JUDGMENT : SHOBHA DIKSHIT, J. 1. These writ petitions arise out of usual tie between two rival contesting teachers for a single post. In the present case, the post in question is that of Lecturer in History. 2. Vaidic Kanya Pathshala Inter College, Lucknow is a recognized Institution under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, imparting education up to Class XII. It is receiving grant-in-aid for payment of salary to teaching and non-teaching staff. The provisions of High School and Intermediate College (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 and U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Board, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as payment of Salaries Act and Commission Act) respectively are applicable to it. 3. The facts of the case as revealed from the pleadings of the parties are that the permanent Principal of the Institution Smt. Prem Lata Srivastava superannuated with effect from 1.7.1987 hence, the senior-most lecturer Smt. Vimla Tandon was promoted on ad hoc basis on (he said post and consequently the post of permanent lecturer In History on which Smt. Vimla Tandon was teaching fell vacant. This vacancy was a short term vacancy as Smt. Vimla Tandon was promoted on the post of Principal only on ad hoc basis and she continued to retain her Hen on the post of lecturer. This short term vacancy had to be filled In accordance with U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order (Second), 1981 (hereinafter referred to as Removal of Difficulties Order (Second), 1981) Issued on 31.7.1981 by promotion failing which by direct recruitment. 4. One Smt. Munni Mehrotra who was the next senior-most teacher in L.T. Grade (History) being eligible was, therefore, considered and recommended by the Regional Inspectors of Girls Schools, Lucknow vide her letter dated 6.4.1988 for being appointed/promoted against the said short term vacancy. Unfortunately, Smt. Munni Mehrotra died on 24.8.1988 hence this vacancy remained as such. At this point of time, since no other teacher in the Institution was duly qualified and eligible for being promoted to the said post, therefore, the Committee of Management decided to fill the same by direct recruitment. Smt. Uma Rani Misra, a qualified teacher was appointed directly after being selected by a duly constituted selection committee and an appointment letter to her was issued by the Committee of Management on 17.5.1988 subject to approval by the concerned Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools. Smt. Uma Rani Misra, a qualified teacher was appointed directly after being selected by a duly constituted selection committee and an appointment letter to her was issued by the Committee of Management on 17.5.1988 subject to approval by the concerned Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools. The Regional Inspectors of Girls Schools vide her letter dated 22.6.1988 accorded approval with the condition that the appointment shall continue till a duly selected candidate joins the post or Smt. Vimla Tandon reverts back to the post or till the post becomes substantive, whichever is earlier. Smt. Uma Rani Misra accordingly joined the post on 21.5.1988 and started teaching the subject of History to Classes IX, X, XI and XII in the said Institution. Meanwhile, Smt. Vimla Tandon who was officiating as Principal became permanent on the post of Principal and thereafter superannuated with effect from 30.6.1992. The management at this juncture issued a letter dated 30.5.1992 to the Petitioner that her services shall not be treated as lawful with effect from 1.7.1992 in terms of the letter of approval of the R.I.G.S. dated 22.6.1988 as a substantive vacancy has fallen vacant. It is this communication which has initiated the present litigation. 5. Aggrieved by the said communication, the Petitioner Smt. Uma Rani Misra filed Writ Petition No. 3707 (S/S) of 1992 praying for quashing of the said letter dated 30.5.1992 (Annexure 5) inter-alia on the ground that she was validly and legally appointed under the provisions of Removal of Difficulties (Second) Order, 1981 and since the services of Smt. Vimla Tandon became permanent and regular with effect from 6.4.1991. Therefore, her appointment shall be treated to be against the said substantive vacancy and liable to be regularised u/s 33B of the Commission Act as amended. This Court while entertaining this writ petition passed the following interim order on 20.6.1992: Standing counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the opposite parties. He prays for and is granted six weeks time to file counter-affidavit. Rejoinder-affidavit within a week thereafter. List for orders after the expiry of the aforesaid period. Until further orders or the availability of the regularly selected teacher through Commission, whichever be earlier, the Petitioner will be allowed to continue on the post held by her presently. 