Judgment S.P. Srivastava, J. 1. The failure of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board to recommend the names of suitable candidates for appointment against the substantive vacancies in the post of Lecturers which occurred in the year 1984 in Shiv Murti Balika Inter College, Kernkak, Jaunpur led to a Seniority dispute amongst the ad-hoc appointees which has culminated in the present special appeals directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge where-under Smt. Asha Rai, the respondent has been held to be senior to the appellants in these appeals. 2. The facts, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of these appeals, lie in a narrow compass. The creation of the posts of Lecturers in the subjects of Hindi, Civics and Psychology resulted in the occurrence of vacancies in these posts which had to be filled up in accordance with the provisions contained in Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 thereinafter referred to as U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982). The post of Lecturer in civics fell within the promotion quota envisaged under Regulation 5(2) of Chapter 2 of the Regulations framed tinder the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. This is evident from the letter of the Manager dated 18-7-1985, a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. It appears that the management took steps to fill up these vacancies and passed a resolution on 21-3-1984 appointing Smt. Asha Rai, respondent, on the post of Lecturer in Hindi on ad hoc basis, with effect from the date of assumption of the office by her indicating that the appointment was to continue till the regularly selected candidate recommended by the Commission joined the post. This resolution was approved by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools vide her letter dated 23-3-1984 and a formal appointment letter was Issued in favour of Smt. Asha Rai dated 24-3-1984 in pursuance whereof she joined the post on 29-3-1984. Smt. Prem Balika Rai, the appellant who had been appointed in the L.T. grade on 21-8-1980 was granted promotion on ad-hoc basis on 9-7-1984, as Lecturer in Civics indicating clearly that the duration of the promotion was for a period of six months only. Smt. Malti Singh, the other appellant was also appointed on 9-7-1984 as Lecturer in psychology on ad-hoc basis for a period ending 30-6-1985. Smt. Malti Singh, the other appellant was also appointed on 9-7-1984 as Lecturer in psychology on ad-hoc basis for a period ending 30-6-1985. These appointments were approved by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools vide her letter dated 28-7-1984. It further appears that on the expiry of the aforesaid, period the management passed a fresh resolution appointing the same persons as against the same posts indicating the duration of appointments up to 20-5-1986 which was approved by the Regional Inspectress of Girls vide her letter dated 8-11-1985. It is not disputed that all the three ad-hoc appointments are continuing in service since thereafter under the orders of this Court. At this stage it may be noticed that even though in the resolution of the committee of management dated 21-3-1984 as well as in the order of approval issued by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools dated 23-3-1984 and the formal appointment letter issued in favour of Smt. Asha Rai, it had been clearly mentioned that her appointment was to continue till the recommend of the Commission joined the post, yet the management, proceeding on the assumption that this appointment had to be taken as having ceased on account of the statutory provisions contained in section 18 of the U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 purported to issue fresh appointment letters and got their approval from the Regional Inspectress of Girls on 28-7-1984 and 8-11-1985 where under it was indicated that the appointment of Smt. Asha Rai was to continue till 30th June, 1984 and 20-5-1986. 3. We have heard Sri Namwar Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Pradeep Varma for the respondents Smt. Asha Rai and as well as learned Standing Counsel at some length and have carefully gone through the records. 4. The appellants have assailed the impugned judgment affirming the decision of the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools dated 3rd June. 3. We have heard Sri Namwar Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Pradeep Varma for the respondents Smt. Asha Rai and as well as learned Standing Counsel at some length and have carefully gone through the records. 4. The appellants have assailed the impugned judgment affirming the decision of the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools dated 3rd June. 1992 whereunder the said authority bad treated Smt Asha Rai to be in continuous service with effect from 29-3-1984 end Smt. Prem Balika Rai to be in continuous service with effect from 9-7-1984 and had determined their inters seniority on the basis of their length of service in the Lecturer's grade Learned Counsel for the appellants has urged that while computing the length of service, it is the continuous service alone which had to be taken into account and since in the present case Smt. Asha Rai Smt. Prem Balika Rai and Smt. Malti Singh have been in continuous service In the Lecturers grade from 9-7-1984 only. Their interse seniority has to be governed by the provisions contained in Regulations 3(i)(b) of the Regulations contained in Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act which stipulates that in a case where the date of appointment is the same the seniority shall be determined on the basis of age and on this ground the learned Counsel asserts that since Smt. Prem Balika Rai is senior in age as compared to Smt. Asha Rai, she ought to have been held senior to Smt. Asha Rai. This submission proceeded on the assumption that service rendered by Smt. Asha Rai prior to 9-7-1984 is liable to be ignored as on her own saying, Smt. Asha Rai had ceased to work after 20-5-1984 and was reappointed only on 9-7-1984. The learned Counsel has heavily relied upon the letter of Smt. Asha Rai dated 6-4-1990 in this connection, a true copy of which has been filed as annexure 6 to the writ petition. In this letter Smt. Asha Rai had disclosed that she has performed the duties of lecturer only during the period 29-3-1984 to 20-5-1984, 8-7-1984 to 30-6-1985 and 8-7-1985 onwards. 