D. K. SETH, J. On the retirement of one Sri Krishna Gupta on 30th June, 1990 a vacancy occurred on the post of Lecturer in Sri Gandhi Inter College, Orai (hereinafter referred to as the College ). The said post was sought to be filled up by the Committee of Management through direct recruitment by appointing the petitioner herein. The respondent No. 3 challenged the said ap pointment on the ground that the respon dent No. 3 having requisite qualification was eligible and entitled to promotion to the said vacancy. 2. Sri Vikram Nath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3 relying on the decision in the case of Charu Chandra Tewari v. District Inspector of Schools, Deoria, [ (1990)1 UPLBEC 1601 has contended that in case of duly qualified teacher is available in the institution, there cannot be any direct recruitment, in view of rule for 40% promotion for filling up of such posts. The grievance of the respondent No. 3 having not been attended to he had moved a writ petition, being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31353 of 1991, disposed of on 7th October, 1991, as corrected on 11th November 1991. The said application was disposed of by directing the Deputy Direc tor of Education, to consider and dispose of the said representation of the petitioner. It is alleged that though the respondent No. 3 was made a party, respondent No. 4, therein, but the said application was disposed of without any notice to him. However, pur suant to the said order, by order dated 13th March, 1992 the said representation was disposed of, wherein it was found that the appointment of the petitioner was made depriving the respondent No. 3, herein of his promotion and that the same is also violative of Reservation of Scheduled Caste/schedule Tribes candidates. On the basis of such a finding the Deputy Director of Education of the Region, observed that appropriate proceeding for cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner be made under Section 16-E (10) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to 1921 Act) and, thereafter promotion may be made to the respondent No. 3 followed by appropriate appointment order. It is this order which has been chal lenged by means of present writ petition. 3. It is this order which has been chal lenged by means of present writ petition. 3. In support of his contention Sri Arun Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the provisions contained in Section 16-E (10) of the 1921 Act, it is the Director of Education, who can pass such an order. The Deputy Director of Education cannot have jurisdic tion even if he was so directed by this Court, particularly, in view of the facts that the said matter was decided in absence of the petitioner, by reason whereof the said order has no binding force or effect on the petitioner. 4. But the fact remains that while pass ing the impugned order dated 13. 3. 1992 the petitioner was given adequate opportunity and his case was also considered. Therefore, it cannot be said that because of the said order passed by this Court the petitioner had suffered any prejudice. In fact, in the said order nothing was decided. On the other hand the representation made by the respondent No. 3 was directed to be decided by the concerned authority and in the course whereof the petitioner had appropriate op portunity to defend his case. Therefore, the said contention of Sri Tandon cannot be accounted. 5. So far as the question raised by him with regard to the jurisdiction of Deputy Director of Education to decide the ques tion is concerned, also does not stand to reason. Inasmuch as Section 16-E (10) of 1921 Act empowers the Director to decide the said question as to the appointment of a teacher for the purposes of finding out whether such appointment has been made in contravention of the provisions of said 1921 Act. Admittedly, Section 16-E, of the 1921 Act, provides procedure for selection of a teacher and head of the institution. The said provision relates to the appointment of a teacher in regular manner. It does not deal with the question of appointment on ad hoc basis. Then again the said provision stands eclipsed to the extent as provided in the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982. So far as the provisions of the said 1982 Act provides, is contemplated in Section 32 of 1982 Act. S. 32 of the 1982 Act provides as under: "32. Then again the said provision stands eclipsed to the extent as provided in the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982. So far as the provisions of the said 1982 Act provides, is contemplated in Section 32 of 1982 Act. S. 32 of the 1982 Act provides as under: "32. Applicability of U. P. Act II of 1921.- The provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the Regulations made there under in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act or the rules or regulations made hereunder shall continue to be inforce for the purposes of selection, appointment, promo tion, dismissal, removal, termination or reduction in rank of a teacher. " Therefore, only in absence of specific provision in 1982 Act the provisions of 1921 Act can be referred to. Section 16-E (10) of the 1921 Act can be applicable only in cases if there is no provisions made in 1982 Act. So far as the question of decision with regard to the validity of ap pointment the learned counsel for either of the parties contend that 1982 Act does not contain any such provision. Therefore in absence of any specific provision with regard to cancellation of appointment on the ground of its being invalid the provisions of 1921 Act is to be resorted to. Though by reason of Section 16 of 1982 Act no appointment in contravention of 1982 Act would be valid with the exception as provided in Section 16 which is made such question subject to the provisions of Sections 18 and 33. Though by reason of Section 16 of 1982 Act no appointment in contravention of 1982 Act would be valid with the exception as provided in Section 16 which is made such question subject to the provisions of Sections 18 and 33. The expression used in Section 16 provides as under:" "appointments to be made only on recom mendations of the Commissions of the Board.- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary con tained in the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, or the Regulations made there under but subject to the provisions of Sections 18 and 33,18,21-B, 21-C, 21-D. 33 and 33-A- (a) every appointment of a teacher specified in the schedule shall, on or after 10th July 1981; he made by the management only on the recommen dation of the Commission (b) every appointment of a teacher (other than a teacher specified in the Schedule) shall, on or after 10th July 1981; be made by the manage ment only on the recommendation of the Board: Provided that in respect of retrenched employees, the provisions of S. 16-EE of the Inter mediate Education Act, 1921 shall apply with the modification that in sub-S. (2) of the aforesaid section for the words six months the words two years shall be deemed to have been substituted. (2) Every appointment of a teacher, in con travention of the provisions of sub section (1) shall be void. " 6. However, we are not concerned with the regular appointment. In the present case, admittedly the appointment of the petitioner was on ad hoc basis, the question of ad hoc appointment is governed by Sec tion 18 of the 1982 Act. In order to obviate certain difficulties certain procedures were prescribed by passing of the Removal of Difficulty Order, in succession by virtue of Section 33 of the said Act, which provides as under: "33. Power to remove difficulties.- (1) The State Government may, for the purposes of removing any difficulty, by a notified order direct that the provisions of this Act shall, during such period as may be specified in the order, have effect subject to such adaptations whether by way of modification, addition or omission as it may deemed to be necessary or expedient: Provided that no such order shall be made after two years from the date of commencement of this Act. (2) Every order made under sub-section (1) shall be laid before both the Houses of State Legislature. (3) No order under sub-section (1) shall be called in question in any Court on the ground that no difficulty as is referred to in sub section (1) existed or required to be removed. So far as ad hoc appointment is concerned it is provided in Section 18 of 1982 Act which is reproduced below: "18. Ad hoc teachers.- (1) Where the management has notified a vacancy to the Com mission in accordance with the provisions of this Act and- (a) the Commission has failed to recom mend the name of any suitable candidate for being appointed as a teacher specified in the Schedule within one year from the date of such notification; or (b) the post of such teacher has actually remained vacant for more than two months then the management may appoint, by direct recruit ment or promotion, a teacher on purely ad hoc basis from amongst the persons possessing qualifications prescribed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or the regulations made there under: (2) The provisions of sub section (1) shall also apply to the appointment of a teacher (other than a teacher specified in the Schedule) on ad hoc basis with the substitution of the expression board for the expression commission. (3) Every appointment on an ad hoc teacher under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall cease to have effect from the earliest of the follow ing dates, namely- (a) when the candidate recommended by the Commission or the Board, as the case may be, joins the post; (b) when the period of one month referred to in sub section (4) of Section 11 expires; (c) thirtieth day of June following the date of such ad hoc appointment. " 7. The said Section empowers the management to make ad hoc appointment. The contingency in which such ad hoc ap pointment is to be made by the management has been provided in the said section. The procedure for making such appointment and other details have been provided in ex ercise of powers conferred under Section 33 by means of U. P. Secondary Education Ser vices Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981. The contingency in which such ad hoc ap pointment is to be made by the management has been provided in the said section. The procedure for making such appointment and other details have been provided in ex ercise of powers conferred under Section 33 by means of U. P. Secondary Education Ser vices Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981. The said 1981 Order limited the scope of application of the said 1981 Order in Para 2 only to the cases specified therein which is quoted below: "2 Vacancies in which ad hoc appointment can be made.-The management of an institution may appoint by promotion or by direct recruit ment a teacher on purely ad hoc basis in accord ance with the provisions of this Order in the fol lowing cases namely: (a) in the case of a substantive vacancy exist ing on the date of commencement of this Order caused by death, retirement, resignation or other wise; (b) in the case of a leave vacancy, where the whole or unexpired portion of the leave is for a period exceeding two months on the date of such commencement; (c) where a vacancy of the nature specified in clause (a) or clause (b) comes into existence within a period of two months subsequent to the date of such commencement. " By promulgation of the Second Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 the said para 2 of 1981 Order was substituted to the following effect: "substitution of paragraph 2 of the (First) Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981.-In the First Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 for para graph 2, the following paragraph shall be sub stituted namely; "2. The management of an institution may appoint by promotion or by direct recruitment a teacher on purely ad hoc basis in accordance with the provisions of this Order in the case of a sub stantive vacancy caused by death, retirement resignation or otherwise. " 8. Thus it appears that the scope of the said Removal of Difficulties Order has been extended to all the appointment that is to be made under section 8 of 1982 Act. Because of Section 33 the said order has to be read as part and parcel of the Act itself which sup plement the Act. Therefore, the provisions of the said Removal of Difficulties Order has to be read in the light of Section 32 of 1982 Act. Because of Section 33 the said order has to be read as part and parcel of the Act itself which sup plement the Act. Therefore, the provisions of the said Removal of Difficulties Order has to be read in the light of Section 32 of 1982 Act. Section 18 read with Section 16-E (10) of 