JUDGMENT : M.L. BHAT, J. 1. Appointment of Respondent (sic) lecturer is challenged by a writ of certiorari and a writ (sic) directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to appoint petitioner (sic) on ad hoc basis and petitioner No. 2 as lecturer (sic) basis. Petitioners on departmental candidates whereas, (sic) 4 & 5 are said to be direct recruits. 2. Petitioners case is that petitioner no. (sic) Assistant teacher in L.T. grade on 6.9.1974 (sic) w.e.f. the same date as L.T. grade teacher. On (sic) as permanent lecturer in Economics is said to have (sic) and due to his retirement a substantive vacancy (sic) Economics came into existence. Petitioner No. 1 was (sic) on the post of lecturer in Economics under (sic) law. Every substantive vacancy has to be tilled up (sic) promotion of a senior teacher working in the lower (sic) lecturer in Economics was also to be filled up by (sic) No. I was qualified for being appointed to the post of lecturer in Economics as he was eligible for appointment. Petitioner No. 1 is said to have filed an application on 8.8.1988 that he should be given promotion to the post of lecturer. On 30.8.1988 Petitioner No. 1 was directed to teach intermediate classes in Economics subject and he is said to have complied with this order. On 25.1.1989 Petitioner No. 1 again represented his case before the management. Management did not consider the said request as management wanted to promote its own favorites for certain oblique reasons. 3. On 20.1.1991 Respondent No. 3 who is a direct recruit was appointed as ad hoc lecturer. Petitioner No. 1 challenges the appointment of Respondent No. 3 as being illegal and against the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982. On 20.1.1991 Respondent No. 1 is said to have given approval to the appointment of Respondent No. 3. Petitioner No. 1 further states that neither any advertisement was issued nor was any selection held for appointing Respondent No. 3 as lecturer. 4. Petitioner No. 2 is said to be a Post Graduate in English. He was reserved pool teacher and has been appointed in the college w.e.f. 14.9.1985 and is working as Assistant teacher L.T. grade since 14.9.1985. Two lecturers in English have vacated their post by retirement and death respectively and two substantive vacancies of the post of lecturer came into existence. He was reserved pool teacher and has been appointed in the college w.e.f. 14.9.1985 and is working as Assistant teacher L.T. grade since 14.9.1985. Two lecturers in English have vacated their post by retirement and death respectively and two substantive vacancies of the post of lecturer came into existence. Petitioner No. 2 is qualified for appointment on the post of lecturer in English was eligible for ad hoc promotion He is said to have given application for being promoted to the post of lecturer in English on ad hoc basis. Management did not consider his application and instead they appointed on 28.1.1991 Respondents 4 & 5 as lecturer in English on ad hoc basis. Respondents 4 & 5 are the direct recruits who could not be appointed as lecturers on ad hoc basis because of the availability of the Petitioner No. 2 for being appointed as a departmental candidate. No advertisement was issued nor was any selection proceeding held but because of some favoritism these Respondents were appointed. Petitioner No. 2 is also teaching intermediate classes in English subject. 5. The appointment of Respondents 3, 4 & 5 is said to be bad and Petitioners are said to be eligible for being promoted on ad hoc basis against the post of lecturers in Economics, and English subjects respectively. Promotion of Respondents 3 to 5 is said to be against law. On behalf of Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 Respondent No. 3 has filed counter affidavit. It is submitted by him that proceeding for grant of lecturer's pay scale to the Petitioner No. 1 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 under the Government Order dated 28.2.1990 were pending, therefore, Petitioner No. 1 could not be granted promotion as lecturer in Economics. The said proceedings are finalized on 24.1.1991. Petitioner No. 1 has been granted lecture's pay scale of Rs. 1600-2600 w.e.f. 1.1.1986. Copy of the order issued by D.I.O.S. is placed with the counter affidavit as annexure C.A. I. It is stated that the post of lecturer in Economics was to be filled up from amongst schedule caste candidates in accordance With the reservation orders issued by the State Government for private aided educational institutions. The vacancy of lecturer was notified for being filled up directly. The vacancy of lecturer was notified for being filled up directly. Some queries was raised by the State Government which were replied by Respondent No. 1 and, thereafter, management by means of a communication dated 10.8.1990 clarified that Petitioner was entitled to be granted lecturer's pay scale. There was no occasion for considering him for promotion to the lecturer's post. The provisions of law requiring appointment of senior most teacher as lecturer on ad hoc basis in Economics would not apply because-post was to be filled up from amongst the scheduled caste candidates and Petitioner No. 1 was already drawing the lecturer's pay scale. The appointment of Respondent No. 3 by the management is made in a bona fide exercise of power and in accordance with law and allegation of oblique motive in making appointment is denied. Before making adhoc appointment of direct recruits, D.I.O.S. is said to have granted permission on 1.12.1990, which is placed as Annexure C.A. 5 to the writ petition. 