5. The learned Counsel for the respondent has on the other hand urged that there was no break in the continuity of service of Smt. Asha Rai. In this letter Smt. Asha Rai had disclosed that she has performed the duties of lecturer only during the period 29-3-1984 to 20-5-1984, 8-7-1984 to 30-6-1985 and 8-7-1985 onwards. 5. The learned Counsel for the respondent has on the other hand urged that there was no break in the continuity of service of Smt. Asha Rai. He asserts that her appointment could not be deemed to have ceased under the law. He further asserts that the promotion granted to Smt. Prem Balika Rai was irregular and in as much as having been appointed on 21-8-1980 she could not have to her credit the requisite five years continuous service in the lower grade so as to become eligible for promotion on 9-7-1984 and consequently the period of her service as Lecturer during which she did not have this experience was liable to be ignored for the purpose of determining the interse seniority. 6. The questions which have therefore, arisen for our consideration are as to whether the period of service of Smt. Asha Rai prior to 8-7-1984 was liable to be ignored while determining the interse seniority and whether any period of service rendered by Smt Prem Balika Rat as a promotee lecturer was liable to be ignored in this connection. As observed by the Apex Court in its decision in the case of Vasant Kumar Jaiswal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1987 (4) SCC 450 it is the well settled principle that in the absence of any statutory rule or executive memorandum or order laying down the rule for determination of seniority in a grade, the normal rule applicable would be to determine the seniority on the basis of length in service. This view was reiterated in the case of Desoola Rama Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1988 SC 587 , wherein it was observed that if there be a rule Indicating the manner in which interse seniority has to be fixed, that is binding and that in the absence of such a rule, length of service is the basis for fixing interse seniority. 7. 7. A close scrutiny of the provisions contained in the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and the Rules framed thereunder as well as the provisions contained in U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 and the Rule framed there under reveals that there is nothing to indicate the basis for determining the interse seniority of ad-hoc appointments who are granted appointments as envisaged under section 18(1)(b) of the U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 This provision contemplates ad-hoc appointment either by taking recourse to the method prescribed for direct recruitment or by taking recourse to promotion. However, what should be the criterian for determining the interse seniority of ad-hoc appointees who are directly recruited or get appointments through promotion has not been prescribed. 8. In the present case, we are concerned with the question regarding the determination of seniority vis-a-vis a promotee and a direct recruit. Smt. Prem Balika Rai entered the Lecturer's grade by promotion, under para 4(2) of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981, while Smt. Asha Rai entered the said grade by direct recruitment under para 5 of the said order. Such cases have to be examined taking into consideration the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in its decision in the case of Shitala Prasad Shukla v. State of U.P. AIR 1986 SC 1859 . In this case the Apex Court observed as follows : "An employee must belong to the same stream before he can claim seniority vis-a-vis others. One who belongs to the stream of lawfully and regularly appointed employees does not have to contend with those who never belonged to that stream, they having been appoint in an irregular manner. Those who have been irregularly appointed belong to a different stream and cannot claim seniority vis-a-vis those who have been regularly and properly appointed till their appointments become regular or regularised by appointing authority as a result of which their stream joins the regular stream.......... Those who have been irregularly appointed belong to a different stream and cannot claim seniority vis-a-vis those who have been regularly and properly appointed till their appointments become regular or regularised by appointing authority as a result of which their stream joins the regular stream.......... The late comers to the regular stream cannot steal a march over the early arrivals in the regular que.........." In its decision in the case of Committee of Management v. District Inspector of Schools, Mainpuri, 1985 UP LB EC 496, a Division Bench of this Court had clarified that if an appointment is made under section 18 of the U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 and it was provided therein that it shall cease only when regular incumbent joins, then the other clauses of section 18(3) do not apply. This court had further clarified that considering the various orders issued under U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 and the provisions contained in the Act itself, the provisions contained in section 18(3)(c) of the U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 can be read In the manner that if the regular appointee from the Commission takes over before 30th June, trie ad-hoc appointment shall cease automatically otherwise it will continue till the new incumbent did not take over. This Court had clearly opined the clause (c) of Section 18(3) of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 had lost its efficacy and that it could not have been the intention of the Legislature that the appointment validly made was to be deemed to be ceased on 30tn June following. This view was reiterated by various Division Benches of this Court in their later decisions wherein it was also observed that on a true and proper construction of section 18 of the Act, the management must be deemed to have renewed the ad-hoc appointment of the teacher on the expiry of the 30th June following the date of such ad-hoc appointment where the services of the teacher initially appointed under section 18 have not been terminated in accordance with the law or the Commission has failed to recommend the name of any suitable candidate for being appointed as a teacher. 