6. He prays for and is granted six weeks time to file counter-affidavit. Rejoinder-affidavit within a week thereafter. List for orders after the expiry of the aforesaid period. Until further orders or the availability of the regularly selected teacher through Commission, whichever be earlier, the Petitioner will be allowed to continue on the post held by her presently. 6. On moving an application, Smt. Kusum Agarwal another teacher teaching in the Respondent Institution was Impleaded a party Respondent in this writ petition vide orders dated 14.10.1992 and a counter-affidavit was filed on her behalf stating that the post in question clearly fell within promotional quota and the appointment of the Petitioner directly on ad hoc basis against a short-term vacancy is wholly illegal. It has further been stated therein that even otherwise the appointment in question being against short-term vacancy came lo an end on 30.6.f 992 in terms of letter of appointment dated 17.6.1988 and the conditional approval by Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools dated 22.6.88. She has further alleged the appointment and approval of Smt. Uma Rani Misra both to be collusive. The provisions of newly added Section 33B to the Commission Act have also been said to be not applicable to the facts of this case. 7. On learning about the resolution of the Committee of Management dated 16.6.1992 recommending promotion of Smt. Kusum Agarwal to the post of lecturer in History against which Petitioner Smt. Uma Rani Misra was working, she moved an application for amendment and sought the quashing of the same. This application was allowed by this Court. Petitioner filed a rejoinder-affidavit reiterating her stand. 8. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, Petitioner Smt. Uma Rani Misra submitted two representations before the Commission dated 6.2.1992 and 24.4.1993 and also on 13.8.1993 for regularisation of her services and rejection of the proposal of promotion of Smt. Kusum Agarwal. This application was allowed by this Court. Petitioner filed a rejoinder-affidavit reiterating her stand. 8. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, Petitioner Smt. Uma Rani Misra submitted two representations before the Commission dated 6.2.1992 and 24.4.1993 and also on 13.8.1993 for regularisation of her services and rejection of the proposal of promotion of Smt. Kusum Agarwal. When these representations were not disposed of by the Commission, Smt. Uma Rani Misra filed a fresh Writ Petition No. 3746 (S/S) of 1993 inter-alia on the ground that once a decision has been taken to fill a short-term vacancy by direct recruitment because of non-availability of an eligible candidate for being promoted, and the said short-term vacancy being converted into a substantive vacancy later on, it was not open to the opposite parties to review their earlier decision after 5 years and consider another teacher of the Institution for being promoted against the same post on her acquiring essential qualifications later on Following interim order was passed by this Court in this writ petition on 10.5.1993. Learned standing counsel prays for and is granted six weeks' time either to obtain necessary instructions or to file counter-affidavit. List in the month of August, 1993. Meanwhile opposite parties are directed to consider and dispose of the representations dated 5/6.2.1993 and 24.4.93 preferred by the Petitioner. Till then the Petitioner shall not be disturbed. 9. The Commission as aforementioned acting on the requisition sent by the management and its recommendations for promotion of Smt. Kusum Agarwal with effect from 1.7.1992 against a substantive vacancy caused due to retirement of Smt. Vimla Tandon accorded approval vide its letter dated 17.8.1993. Smt. Kusum Agarwal. Therefore, filed Writ Petition No. 4431 (S/S) of 1993, (Since withdrawn) with prayer to issue a writ of mandamus to the opposite parties therein to give her charge on the promotional post. 10. All the three writ petitions were connected and those two have been heard together. Parties have exchanged affidavits. Lengthy arguments have been addressed by the learned Counsel for rival claimants for lie single post of lecturer in History in the Institution. Learned standing counsel and the learned Counsel for the Committee of Management have also been heard. Since all the three writ petitions are based on common facts and the post in question is the same, hence all the three writ petitions are being decided by this common Judgment. Learned standing counsel and the learned Counsel for the Committee of Management have also been heard. Since all the three writ petitions are based on common facts and the post in question is the same, hence all the three writ petitions are being decided by this common Judgment. However, Writ Petition No. 3746 (S/S) of 1993 has been treated as the main case for the purpose of referring to various annexure. 