6. The post of lecturer also was to be filled up by direct recruit as no L.T. grade teacher existing in the school including Petitioner No. 2 possessed the requisite qualification for promotion as lecturer in English. Two vacancies caused by retirement and death of two lecturers were filled up by direct recruitment. Petitioner No. 2 possesses academic qualification but he did not have all the eligibility qualifications for grant of promotion to the post of lecturer Petitioner No. 2 was appointed only on 4.9.1985 and the two vacancies came into existence on 30.6.1989 and 20.3.1990 respectively. On the date of occurrence of the aforesaid two vacancies Petitioner No. 2 had not completed five years' service in L.T. grade, as such he could not be considered for grant of promotion. Condition of five years teaching experience is mandatory under Rule 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Commission Rules of 1983 as also under the other provisions of law relating to the Petitioner No. 2. Other factual assertions of the Petitioners have been denied by the Respondents. 7. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the Petitioner No. 2 on behalf of the Petitioners. It is stated at the time of occurrence of vacancy for the post of lecturer in Economics, Petitioner No. 2 was not granted pay scale of lecturer. The pay scale of lecturer's grade was granted to him much after that date. 7. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the Petitioner No. 2 on behalf of the Petitioners. It is stated at the time of occurrence of vacancy for the post of lecturer in Economics, Petitioner No. 2 was not granted pay scale of lecturer. The pay scale of lecturer's grade was granted to him much after that date. Petitioner No. 1 was qualified for being appointed as lecturer in Economics but his claim was ignored in violation of law. Advertisement was issued on 21.1.1989 in the newspaper known as Himachal Times. It is stated that even though Petitioner No 1 is given lecturer's grade now but he continues to hold the post of Assistant teacher. He cannot be equated to the post of lecturer nor can he claim seniority in the lecture's grade. Appointment of the lecturer on adhoc basis is made from the L.T. grade teacher. Though Petitioner has been given the pay scale of lecturer but he has not lost the right for being appointed as lecturer in Economics on adhoc basis. It is denied that the post was reserved for scheduled caste candidate as stated by the Respondents Petitioner No. 2 is also said to be qualified for appointment as adhoc lecturer. It is submitted that firstly five years experience in L.T. grade is not required for adhoc promotion u/s 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act and secondly on the date when the committee of management decided to make adhoc appointment, Petitioner No 2 had five years qualified service in L.T. grade. The decision to make adhoc appointment was taken by the committee of management on 29.11.1990. All other assertions raised by the Respondents, contrary to the submissions made by the Petitioners in the writ petition are denied. 8. Learned Counsel for the parties were heard at some length. The case of two Petitioners is not identical. There are some distinguishing features in the case of two Petitioners. I shall, therefore, take the case of two Petitioners separately. 9. In so far as Petitioner. No. 1 is concerned there is no denial that he was confirmed as Assistant teacher L.T. Grade w.e.f. 6.9.1974 so he had the requisite teaching experience and other eligibility qualifications for being considered for the post of lecturer in Economics. I shall, therefore, take the case of two Petitioners separately. 9. In so far as Petitioner. No. 1 is concerned there is no denial that he was confirmed as Assistant teacher L.T. Grade w.e.f. 6.9.1974 so he had the requisite teaching experience and other eligibility qualifications for being considered for the post of lecturer in Economics. His claims is contested by the other side only on the ground that his case for lecturer grade under the Government order was being processed and he ultimately got the grade on 24.1.1991 w.e.f. 1986, therefore, he having been given lecturer's pay scale could not be considered for the post of lecturer because he has ceased to be L.T. grade teacher in view of the fact that he was to receive higher pay scale and his case under the process. 10. