B. S. Chauhan, J. In all the five cases the dispute is as to whe ther the short term vacancy can be filled up by the management as the claim of the petitioners have been rejected by the authorities only on the ground that the Director of Education in his circular dated 9-6-1995 has directed the District Inspector of Schools not to grant any approval or financial aid in the cases where the management has filled up the short term vacancies as the U. P. Secondary Education Commission is in existence and functioning, therefore, the question of appointment by the management does not arise. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the said circular dated 9-6-1995 does not cover the case of the petitioners, as the said, which can be filled up by the management under the various Removal of Difficulties Orders passed under the U. P. Secondary Education Commis sion and Selection Board Act (Act No. 5 of 1982 ). Moreover, the Secon dary Education Service Commission has not been vested with the power to make selections to fill up the short term vacancies, which are not to be filled up on substantive vacancies. 3. This issue has been decided by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Radha Raizada v. Committee of Management, 1994 (3) UPLBEC 1551 where this Court has observed that the procedure for filling up the short term vacancies which are not in the substantive capacity remains the same as prior to the amendment which was enforced with effect from 14-7-1992. 4. In view of the above, the management has the power to fill up the short term vacancies and there is no requirement of prior permission/ approval from the District Inspector of Schools or any other authority for filling up such vacancies in non-substantive capacity. 5. Shri Kripa Shanker Singh, learned Standing Counsel has, how ever, raised the issue that the aforesaid Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Radha Raizada (supra) has also laid down the procedure for filling up the vacancies on ad hoc basis which is also applicable for filling up the short term vacancies. 6. 5. Shri Kripa Shanker Singh, learned Standing Counsel has, how ever, raised the issue that the aforesaid Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Radha Raizada (supra) has also laid down the procedure for filling up the vacancies on ad hoc basis which is also applicable for filling up the short term vacancies. 6. Reliance is being placed upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Krishna Nand Dwivedi v. District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur and others, 1994 (1) ESC 365, where the Court has observed as under : "the appointees on short term vacancy on ad hoc basis, stand on the same footing on which an ad hoc appointee on substantive vacancy stands. If the ad hoc appointees are to continue for years, the Teachers appointed in the short term vacancies caused by the vacancy of Teachers promoted on ad hoc basis are also likely to continue for years. Thus in the name of short term vacancy, under the provisions of Second Removal of Difficulties Order issued under Act No. 5 of 1982 the vacancy is also likely to continue for years. " Consequently the ad hoc appointees on short term vacancies are also likely to continue for years under the Scheme of the Act. There is no difference in the two appointments one as ad hoc appointee on substantive vacancy and the other an ad hoc appointee in a short term vacancy except that in first case the vacancy is to be notified to the Commission and in Second case the vacancy is not to be notified. There is hardly any justification for adopting two different standards for advertising the vacancy of aforesaid two posts. 7. As noticed above under Second Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 the requirement is that the vacancy should be notified only on the notice board of the institution. Notifying the vacancy on the notice board of the institution does not meet the requirement of public notice. No body visits the institution for knowing the vacancies. The Management of the College, the Principal of the College and the Employees and Teachers of the College only know about such publication of vacancy. Even all quali fied applicants in the district are not supposed to know the publication of vacancies notified on the notice board. No body visits the institution for knowing the vacancies. The Management of the College, the Principal of the College and the Employees and Teachers of the College only know about such publication of vacancy. Even all quali fied applicants in the district are not supposed to know the publication of vacancies notified on the notice board. This leads to the situation where many qualified and competent applicants are deprived of their right to apply for the post which has fallen vacant, a right which is guaranteed by Article 16 of the Constitution. Thus the procedure contemplated for notifying the short term vacancy on notice board is clearly violative of Article 16 of the Constitution. Though in the present case nobody has come forward to claim such right as they do not know as to what is going on in the name of filling up short term vacancy in the institution. A judi cial notice can be taken of the situation that there is a vast unemployment in the country, many qualified and trained graduates are languishing for want of employment. There is no justification for permitting a procedure to continue, which deprives the qualified applicants for applying for the posts which have fallen vacant. On one hand the Legislature has taken care to ensure that only most qualified candidates are appointed on the post of Teachers as the appointment is to be made only on the basis of quality point marks which does not leave any scope for maneuvering. On the other hand such a lacuna has been left in the procedure for inviting application that appointments are manipulated on extraneous considera tion. The interested party can get appointment as the qualified and competent aspirant do not even know regarding vacancies which are to be filled. A provision for filling up the vacancy even if it is a short term vacancy in the present context, by notifying the vacancy on the notice board is resulting on one hand in depriving many qualified and competent aspirants all over the State from applying for the post, and on the other hand a back-door entry is manipulated by this procedure on extraneous consideration by the management and Principal of the College. This practice of notifying the vacancy on the notice board should be stopped. 8. This practice of notifying the vacancy on the notice board should be stopped. 8. It appears from the impugned orders that the same have been passed simply by the putting reliance upon the circular dated 9-6-1995 and the authority has not considered the factual controversy involved in this cases as to whether the short term vacancies had been filled up by following the proper procedure. 9. In view of the above, the writ petitions succeed and are allowed. The impugned orders dated 11-1- 1996, 18-12-1995, 27-1-1996 and 16-12-1995 in writ petitions Nos. 3234 of 1996, 3650 of 1996, 4114 of 1996, 4115 of 1996 and 3228 of 1996 respectively are hereby quashed. 10. It is directed that the concerned Regional Deputy Director of Education shall personally examine the case of the petitioners whether the procedure required to be followed as laid down by this Court in the case of Radha Raizada (supra) has been followed and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of u certified copy of this order. Petition allowed. .