11. Sri. K.D. Nag, learned Counsel appearing for Smt. Uma Rani Misra challenged the order dated 30.5.1992 by which she was Informed by the Committee of Management that her continuance on the post in question is no more lawful, inter-alia on the ground that her appointment against the short-term vacancy was perfectly valid and legal being made under Removal of Difficulties Order (Second) and the said short-term vacancy having been converted into a substantive one later on, she is entitled to continue as an ad hoc appointee till such time that a directly selected teacher by the Commission Joins the post or her ad hoc services are regularised in accordance with the provisions of Section 33B(1a), a newly added Section by U.P. Act No. 1 of 1993 with effect from 9.8.1993. 12. It was contended by the learned Counsel that sub-clause 2 of Clause 2 of the Removal of Difficulties Order (Second), 1981 provides that in case of occurrence of a short term vacancy, the same shall be filled by promotion of a qualified and eligible teacher teaching in the grade below in the same Institution and in case one is not available then by direct recruitment in the manner provided in Para 2(3) of the aforesaid Order. Para 3 thereafter provide for duration of such appointments in following manners: 3. Duration of ad hoc appointment - Every appointment of teacher under Paragraph 2 of this Order shall cease from the earliest of the following dates, namely: (a) When the teacher, who was on leave or under suspension joins the post. (b) Omitted by Third Removal of Difficulties Order, 1982. (c) When the short term vacancy otherwise ceases to exist. 13. Duration of ad hoc appointment - Every appointment of teacher under Paragraph 2 of this Order shall cease from the earliest of the following dates, namely: (a) When the teacher, who was on leave or under suspension joins the post. (b) Omitted by Third Removal of Difficulties Order, 1982. (c) When the short term vacancy otherwise ceases to exist. 13. So far as the first contention is concerned that the vacancy in question had to be filled by direct appointment by the Committee of Management, learned Counsel contended that it is not in dispute by any party to this case that the Respondent Smt. Kusum Agarwal was not eligible and qualified for being promoted on the post when the short term vacancy arose. She admittedly did not possess the requisite experience of teaching the subject of History in L.T. Grade for five continuous years. Respondent Smt. Kusum Agarwal has nowhere pleaded or stated in clear and unequivocal terms that she was qualified at the time when the vacancy in question arose. One Smt. Munni Mehrotra was found eligible hence she was considered and promoted but unfortunately she died before joining the post hence the vacancy continued as such. The stand of Committee of Management is also the same, i.e. that the Respondent Smt. Kusum Agarwal was not eligible and qualified at the time of occurrence of vacancy. In these circumstances, where this issue is not in dispute, it is held that the Respondent Smt. Kusum Agarwal did not possess the requisite teaching experience of 5 years on the date of occurrence of short term vacancy. 14. Learned Counsel Sri. Nag next contended that the selection of the Petitioner was also duly made In accordance with the procedure provided in sub Clause 3 of Clause 2 Le. The vacancy was advertised/notified on the notice board, applications were invited and received and a duly selected selection committee made the selection on merit. The requisite approval of Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools was also accorded vide letter dated 22.6.1988. In these circumstances, the appointment of the Petitioner dated 17.5.1988 is perfectly legal and valid on this count also. 15. The vacancy was advertised/notified on the notice board, applications were invited and received and a duly selected selection committee made the selection on merit. The requisite approval of Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools was also accorded vide letter dated 22.6.1988. In these circumstances, the appointment of the Petitioner dated 17.5.1988 is perfectly legal and valid on this count also. 15. Repelling the objection raised on behalf of Smt. Kusum Agarwal that the procedure for selection was not followed, therefore, the selection and consequent appointment both are Illegal ab initio, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that firstly the procedure was duly followed as revealed from the contents of Para 6 of the counter-affidavit filed by the Committee of Management to which no rebuttal has been filed by the Respondent Smt. Kusum Agarwal and secondly Respondent herself competed in the said selection, for direct appointment but was rejected. Thus post could be filled directly. Since she applied and appeared in the said direct selection therefore, it is also not open to her now to challenge the validity and legality of the said selection on the ground of the procedure adopted for the selection. Sri. K.D. Nag referred to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vijay Narain Sharma vs. District Inspector of Schools, Etawah and Others, 