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has invited my attention to a judgment Chaaru Chand Tewari vs. D.I.O.S. 1991 UPLBEC 160. A Division Bench of this Court while discussing the provisions of Section 18(i) (b) of Uttar Pradesh Act No. 5 of 1982 has held that appointment on adhoc basis as envisaged by the Act has to be made by promotion of senior most teacher of same institution qualified for such appointment, direct recruits is permissible only in case where no such qualified teacher of institution is available. Rule of 60% and 40% promotion of direct and promotional candidates is not applicable in case of such appointments which are envisaged by Section 18 (i) (b). It was further held by the Court that Section 18 (i) (b) empowers the management to make adhoc appointment in case the vacancy is not filled for more than two months by the Commission. Nature of appointment is apparent from use of expression "purely adhoc basis." Adhoc promotion does not create any right in the appointee except to continue him till regular selection is made. In order to appreciate the observations made by the Division Bench it is necessary to advert to sections (i) (b) of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 (Act No. V. of 1982). The said provision reads as under. In order to appreciate the observations made by the Division Bench it is necessary to advert to sections (i) (b) of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 (Act No. V. of 1982). The said provision reads as under. 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 person possessing qualifications prescribed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or the regulations made thereunder. 11. The Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 prescribed the method of adhoc appointment by promotion. Rule 4(2) envisages that every vacancy in the post of a teacher in the lecturers grade may be filled by promotion by the senior most teacher of the institution in the trained graduate (L.T.) grade. Rule 5 of the said older envisages that where any vacancy cannot be filled by promotion under Rule 4, the same may be filled by direct recruitment in accordance with the provisions of Rule 5 of the said order. 12. Relying on the Rule 4, the learned Counsel for the Respondent has urged that Petitioner No. 1 was getting the pay scale of lecturer's grade, therefore, he could not have been considered for the post of lecturer as a promotee. He had ceased to be L.T. grade teacher in view of the fact that he was getting lecturer's pay scale and he could not be considered for the said post of lecturer. Therefore, his non consideration for the post of lecturer in Economics was sought to be justified and it was urged that since then was no candidate available for adhoc promotion, therefore, under the removal of difficulties order direct appointment of lecturer could be made in terms of Rule 5 of the said order. 13. This submission has two inherent defects. In the first place all those teachers who had ten years experience on a particular date were allowed to draw the pay scale of a lecturer but they were not made lecturer. Their status had to remain as L.T. grade teacher but their pay was enhanced. The enhancement of pay of L.T. grade teachers to the level of lecturer's grade would not ipso facto make the L.T. grade teachers of ten years experience as lecturers. Their status had to remain as L.T. grade teacher but their pay was enhanced. The enhancement of pay of L.T. grade teachers to the level of lecturer's grade would not ipso facto make the L.T. grade teachers of ten years experience as lecturers. For being appointed as a lecturer something more was required to be done. It was necessary that there was a recommendation and that recommendation had to be approved and then the status of L.T. grade teacher was to be converted into the status of (sic) to be converted into the status of (sic) was raised, the L.T. grade teacher does (sic) second place advertisement was issued on (sic) on that date petitioner No. 1 was not (sic) case might have been under consideration (sic) not have debarred him from seeking (sic) notice dated 21.1.1989. 14. Therefore, non consideration (sic) post of lecturer in Economics was against the (sic) legation was on flimsy grounds which are not: 15. As a senior most L.T. (sic) being appointed as adhoc lecturer till (sic) liable. As already held he had not become (sic) of a lecturer. He had remained a L.T (sic) eligible for consideration for being appointed (sic) on the date of advertisement of the (sic) turer's grade, therefore, he could not be (sic) rounds which are still born. The petitioner (sic) ed on adhoc basis, therefore, cannot be (sic) it no. 3 as a direct recruit cannot be upheld (sic) was available for promotion who has (sic) Respondent No. 3 could not be appointed (sic) is also to continue only till regular (sic) made as yet. 16. The promotion of Respondent (sic) nomics is therefore liable to be set aside (sic) seek a writ of mandamus directing the (sic) as a lecturer in Economics on adhoc (sic) or the post. 17. In respect of Respondent (sic) learned Counsel for the petitioner that for (sic) years teaching experience is not required (sic) required when an appointment is sought to be. 18. 