JAGDISH BHALLA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition against the order dated 20-1-1986 which relates to the appointment of reserved pool teacher and ha prayed issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay salary of the petitioner from 1-7-1985 till date and go on paying the salary of the petitioner month to month as and when it falls due on the post of Lecturer in Sociology in the institution. 2. According to the petitioner he is M. A. in Sociology and B. Ed. and is working as a duly approved L. T. Grade teacher since 1976 and was regularised under Section 16-GG, as such he has more than five years sub stantive service as L. T. Grade teacher. Therefore, he is entitled to be promoted as Lecturer. In the circumstances, the case of the petitioner was considered by the Committee of Management and was unanimously resolved to promote the petitioner from his L. T. Grade post to the post of Lecturer in Sociology. By order dated 1-2-1985 the said promotion of the petitioner was duly approved by the District Inspector of Schools only on ad HOC basis. 3. According to the petitioner, the District Inspector of Schools should have treated the case of the petitioner as a. regularly promoted and should have forwarded to the Service Commission, but on a wrong action of law, the District Inspector of Schools, purportedly issued an order of approval only on ad hoc basis but the facts remain that the petitioner having been duly promoted on the said post of Lecturer in Sociology. 4. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that by amendment in U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with regard to reserved pool, teacher, the District Inspector of Schools has been conferred power for absorption of reserved pool teacher only when the said reserved pool teacher, if any, has worked during the stipulated strike period in the institu tion. In such circumstances, the reserved pool teacher can only be appoint ed by the District Inspector of Schools in the same District. According to the petitioner, the person appointed from the list of reserved pool teacher were from Gorakhpur and not from Deoria. 5. In such circumstances, the reserved pool teacher can only be appoint ed by the District Inspector of Schools in the same District. According to the petitioner, the person appointed from the list of reserved pool teacher were from Gorakhpur and not from Deoria. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that it appears that some list of reserved pool teacher has been prepared by Deputy Director of Education, VII Region, Gorakhpur who has no right to prepare any such list. He further pointed out that it has not been indicated in the impugned order in which institution respondent No 3 has worked and paid salary during the strike period. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his argument also relied upon Section 21-C and 33 of the Act. 7. According to respondents four posts of Lecturers were sanctioned by the Deputy Director of Education and two posts were reserved for direct recruitment under Section 16-E (5) of the Intermediate Education Act amended upto date and two posts were reserved for 40% for promotion. Accordingly two posts of Lecturers in Hindi and Geography were filled by promotion according to seniority. The post of teacher in sociology was reserved for direct recruitment. Though the petitioner is possessing the requisite qualification for promotion but the 40% quote for promotion has already been completed as such the said post was to be filled by direct appointment according to U. P. Act No. 19 of 1985. As two teachers were already promoted on the post of Lecturer in Hindi and Geography under 40% quota, hence the petitioner is no entitled for further promotion and the post is now to be offered to a reserved pool teacher. 8. As far as reliance of Section 33-A of the Act by the learned counsel for the petitioner11 am of the view that the same is not applicable in the present case because the petitioner was not appointed against a sub stantive vacancy in accordance with paragraph 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 as amended from time to time. The petitioner has not claimed regularisation by mentioning a single word in his writ petition. The petitioner has not claimed regularisation by mentioning a single word in his writ petition. The peti tioner was appointed for a particular time on purely temporary ad hoc basis from 1-9-1984 to 30-6-1985 and as such he is not entitled for regularisation in pursuance of section 33-A. Further more, respondent No. 3 being a reserved pool teacher was entitled to the benefit granted by the Honble Supreme Court vide judgment delivered in the case of Prabodh Verma v State of U. P. reported in 1984 UPLBEC 771. 9. In regard to reliance of Section 21-C of the Act by the learned counsel for the petitioner which speaks about power of Director regarding transfer of the reserved pool teacher from one District to another District. I am of the view that under this section the Deputy Director of Education has rightly exercised its power in transferring the respondent No. 3 in the District Deoria from Gorakhpur and there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Deputy Director of Education. 10. In view of above, this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order dated 16-5- 1986 is hereby discharged. Petition dismissed. .