1986 UPLBEC 44 , wherein it has been held that once a selection is accepted and becomes final, the same cannot be challenged later on the ground that it was Illegal. Once the process of selection starts and a candidate is selected, vested rights are created in his/her favour. In this case, therefore, the contention that the short-term vacancy was not validly filled in the year 1988 and the procedure as provided in Clause 2(3) was not followed is too late in the day and cannot sustain in law. 16. Sri. Umesh Chandra, Senior Advocate laid great emphasis on this aspect of the matter that the procedure as provided in sub-Clause 3 of Clause 2 was since not followed, therefore, in the light of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court In the case of Radha Ratzada and Others vs. Committee of Management, Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter College and Others, 1994 (3) UPLBEC 1551 , the appointment of Smt. Uma Rani Misra was illegal. This decision has been rendered on 12th July, 1994 by which the provisions of Clause 2(3) have been interpreted and it has been provided that in addition to notifying the vacancy on the notice board of the institution, the same should also be: advertised in two newspapers having adequate circulation and the procedure should be the same as contained in sub-para 2 of Para 5 of Removal of Difficulties Order (First) and the applications from Employment Exchange should also be invited. It is nobody's case that the procedure as provided under sub-Clauses 3 (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) was not followed. In fact Respondent has miserably failed to repel and rebut the contents of the counter-affidavit filed by the Committee of Management. What to say of repelling, the Respondent herself applied and appeared in the selection, therefore, In my opinion, the judgment interpreting the Clause in question Is prospective and would not nullify all the. Selections made against short-term vacancies where except advertising the vacancy in the newspapers, every other step as provided therein was duly taken. I, therefore, find no merit in the objection raised by the learned Counsel for the Respondent for the aforesaid reason as also for the reason that she herself participated in the selection and did not raise any objection for all these years since 1988. 17. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent attempted to highlight the circumstance that once Smt. Munni Mehrotra who was then teaching as a teacher in L.T. Grade stated her claim on the post In question by way of promotion after the said selection, therefore, a fresh selection ought to have been made. The stand of the Committee of Management In tills regard is clear that it examined the representation of the said Smt. Munni Mehrotra and on coming to the conclusion that she was eligible for promotion against the aforesaid short-term vacancy, conceded to her claim but unfortunately before she could join the post, she died on 22.4.88 and the post of Lecturer in History continued to remain vacant. The relevant Para 6 of the counter-affidavit is reproduced below: 6. In reply to Para 5 of the writ petition, it is submitted that the appointment of Smt. Bimla Tandon. The Lecturer in History was made on the post of Principal on the approval of R.I.G.S. Lucknow with effect from 29.10.87. The relevant Para 6 of the counter-affidavit is reproduced below: 6. In reply to Para 5 of the writ petition, it is submitted that the appointment of Smt. Bimla Tandon. The Lecturer in History was made on the post of Principal on the approval of R.I.G.S. Lucknow with effect from 29.10.87. It is further submitted that as a consequence of promotion of Smt. Bimla Tandon, the post of History Lecturer fell vacant which was to be filled in temporarily on ad hoc basis by promoting the senior-most teacher of L.T. Grade in the Lecturers Grade. Smt. Munni Mehrotra who was senior most teacher in L.T. Grade of History, was found eligible and qualified and was recommended for appointment to the R.I.G.S. Lucknow vide letter No. 5316/V and P/87-88, dated 6.4.1988. It is further submitted that Smt. Munni Mehrotra unfortunately died on 28.4.1988 and the post of History Lecturer was continued to be vacant and was to be filled in by promotion but since no eligible and qualified candidate was available, a selection was proposed to be made through direct recruitment and Smt. Uma Rani Misra was found to be eligible and qualified candidate amongst all these candidates who appeared before the Selection Committee. The said selection was subject to the approval of R.I.G.S. 18. After having come to the conclusion that Smt. Kusum Agarwal did not possess the requisite teaching experience on the date the vacancy In question arose, i.e. 1.7.1987, therefore, it was rightly filled by direct appointment and that the procedure provided in sub-Clause 3 of Clause 2 of the Removal of Difficulties Order (Second) was duly followed. Therefore, the appointment of Smt. Uma Rani Misra is perfectly legal and valid. The next question which falls for consideration is as to the consequence of Smt. Vimla Tandon acquiring substantive status on 6.4.1991 when she stood regularised by operation of law (Section 33A(1A) (IB)(1C) of the Commission Act) or on her attaining the age of superannuation on 30.6.1992. 19. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner strenuously contended that Smt. Vimla Tandon, an ad hoc Principal stood regularised with effect from 6.4.1991 by operation of law and, therefore, the short term vacancy against which Smt. Uma Rani Misra was selected stood converted into a substantive vacancy from the said date. 19. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner strenuously contended that Smt. Vimla Tandon, an ad hoc Principal stood regularised with effect from 6.4.1991 by operation of law and, therefore, the short term vacancy against which Smt. Uma Rani Misra was selected stood converted into a substantive vacancy from the said date. In the alternative, he contended that ultimately Smt. Vimla Tandon superannuated with effect from 30.6.1992 from the post of Principal, therefore, on her retirement, the short-term vacancy In question stood converted into a substantive vacancy. All the opposite parties Committee of Management, the State Government and Smt. Kusum Agarwal accepted this position that the vacancy became substantive with effect from 30.6.1992. However, the dispute which is being raised by them is that once the short-term vacancy ceased and a substantive vacancy is caused, a fresh selection had to be made whereas the case of the Petitioner Smt. Uma Rani Misra is that since she was already working on the post on a short-term vacancy continuously w.e.f. 21.5.1988, therefore, when the vacancy converted Into substantive, she would under the law became ad hoc and would be entitled to continue to work till a duly selected candidate directly by the Commission Joins the post or she is given the benefit of Section 33B under U.P. Act No. 1 of 1993 which came into operation from 7.8.1993. The relevant clause of the Section reads as hereunder: 33B. Regularisation of certain other appointments - (I) Any teacher, other than the Principal or Head-Master, who:- (a)(i) was appointed by promotion or by direct recruitment in the lecturer grade or trained raduate grade on or before May 14, 1991 or in the certificate of teaching grade on or before May 13, 1989 against a short-term vacancy in accordance with Para 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order, 1981 and such vacancy was subsequently converted, into a substantive vacancy. This question came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Chandra Bhan Singh v. D.I.O.S. Bijnor.1991 EEIC 293. Wherein it has been held that an appointment against short-term vacancy shall be permitted to continue till the post is not filled by a regular selection and would not cease to work on the vacancy being converted into substantive on 30th June. Wherein it has been held that an appointment against short-term vacancy shall be permitted to continue till the post is not filled by a regular selection and would not cease to work on the vacancy being converted into substantive on 30th June. Another Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 7988 of 1987 decided on 20.5.88 has also held that a short-term vacancy if converted into a substantive vacancy will make no difference so far as the right of ad hoc appointee on the said post is concerned. Such an appointee shall be permitted to continue till regular selection is made. Sri. K.D. Nag, therefore, contended that in view of this legal position, the impugned letter dated 30.5.1992 issued by the Committee of Management as also the letter of Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools holding that the services of the Petitioner are either unlawful or the short-term vacancy had ceased to exist is illegal and liable to be quashed. The question of short-term vacancy to have ceased to exist does not arise and according to him. The conditions imposed in the letter of approval dated 22.6.1988 issued by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools are illegal. He submitted that the Committee of Management issued the Impugned letter on the basis that since the approval of the Petitioner's appointment against the short-term vacancy was conditional; therefore, in terms of the conditions imposed by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, her continuance on the post was treated to be unlawful. The stand of R.I.G.S. clearly is that once the short-term vacancy is converted into a substantive vacancy, the former vacancy ceased and the substantive vacancy is created calling for fresh selection. If is In tills view that the Committee of Management passed resolution dated 20.6.1992 recommending the name of Smt. Kusum Agarwal Respondent No. 5 for being promoted to the post of Lecturer against the aforesaid ad hoc vacancy. The R.I.G.S. has also supported this view and on a requisition