17. In respect of Respondent (sic) learned Counsel for the petitioner that for (sic) years teaching experience is not required (sic) required when an appointment is sought to be. 18. Under Rule 9 of the (sic) Rules, it is directed that the (sic) at least five years continuous service as (sic) the five years experience is to be had on (sic) Interpreting the Rule it is submitted (sic) hat for ad hoc appointment there is no need (sic) the authority on which the learned (sic) docs not - seem to be good law in view of (sic) Prem Balika Rai vs. Regional Inspect, Special Appeal No. 2 of 1993 decided (sic) of this Court. The matter before the (sic) seniority and for determining the seniority: (sic) service. If the continuous service was (sic) to be irregular service which could (sic) accordingly judgment in Shashi Bhushan (sic) Sanatan Dharam Inter College, 1992 AWC (sic) and was accordingly over ruled. Therefore (sic) years service as L.T. grade teacher is (sic) lie post of lecturer in English. 19. It was submitted by (sic) nos. 4 & 5 that petitioner No. 2 had (sic) 1985. The advertisement for. making ad hoc appointment was issued on 21-1-1989. Under Rule 9 (Supra) Petitioner No. 2 was required to have teaching experience of five years on the date of occurrence of vacancy. The occurrence of vacancy was declared on 21.1.1989, Under Rule 9 (Supra) therefore, Petitioner No. 2 could not be said to have been possessed with five years teaching experience on 21.1.1989. On this basis learned Counsel for the Respondents No. 1 & 5 submits that Petitioner No. 2's writ petition is liable to be dismissed because for seeking promotion on ad hoc basis also he is required to have five years teaching experience in the L.T. grade which he did not possess. 20. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner No. 2 has submitted that assuming that Petitioner No. 2 was required to have five years teaching experience for being eligible to seek promotion on ad hoc basis to the post of lecturer. He is said to have completed five years experience because Committee of Management has decided to make ad hoc appointment on 29.11.1990. On that date Petitioner No. 2 had completed five years qualified service in L.T. grade, therefore, he was having the requisite teaching experience for being appointed as lecturer in English. He is said to have completed five years experience because Committee of Management has decided to make ad hoc appointment on 29.11.1990. On that date Petitioner No. 2 had completed five years qualified service in L.T. grade, therefore, he was having the requisite teaching experience for being appointed as lecturer in English. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied on Hans Raj Singh vs. Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Commission, Allahabad 1990 (2) UPLBEC 1127. In this case the Petitioner was the only candidate who could be promoted to the post advertised but on the relevant date he was not M.A. Being M.A. was necessary condition for seeking appointment. He had appeared in M.A. examination just after the relevant date. It was held that declaration of result of examination dates back to the examination to which it pertains. The result of the Petitioner was declared on 11.7.1986, before that direct recruitment was made. The Petitioner, therefore, could not get any advantage of declaration of result being related to the date of examination because before that date ad hoc appointment was made. 21. From the reading of the Rule 9, it is manifestly clear that eligibility of five years experience must be possessed by a candidate on the date of occurrence of vacancy. There is no doubt in the present case that vacancy was declared on 21.1.1989 so it will be deemed to be have arisen on that date. Op the said date Petitioner No. 2 was not qualified for being appointed as ad hoc lecturer because he did not have five years teaching experience as required under law. 22. In the light of the foregoing discussions this writ petition is decided in the following manner. (1) By a writ of certiorari promotion order of the Respondent No. 3 to the post of lecturer in Economics is hereby quashed and it is directed that Petitioner No. 1 shall be considered for appointment as a lecturer in L.T. grade in Economics. The Respondent No. 3 was not eligible for being appointed to the post of lecturer initially as a direct recruit. (2) By a writ of mandamus Respondents Nos. 1 & 2 are directed to consider the appointment of Petitioner No. 1 to the post of lecturer within a period of one month from the date of supply of a certified copy of this judgment to the Respondents Nos. (2) By a writ of mandamus Respondents Nos. 1 & 2 are directed to consider the appointment of Petitioner No. 1 to the post of lecturer within a period of one month from the date of supply of a certified copy of this judgment to the Respondents Nos. 1 & 2 by the Petitioner No. 1. (3) That the Petitioner No. 2's claim for certiorari and mandamus is liable to be dismissed and writ petition fails so far as it relates to the claim of Petitioner No. 2 against the Respondents No. 4 & 5. It is held that Petitioner No. 2 was not qualified on the date of occurrence of vacancy for being considered as ad hoc lecturer in English subject. There will be no order as to costs.