Section 3 of Section 18 provides the conditions under which appointment of adhoc teacher shall cease to have effect. 12. Adhoc appointment is permissible where the commission fails to recommend the name of any suitable candidate within one year from the date of communication or if the post of teacher has remained vacant for more than two months. The management may appoint by direct recruitment or promotion a teacher on adhoc basis. These are two different situations under which the adhoc appointment of a teacher can be made. Rule 9 provides that minimum qualification and 5 years continuous service as teacher for being considered for adhoc appointment must be possessed by the candidate on the date of occurrence of vacancy. 13. It was contended that declaration of the result of the Petitioner would date bark to the date when his examination was concluded. Mr. Khare has relied on Yogendra Nath v. D.I.O.S. 1991 (1) UP LB EC 484. It is held that date relevant for considering qualification is the date on which management decides to make adhoc appointment and not the date of vacancy. Thus, a teacher even if not qualified on date of vacancy, if acquires qualification before date of consideration of adhoc appointment, can be considered for appointment. It is held that date relevant for considering qualification is the date on which management decides to make adhoc appointment and not the date of vacancy. Thus, a teacher even if not qualified on date of vacancy, if acquires qualification before date of consideration of adhoc appointment, can be considered for appointment. In Sangam Lal Pandey v. State of U.P. and Ors., (1990) 1 UPLBEC 706 , a Division Bench of this Court has held that there will be deemed possession of requisite qualification. Relevant date for determination is the date on which the examination was concluded. The Petitioner's examination in that case concluded on 25-4-87. The vacancy was declared on 30-6-87. On 21-7-87 the result of the examination was declared in which the Petitioner had passed. It was held that the Petitioner will he deemed to have passed M.A. final on 25- 4-87. Thus, on the date of occurrence of the vacancy, the Petitioner had requisite qualification. ' 14. Mr. Khare has also relied on Dr. Smt. Yogesh Gupta v. Administrator B.DM. Municipality Girls Degree College, Shikohabad, Mainpuri. 1987 UP LB EC 582. The authority said that the person whose appointment is made contrary to provisions of U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Act and if such services are terminated, the said person cannot challenge the order of termination. This authority was cited by Mr. Khare for the purposes that adhoc appointment of a teacher is to be made in accordance With law and it does not confer any right on the Respondent No. 5.' In Ram Bahadur Singh v. D.I.O.S. Allahabad 1991 UP LB EC 698, it is held that appointment of adhoc teacher if not made in accordance with procedure the appointed teacher cannot get any relief. 15. learned Counsel for Respondent No. 5 has relied' on Hansraj Singh y. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission, Allahabad, (1990) 2 UP LB EC 1127. It is held that management gets right to make adhoc appointment if the post actually remained vacant for more than two months. If after two months management decides to make adhoc appointment, the relevant date with reference to which eligibility for the purposes of promotion is to be seen, is the date of occurrence of vacancy. It is submitted that the Petitioner was not eligible on the date when the vacancy had occurred ,therefore he could not be appointed on the post on adhoc basis. 16. It is submitted that the Petitioner was not eligible on the date when the vacancy had occurred ,therefore he could not be appointed on the post on adhoc basis. 16. In the present case vacancy had occurred on 30-6-89. The management could make adhoc appointment after two months from the date of occurrence of vacancy. The management's power floss from section 18 of the Act because if post remains vacant for more than two months management gets an authority to make adhoc appointment. So the management could get the authority to make adhoc appointment after, two months from 30-6-89. The management had convened a meeting on 23-8-89 in which they had appointed Respondent No. 5 before expiry of two months from the date of occurrence of vacancy and held Petitioner ineligible for appointment Actually the appointment of Respondent No. 5 on 23-8-89 is against the mandate contained in section 18(1)(b) of the Act. Management had no authority to make the appointment before expiry of two months from the date of notifying the vacancy. Appointment is to be made in accordance with section 18(1)(b) of the Act, by the management. The rules framed under that section contemplate that the person who has experience of 5 years' teaching on the date of occurrence of vacancy, is to be considered for promotion to the post of lecturer or L.T. Grade teacher, as the case may be. So the date of occurrence' of vacancy is the date on which consideration is to be accorded by the managing committee on the basis of the-qualification or lack of it with regard to a person who is seeking appointment on ad hoc basis. 