9. 9. In view of the legal position as indicated above, taking into consideration the resolution of the Committee of management, the order of approval end the letter of appointment of Smt Asha Rai to which a reference has already been made hereinbefore, the conclusion that her appointment as a Lecturer with effect from 29-3-1984 has to be treated as continuous appears to be inescapable. It is not possible therefore, to infer breack in her service on the basis of the letters issued by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools dated 28-7-1984 and 8-11-1985 or from the letter of Smt. Asha Rai dated 6-4-1990 specially when the Commission has not been able to send the names of its recommendees for appointment on the post held by her till now. It is therefore, obvious that the period of service of Smt. Asha Rai prior to 8-7-1984 is not liable to be ignored while determining the Interse seniority. 10. Smt. Prem Balika Rai had been appointed in the L.T. grade on 21-8-1980, The post of Lecturer In Civics, In question, fell within the promotion quota envisaged under Regulations 5(2)(a) of the Regulations of Chapter II of the Regulations, framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. The eligibility criteria for promotion from L.T. Grade to Lecturer's grade are provided under Regulation 6 of Chapter II of the aforesaid Regulations. The pre-requisite conditions for becoming eligible for promotion which stand prescribed therein is that the teacher concerned must have to his credit a minimum of five years continuous substantive service on the date of occurrence of the vacancy which is sought to be filled up by promotion. The provisions contained in section 32 of the U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 clearly provide that the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and the Regulations framed thereunder in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 or the Rules or Regulations made thereunder shall continue to be in force for the purpose of selection, appointment, promotion dismissal, removal, termination or reduction in rank of a teacher. The requirement of at-least five years continuous service as a teacher on the date of occurrence of vacancy stand prescribed even under Rule 9 of the Rules framed under the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1983. The requirement of at-least five years continuous service as a teacher on the date of occurrence of vacancy stand prescribed even under Rule 9 of the Rules framed under the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1983. In this view of the matter, since Smt. Prem Balika Rai had been appointed in the L.T. Grade on 21-8-1980, she did not have the five years continuous teaching experience to her credit as required under the above provisions. This fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. Clearly therefore, she could not be deemed to be eligible for being considered for promotion on regular basis as she did not satisfy the minimum pre-requisite conditions contemplated under either of the aforesaid provisions. In the circumstances, it has to considered as to whether the promotion granted to Smt Prem Balika Rai on 9-7-1984 on ad-hoc basis was irregular as in that case she could not be allowed to steal a march over Smt. Asha Rai who had been granted appointment in the regular manner on 29-3-1984. 11. Learned Counsel for the appellant has urged that the requirement having a minimum five years continuous substantive service of envisaged under Regulations 6(1) of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act or the requirement of five years continuous service as contemplated under Rule 9 of the Rules framed under the U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 could not be deemed to be applicable to the ad-hoc appointments which are granted in exercise of the jurisdiction envisaged under section 18 of the U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982. The contention raised in this connection is that these appointments have to be made in accordance with the provisions contained in the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 whereunder the eligibility criteria for promotion which stands prescribed does not contain any such restriction. The learned Counsel has referred to paragraphs 6(a) and (c) of the aforesaid order in this connection which provide that a candidate sought to be appointed by promotion must fulfil the essential qualifications laid down in Appendix A referred to in Regulation I of chapter II of the Regulations made under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and that the candidate sought to be appointed by promotion must have been serving the institution in substantive capacity from before the commencement of the Order. The assertion of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that this omission of the condition in respect of having five years continuous substantive service on the date of occurrence of vacancy while fixing the eligibility condition for appointment by promotion in paragraph 6 of the aforesaid Order of 1981 necessarily leads to an inference that in