1921 Act and the Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 and the Second Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 pre supposes that in view of Section 32 of 1982 Act in case of absence of any provision in 1982 Act which includes Removal of Dif ficulties Order as in view of Section 33 of 1982 Act, 1921 Act can be resorted to only when there is no expressed provision in the Act and in case there is any conflict in that event provisions of 1982 Act would prevail by reasons of Section 16 of 1982 Act. There fore, if any provision is provided in 1982 Act or in the Removal of Difficulties Order, in that event the same would preclude the provision of 1921 Act. 9. Be that as it may in the present case Section 21 of 1921 Act having application in the case of regular appointment and para 2 having confined operation of Removal of Difficulties Order in the case of ad hoc ap pointment there is no conflict in between the two provisions. Now para 7 of 1981 Order takes care of the dispute with regard to ad hoc appointment made in 1981 Act which provides procedure for making ap pointment under Section 18 of 1982 Act. para 7 prescribes as follows: "7. Disputes to be referred to Director.- (1) Every dispute connected with the promotion or direct recruitment under this Order shall be referred to the Director and his decision thereon shall be final. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of Clause (1) the Director shall have the power to look into the complaint, if any, regarding the award of the quality points mentioned in Appen dix or the validity or propriety of any promotion or direct recruitment in accordance with this Order and to cancel any promotion, recruitment or ap pointment made in continuation in such order. " Even then a plain reading of Para 7 con templates that Section 16- E (10) reveals that there is no contradiction inasmuch as power has been conferred on the Director and whose decision was said to be final. This Para 7 was amended by promulgation of 4th Removal of Difficulties Order 1982 which came into force on 14. 4. 1982 by sub stituting Para 7 in the following manner: "3. Amendment of para 7-In the said order in paragraph 7 for sub paragraph (1) the following sub paragraphs (1) and (1-A) shall be substituted, namely: " (1) Every dispute connected with the promotion or direct recruitment under this Order shall be referred to the Deputy Director of Educa tion of the region concerned for decision. (1-A) An appeal against the decision of the Deputy Director of Education may be made to the Director whose decision thereon shall be final. " 10. Therefore, now after the amend ment the Deputy Director of Education of the region concerned was empowered to decide the dispute with regard to promotion or direct recruitment. Now the decision of the Deputy Director of Education has not been made final. On the other hand the same was made subject to appeal to the Director of Education whose decision was made final. Now in the case of any kind of dispute either with regard to promotion or with regard to direct recruitment or with regard to the claim that one is entitled to promotion and the other opposing the same that he is entitled to appointment which comes under Para 7 is to be decided by the Director of Education and the decision given by him shall be final subject to appeal, or in other word if any appeal is preferred against the said decision the said decision would become final and when an appeal is preferred the decision would be subject to the result of appeal. 11. 11. In that view of the matter the present order could have been said to be appealable one and as contended by the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 the writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of alternative remedy could have been accepted, but for the reasons that the order as has been translated at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the same is not decision but is rather recom mendation and that too altogether on wrong premise. Inasmuch as in the im pugned order the Dy. Director of Education having come to a finding that the appoint ment of the petitioner depriving respondent No. 3 of his promotion and without having regard to the question of reservation of Scheduled Caste/scheduled Tribes can didates is bad. On such finding he had directed incitiation of the proceeding under Section 16-E (10) of 1921 Act before the Director of Education and only thereafter promotion of respondent No. 3 would be given. Thus it appears that he has not given decision as he is obliged under Para 7. The said order appears to have been taken away right of appeal. Then again the question being a question of ad hoc appointment governed under Removal of Difficulties Order read with Section 18 of 1982 Act the same cannot be questioned under Section 16-E (10) of 1921 Act which deals with regular appointment. 12. In that view of the matter the order cannot be sustained and, as such, is liable to be quashed. Accordingly a writ of certiorari do issue quashing the impugned order dated 13. 3. 1982, contained in Annexure 10 to the petition. The Deputy Director of Education concerned shall however decide the dispute afresh in accordance with law, without being influenced by an observation made in this order with regard to the merit of the case, after giving adequate oppor tunity to both the contesting parties includ ing the Committee of Management, all of whom would be entitled to submit their representation or adequate documents and papers in support of their respective cases. All the questions with regard to merit of the case as espoused by either of the learned counsel are kept open. Such decision is to be given within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the concerned Deputy Director of Education. All the questions with regard to merit of the case as espoused by either of the learned counsel are kept open. Such decision is to be given within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the concerned Deputy Director of Education. The decision there on shall be communicated to either of the parties within a period of two weeks from the date of such decision. The writ petition is thus disposed of. 13. There will, however, be no order as to costs. 14. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the parties on pay ment of usual charges within three weeks. Order accordingly. .