17. Appointment of adhoc lecturer is to be made to the extent of 40% from amongst the teachers of the institution in which the post of lecturer has fallen vacant. A senior most teacher having requisite qualification is eligible for promotion. If senior most teacher with requisite qualification is not available then direct recruitment can be made. The Petitioner's ineligibility for the post could not be considered in the meeting which was-held oh 23-8-89 Nor could eligibility of the Respondent No. 5 as direct recruit be considered in the said meeting. If senior most teacher with requisite qualification is not available then direct recruitment can be made. The Petitioner's ineligibility for the post could not be considered in the meeting which was-held oh 23-8-89 Nor could eligibility of the Respondent No. 5 as direct recruit be considered in the said meeting. The meeting was convened before expiry of two months and as already stated, management could not consider the appointment of Respondent No. 5 before the period of two months from the dale from which post had actually remained vacant. The post is said to have remained Vacant from 30-6-89 when the holder of the post had retired after reaching the age of superannuation. Section 18(1)(b) also talks of the actual vacancy, and not the anticipated vacancy. Therefore, the contention of Respondent No. 5 that in anticipation of occurrence of vacancy the post was declared vacant in April. That could not be done because in April post had not remained "actually" vacant. The post had fallen vacant actually on 39-6-89. So two months' time is to be accounted from 1st July, 1989. After two months i.e. in the 1st week of September, the management could get authority to make adhoc appointment if they decided to make the same for the post. 18. It is true that on the date of occurrence of vacancy, the Petitioner had not the requisite academic qualification. He acquired the same on 3-10-89. However, he had acquired the qualification which would render him eligible for appointment, on 3-10-89. He had the requisite teaching experience of five years. He had appeared in the last paper on 17-5-89 and informed the managing committee about the same. In order to pre-empt his entry in the zone of consideration, the management seems to have hastened the process of selection by calling a meeting for the purposes, much before expiry of two months. On 23-8-89, the post had not remained vacant for two months which could have empowered the committee of management to make adhoc appointment for the said post. Therefore, the appointment of Respondent No. 5 as adhoc lecturer cannot be sustained as it has been made in violation of section 18(1)(b) of the Act. The said adhoc appointment of Respondent No. 5 is, therefore, liable to be quashed. 19. Therefore, the appointment of Respondent No. 5 as adhoc lecturer cannot be sustained as it has been made in violation of section 18(1)(b) of the Act. The said adhoc appointment of Respondent No. 5 is, therefore, liable to be quashed. 19. After the arguments were concluded, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 5 submitted a supplementary-affidavit alongwith a document purported to be photocopy of the requisition of vacancy which was sent by the Principal of the College on 29-4-89 to the District Inspector of Schools. Mention of this fact has been made elsewhere in this judgment. Suffice it to say that the alleged requisition made by the Principal or! 29-4-89 could not be taken into consideration because on that date there was no vacancy. A post of lecturer had fallen vacant with effect from 30-6-89. Therefore, two months' time u/s 18(1)(b) of the Act is to be counted from the date on which the actual vacancy had occurred. The alleged requisition of 29-4-89 will not give any advantage to Respondent No. 5 and his appointment on adhoc basis recommended through resolution which was passed in the meeting held on 23-8-89, cannot be rendered valid by the so called requisition dated 29-4-89. 20. That brings us to another Jimb of the argument as to whether the Petitioner had requisite academic qualification on the date of occurrence of the vacancy or not. The Petitioner had appeared in the Examination and had concluded last paper on 17-5-89. He was declared successful in the said examination on 3-10-89. His success in the examination dates back to 17-5-89, when he appeared in the last paper of the subject. So he would be deemed to have been possessed with requisite qualification on 30-6-89 when the vacancy had actually occurred. So far teaching experience is concerned, the Petitioner had the same, because his services were regularised and he had put in about 7 years teaching experience on the date of occurrence of the vacancy of a lecturer in the college against which he could be appointed on the basis of his seniority. The Petitioner being senior most L.T. grade teacher in the institution, is not contested by the other side. 21. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the appointment of Respondent No. 5 dated 11-12-89 on the basis of resolution of the Managing Committee dated 23-8-89 requires to be quashed. The Petitioner being senior most L.T. grade teacher in the institution, is not contested by the other side. 21. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the appointment of Respondent No. 5 dated 11-12-89 on the basis of resolution of the Managing Committee dated 23-8-89 requires to be quashed. It is also held that consideration accorded to the Petitioner in the meeting of 23-8-89 is non-est because the meeting for the purposes of making recommendation and for consideration of qualification of candidates or lack of qualification was improper and not held in accordance with section 18(1)(b), of the Act. 22. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Appointment of Respondent No. 5 as as adhoc lecturer made by an order dated 11-12-89 on the basis of recommendation of the managing committee dated 23-8-89 is hereby quashed as being against the provisions of law and invalid. Declaration with regard to Petitioner's lack of qualification for being considered for the post of lecturer in the said meeting is also declared to be non-est as any decision passed in the said meeting was improper and bad in law. The Petitioner will be deemed to have been qualified for the post of adhoc lecturer as a senior L.T. Grade teacher as he fulfilled the requisite qualification on the date of occurrence of vacancy. If the management decides to fill up the post, the Petitioner shall be accorded consideration for the same. 23. There will be no order as to costs.