being sent on 28.12.1992, by the Committee of Management to the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission, the Commission approved the promotion of Smt. Kusum Agarwal vide its letter dated 17.5.1993. Lengthy arguments have been addressed by the learned Counsels for rival claimants. The R.I.G.S. has also supported this view and on a requisition being sent on 28.12.1992, by the Committee of Management to the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission, the Commission approved the promotion of Smt. Kusum Agarwal vide its letter dated 17.5.1993. Lengthy arguments have been addressed by the learned Counsels for rival claimants. Learned standing counsel has canvassed that since the Commission has approved the name of the Respondent Smt. Kusum Agarwal for being promoted against the substantive vacancy created on 30.6.92, therefore, Petitioner's services cannot be regularised in view of addition of Section 3313 to the Commission Act of 1982 which came into force on 7.8.1993. 20. The case of the Petitioner Smt. Uma Rani Misra, on the other hand, is that since she was already working continuously on the pest of Lecturer in History since 1988 and she was validly and legally appointed prior to 14.5.1991, the cut-off date provided in the Section, therefore, she is squarely covered by it and is entitled to the benefit of Section 33B which came into effect from 7.8.1993 later in point of time. According to the learned Counsel, the benefit is by operation of law and there is no prerequisite of making a representation or application for seeking the benefit of this Section. In support of his contention that the ad hoc services of the Petitioner are liable to be regularised, he has referred to various decisions of this Court. Reference, however, can be made to a recent case, Km. Meena Singh vs. D.I.O.S. Jaunpur and Others, 1994 (3) UPLBEC 165, similar issue has been examined there as to whether a teacher duly appointed against short-term vacancy under Para 2 of the Removal of Difficulties Order (Second) 1981 would be entitled to continue even after the vacancy is converted into a substantive one by reason of resignation, retirement, death or otherwise till such time as a candidate selected for regular appointment turns up to Join the post held by an ad hoc appointee. While referring to Para 3(c) of the said Removal of Difficulties Order (Second), the duration of such appointment has been provided as "when the short-term vacancy otherwise ceases to exist." Interpreting the same learned single Judge held In Para 7 as follows: Para 3(c) of the Second Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 quoted as aforesaid, is no doubt susceptible to the view being taken by the Department that on the conversion of the short term vacancy into substantive vacancy, the appointment made against short-term vacancy would come to an end but a closer scrutiny of the matter would lead to the conclusion that the Legislature would not have Intended going through the same exercise of making ad hoc appointment twice over, one on the occurrence of the short-term vacancy and the other on such a vacancy being converted into a substantive vacancy. The object sought to be achieved by the Second Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 appears to be this that the interest of the student community must not be allowed to suffer by reason of even temporary absence of a teacher caused due to grant of leave to him or on account of his suspension or otherwise. This object gets, frustrated, as discussed hereinafter, if the tenure of a teacher appointee against short-term vacancy is allowed to come to an end automatically with the conversion of the short-term vacancy into a substantive vacancy. 21. After discussing the legislative Intent and the distinction between cessation of vacancy because of operation of law and cessation of short-term vacancy by reason of its conversion Into a substantive vacancy, the learned single Judge further held that such an appointee under Para 2 of the aforesaid Removal of Difficulties Order would be entitled to continue even after the vacancy is converted into a substantive one by reason of resignation, retirement or death till such time regularly selected candidate turns up to join the post held by ad hoc appointee unless his services are terminated due to misconduct, unsuitability or bona-fide abolition of post. After perusing the aforesaid decision, it is abundantly clear that a short-term vacancy when it is converted into a substantive vacancy does not create a situation vacancies calling for a fresh selection. The previous appointee on the vacancy when it was short-term shall be permitted to continue unless another duly selected candidate comes to join the post. After perusing the aforesaid decision, it is abundantly clear that a short-term vacancy when it is converted into a substantive vacancy does not create a situation vacancies calling for a fresh selection. The previous appointee on the vacancy when it