the case of ad-hoc promotion envisaged under section 18 of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982. The requirement of five years continuous substantive service which is a condition precedent for becoming eligible for promotion as envisaged under the Regulations 6(1) of the chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act stood dispensed with and in this view of the matter, the promotion of Smt. Prem Balika Rai, the appellant could not be deemed to be irregular. The learned Counsel, has, in the above connection heavily relied upon the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Shashi bushan Sharma v. Committee of Management, Sanatan Dharm Inter College. Meerut, 1992 AWC 137 wherein it has been held that for the purpose of ad-hoc promotion it is not at all necessary that the teacher sought to be promoted must have continuous substantive service as visualised in Regulation 6(1) of Chapter II of the Regulations and/or Regulation 9 of the U.P. Secondary Education Set vices Commission Rules 1983 which prescribes the requirement for the eligibility for regular promotion. The learned Single Judge in the aforesaid decision appears to have taken the view that the legislative intent behind the provisions contained in paragraph 6 of the Difficulties Removal Order of 1981 was to do away with the pre-requisite condition of five years continuous service in the next below grada so far as the ad-hoc promotions envisaged under section 18 of the U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 were concerned. 12. From a perusal of section 16 as well as Section 18 of the U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982, it is obvious that the scheme of the Act recognises the vesting of the authority relating to the appointment on the post of a teacher in the committee of management. This authority is however, controlled by the prohibition contained in section 16 of the Act which provides that the appointee must be a recommendee of the Commission. This authority is however, controlled by the prohibition contained in section 16 of the Act which provides that the appointee must be a recommendee of the Commission. This prohibition however, is lifted by Section 18 of the Act for a certain prescribed duration. On account of lifting of the prohibition, the management becomes free to appoint on the post of teacher a person which need not be a recommendee of the Commission. If Section 16 of the Act does not apply on account of lifting of the bar in the circumstances indicated in Section 18 of the Act, then the question of applying Sections 16 and 11 of the Act does not arise in as muck as they qualify the power envisaged under Section 16 of the Act. The Provisions contained in section 18 of the Act are silent in regard to the procedure which has to be adopted for direct recruitment or promotion Section 18(b) however, specifically prescribes the eligibility criteria which has to be adhered to while fixing the zone of consideration for promotion for filling up a vacancy which includes a vacancy in the post of a teacher falling within the promotion quota envisaged under Regulation 5 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. The provisions contained in U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties), Order, 1981 also contains certain eligibility criterian governing the promotion. These provisions however, have to be read subject to the provisions contained In Section 32 of the U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 which specifically provides that the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and the Regulation made there under, so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 or the Rules or Regulations made thereunder were to continue to be in force for the purpose of selection, appointment and promotion. 13. As observed by a Division Bench of this Court in its decision in the case of Siya Ram Shakya v. State of U.P., 1982 UP LB EC 324 the object of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 is to find out the best in those who are entitled to be appointed as teachers and secure a healthy system of education. It has also been observed therein that it is only fresh appointments and recruitments which are sought to be regulated by the Act. 14. It has also been observed therein that it is only fresh appointments and recruitments which are sought to be regulated by the Act. 14. It may be noticed that while Regulation 6(1) of the Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act prescribes five years continuous substantive service on the date of occurrence of vacancy as a prerequisite condition for coming within the zone of consideration for promotion, which requirement is retained even under Section 18(1)(b) of U.P. Act No. V of 1982, yet there has been a slight departure in this regard in the provisions contained in the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1983, where, in Rule 9 there of instead of five years continuous substantive service', the requisite condition is 'five years continuous services. This difference however does not lead to an inference that five years continuous teaching, experience was intended to be dispensed with. The five years continuous substantive service as well as five years continuous service as used in both the above provisions lay emphasis on continuous five years teaching experience. The legislative intent is therefore, obvious. The minimum five years teaching experience to the credit of a candidate for promotion is contemplated under para 4(2) of the Difficulties Removal Order, 1981 which could not be deemed to have been dispensed with. In this connection, the other aspect which is noticeable is that the first Difficulties Removal Order under provisions U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 was issued on 31-7-1981. The provisions contained in paragraph 6(o) of the first Difficulties Removal Order provides that the candidate sought to be appointed by promotion must have been serving in the institution in substantive capacity from before the date of the commencement of the Order. In case this provision is interpreted in the manner as indicated in the decision of Shashi Bhushan Sharma (supra, in that event, toe appointees on substantive basis in the lower grade who got the appointment in that grade subsequent to 31-7-1981 will automatically go out of the zone of consideration for promotion to a vacancy in the next above grade which becomes available for being filled up by promotion subsequent to 31-7-1981 even though such candidate might be eligible for promotion. We are of the clear opinion that such could never have been the legislative intent. 15. We are of the clear opinion that such could never have been the legislative intent. 15. It should not be overlooked that the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 was issued in exercise of the jurisdiction envisaged under Section 33 of the U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 which authorised the State Government to direct by a notified order that the provisions of the Act shall, during such period as may be specified in that order have subject to such adaptations whether by way of modification addition or omission as it may deem to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of removing any difficulty, A perusal of the Difficulties Removal Order, 1981 Indicates that it was issued to meet the difficulty resulting on account of delay in the establishment of the Commission or its functioning and the difficulty arising out of the failure or delay in filling up the existing vacancies. These difficulties were not such which could necessitate these requisite eligibility criteria dispensed with which stood prescribed under the provisions contained in the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and the Regulations framed thereunder and were not inconsistent with the provisions of the U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 and the Rules framed thereunder. Indeed, even the aforesaid Order specifically did not dispense with the pre-requisite condition regarding having the minimum teaching experience for a candidate seeking promotion to the post of principal as is evident from the perusal of paragraph 6(a) of the Order read with the paragraph 4(a) of the said Order. If for promotion to the post of Principal, the requisite eligibility condition of having prescribed minimum teaching experience was not dispensed with, there could be no justification for Inferring that the requirement of such experience, for promotion envisaged under paragraph 4(2) of the Order stood dispensed with. If for promotion to the post of Principal, the requisite eligibility condition of having prescribed minimum teaching experience was not dispensed with, there could be no justification for Inferring that the requirement of such experience, for promotion envisaged under paragraph 4(2) of the Order stood dispensed with. Moreover, considering the object and the legislative Intent behind the U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982, there could be no manner of doubt that a Removal of Difficulties Order envisaged thereunder could not be allowed to run contrary to the policy relating to the eligibility criteria for promotion underlying the provisions of the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder or contrary to such policy underlying the provisions contained in the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and the Regulations framed thereunder which to the extent of consistency will be deemed to be continuing in force by virtue of Section 32 of the U.P. Act No 5 of 1982. It may be observed that a candidate who was totally ineligible for being even considered for promotion against a vacancy in the post of in Lecturer's grade, could not be deemed to be eligible to hold such promotion post on ad hoc basis for an indefinite period. 16. Taking into consideration the object of the U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 as indicated above and the implications arising under Section 32 of the U.P. Act No 5 of 1982 we are of the definite opinion that the legislative intent behind the provision contained in paragraph 6(c) of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 was to exclude from the zona of consideration for promotion, The ad-hoc appointees, appointees on stop gap arrangement or on temporary, basis, and not to dispense with the requirement of having to the credit of a candidate for promotion, the minimum five years continuous service in the lower grade. Any other construction is bound to lead to anomalous results and defeat the very purpose of the Act, of ensuring the high standard and securing healthy system of education. Any other construction is bound to lead to anomalous results and defeat the very purpose of the Act, of ensuring the high standard and securing healthy system of education. After having carefully perused the decision in the case of Shashi Bhushan (supra) and examining the various provisions of the U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 along with the Rules framed thereunder and the Difficulties Removal Orders issued thereunder, we are unable to subscribed to the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid case and for the reasons indicated above, we find it impossible to approve the same. This decision is accordingly here by over ruled only to the extent as indicated above. As a result the promotion of Smt. Prem Balika Rai on 9-7-1984 has to be held as irregular. Further, that period of her service in the Lecturer's grade which remained irregular is liable to be ignored for the purpose of determining the interse seniority in question. 17. In view of our conclusions mentioned hereinbefore, we are convinced that the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity. These specials appeal are devoid of merits and are hereby dismissed. 18. There shall, however, be no orders to costs. Appeal dismissed.