was short-term shall be permitted to continue unless another duly selected candidate comes to join the post. The sole contention of the Opposite Party No. 5 Smt. Kusum Agarwal and the stand of the Committee of Management for passing a resolution for promotion of Smt. Kusum Agarwal and sending a requisition to the Commission which in turn approves the name of Smt. Kusum Agarwal is that the short-term vacancy ceased pursuant to the terms and conditions of the approval accorded by Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools on 22.6.1988. The question, therefore, is whether such a condition imposed by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools according approval is valid or not, and whether it Is sustainable in law or not. This question has also come up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hemanshu Kumar Chaturvedi vs. University of Gorakhpur and Others, 1993 ALJ 1135. This case, though relates to ad hoc appointment of a teacher in an affiliated College of a University but the principle laid down there is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Division Bench, while considering the question of validity of a condition imposed in the letter of appointment restricting period of appointment, held as follows: The question which is required lo be decided by this Court is whether a teacher, who is appointed for certain period or till regularly selected candidate joins, whichever is earlier, is entitled to continue till duly selected candidate Joins. Once a teacher is appointed against a vacancy which is to be filled up by regularly selected candidate, he is entitled lo continue till a duly selected candidate Joins the post unless his services are terminated earlier for a cause in accordance with law. Once a teacher is appointed against a vacancy which is to be filled up by regularly selected candidate, he is entitled lo continue till a duly selected candidate Joins the post unless his services are terminated earlier for a cause in accordance with law. Right of such an ad hoc teacher to continue in service till regularly selected candidate joins is neither forfeited nor comes to an end merely after expiry of the period for which he was appointed and the condition in the appointment letter restricting its period up to a particular date, is liable to be ignored and the latter part of the condition making the appointment till regularly selected candidate joins, is to be read as the only effective condition. It cannot be the intention of the law that the State or the Management of the educational institution should repeat the exercise of making ad hoc appointment periodically till regularly selected candidate Joins. In the said judgment, the decision of Sri Rabinarayan Mohapartra vs. State of Orissa and Others, (1991) 2 SCC 599 , has been relied upon wherein the Appellants before the Supreme Court was appointed a Hindi teacher in 1982 for a period of 89 days or till the candidate selected was made available and his appointment was extended repeatedly for 89 days at a time giving breaks at times. However, since he continued in service, Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal condemning the practice of adhocism. Reliance has also been placed on various decisions of tills Court under U.P. Intermediate Act and the Commission Act where it has been reiterated time and again that ad hoc appointments are not to be repeated on the expiry of the period provided in the letter of appointment and on the basis of this principle, it has been held by the Division Bench that if such an unreasonable condition or restriction is imposed in the letter of appointment, then the same has to be ignored and the ad hoc selected shall be permitted to continue till duly selected candidate Joins. I am in full agreement with the aforesaid decision of the learned single Judge and also bound by the decision of the Division Bench. 22. Learned Counsel for the Respondent thereafter urged that in this case, the facts and circumstances are different. I am in full agreement with the aforesaid decision of the learned single Judge and also bound by the decision of the Division Bench. 22. Learned Counsel for the Respondent thereafter urged that in this case, the facts and circumstances are different. The Commission has not been called upon to make a direct selection but it is the case of a promotee which has been considered, therefore, the principles laid down in the above noted case shall not apply. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently repels this contention by submitting that once the Committee of Management had taken a decision in the year 1988 not to fill the post by promotion as no eligible candidate was available, therefore, it is not open to it to review its decision at this stage and consider the case of the Respondent Smt. Kusum Agarwal for promotion when the Petitioner is entitled for regularisation in accordance with law. Since the post has been filled directly, then only a duly selected candidate by direct recruitment can replace him/her. He also challenged the selection for promotion of Smt. Kusum Agarwal on the ground that the Commission Itself stood dissolved by a notification of the State Government dated 28.3.1992 contained in Annexure 8 end the Commission, therefore, was not functioning and it had no power to make any selections. The State Government, however, has taken a stand that no doubt the Commission stood dissolved vide G.O. dated 28.3.1992 but then it was only for the purpose of making direct recruitment, but so far as the cases of appointment by promotion are concerned, the Commission was functioning. Though on specific directions of this Court, a Deputy Secretary has filed an affidavit to this effect but this Court cannot accept such a contradictory stand. If the Commission/Selection Board stood dissolved, then where is the question of partial dissolution for the purpose of direct recruitment alone and not for purpose of approval by promotion. The G.O. does not say so. Promotion too is an appointment. Therefore, such a stand of the State Government cannot be accepted in law. If the Commission/Selection Board stood dissolved, then where is the question of partial dissolution for the purpose of direct recruitment alone and not for purpose of approval by promotion. The G.O. does not say so. Promotion too is an appointment. Therefore, such a stand of the State Government cannot be accepted in law. Equally the stand of the State Government that since the requisition for approval of promotion of Respondent Smt. Kusum Agarwal was forwarded to the Commission on 28.12.1992, le., prior to coming into force of Section 33B on 9.8.1993, therefore, Petitioner shall not be entitled to the benefit of regularisation rules which were enforced later, is also without merit and cannot be accepted. I reject this contention for the simple reason that when the approval itself is dated 17.5.1993 which is subsequent to the date of dissolution of Selection Board on 28.3.1992, it cannot be held valid in law. The intent and purpose of the Legislature to add Section 33B cannot be frustrated in the above noted manner. Even otherwise, when the vacancy became substantive, the Petitioner acquired ad hoc status and her appointment did not come to an end, hence In fact there was no vacancy calling upon the Management for sending a requisition for selection. The resolution by the Committee of Management and the requisition to the Commission, both were illegal. However the question of promotion of Smt. Kusum Agarwal can be considered as and when a vacancy in promotional quota is created in future, bat not against the substantive vacancy in question. 23. Sri. Umesh Chandra thereafter submitted that since the appointment of the Petitioner was illegal ah initio not being in accordance with sub-Clause 2 of Clause 2 of the Removal of Difficulties Order (Second) and referred to the decision of this Court in the case of Pravesh Kumar vs. District Inspector of Schools, Muzaffarnagar and Others, 1991 EEIC 135. This case is distinguishable on facts. Petitioner in this case was appointed against a short- term vacancy but claimed regularisation u/s 33A which clearly was not applicable as for the benefit under the said Section appointment should have been against a substantive vacancy. The other case too referred by Santosh Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others, (1996) 2 SCC 45 is also not applicable to the facts of the present case. The other case too referred by Santosh Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others, (1996) 2 SCC 45 is also not applicable to the facts of the present case. Besides this, since I have already come to the conclusion that the Petitioner's appointment was valid and legal, therefore, tire argument of Sri. Umesh Chandra has to be rejected. Petitioner is entitled for consideration for regularisation in accordance with the provisions of Section 33B of the U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 as amended. 24. No other point has been pressed by the parties. 25. In the result, Writ Petition Nos. 3707 (S/S) of 1992 and 3746 (SS) of 1993 filed by Smt. Uma Rani Misra succeed and are allowed and a writ of certiorari is issued quashing the letter dated 30.5.1992 and 16.3.1992 issued by the Committee of Management. The order dated 12.10.1993 passed by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools rejecting the representation of Smt. Uma Rani Misra is also quashed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the concerned opposite parties to treat the Petitioner Smt. Uma Rani Misra continuing on the post in service till a duly selected candidate from the Commission/Selection Board for direct appointment Joins the post or the services of Smt. Uma Rani Misra are regularised or terminated in accordance with law. Writ Petition No. 4431 (S/S) of 1993 has since already been withdrawn vide orders dated 22.9.1993, hence no order need be passed on it. In the circumstances, parties to bear their own costs.