SUDHIR NARAIN, J. The petitioners have sought writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay salary to the petitioners of the post of Assistant Teacher in L. T. grade appointed on ad hoc basis with effect from 15/16thjuly, 1991. 2. Sri Saraswati Vidyalaya Inter College, Hapur, district Ghaziabad, (hereinafter referred to as the Institution) is a recognised institution under the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. There was vacancy of 16 posts of Assistant Teachers in L. T. grade in the institution. The Committee of Management is alleged to have notified the vacancy to the U. P, Secondary Education Services Commission under Section 18 of U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 (U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 ). The U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) did not recommend the name of any candidate for being appointed as a teacher. The Com mittee of Management of the institution advertised 16 posts of Assistant Teachers in L. T. grade in the newspaper dainik Jagaran dated 3rd July, 1991. In the advertisement it was indicated that the applications may be sent to the Manager of the institution by 8th July, 1991. The interview shall take place on 10th July, 1991, for the post of lecturer and on 12th July, 1991, for Assistant Teachers in L. T. grade. 3. The petitioners claim that they had applied for appointment in pursuance of the advertisement and sent the applications to the Manager of the institution. The selection took place on the date specified in the advertisement. They were selected and were permitted to join the institu tion on 15/16th July, 1991. The Manager wrote a letter dated 2-11-1991 to the District Inspector of Schools, Ghaziabad, respondent No. 2, intimating him that 14 Assistant Teachers in L. T. grade have been appointed on the vacancies which were existing in the institution. He requested that the approval of ad hoc appointment of the teachers may be given till duly selected candidates by the Commission are appointed. On 19-12- 1991, the District Inspector of Schools asked the Manager to reply as to how many posts had been sanctioned and were vacant. It is alleged that the necessary informations were given but he did not pass the order. The petitioners filed writ petition seeking the relief mentioned above. On 19-12- 1991, the District Inspector of Schools asked the Manager to reply as to how many posts had been sanctioned and were vacant. It is alleged that the necessary informations were given but he did not pass the order. The petitioners filed writ petition seeking the relief mentioned above. At the time, when the writ petition was taken, the learned standing counsel submitted that the State Government had banned future selection by the Telex dated 29-6-1991 and G. O. dated 17-7-1991. The selection and the appointment of the peti tioners after the said date was illegal. The writ petition was, however, allowed on the ground, firstly that the imposition of ban in making appoint ments in recognised aided educational institutions by n Telex and G. O. issued by the Government, was invalid and, secondly, the ban was lifted by another G. O. dated 26th September, 1991, and thereafter the petitioners were entitled to function on their posts. The State Government filed Special Appeal before the Division Bench and the judgment was upheld. The State Government filed Civil Appeal No. Nil of 1994 in the Honble Supreme Court. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court took the view that there was no power with the State Government to put a blanket ban on the appoint ment of the teachers by the private institutions. The Management could make ad hoe appointments in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Their Lordships, however, remanded the matter to consider afresh as to whether the detailed procedure as laid down for making the ad hoc appoint ments of teachers by the Management of the institutions, has been followed. The petition has been again placed for consideration of the matter. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State and various pleas have been taken challenging the selection and appointment of the petitioners as Assistant Teachers in L. T. grade in the institution. 5. I have heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sabhajit Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the State at length. The various points raised on behalf of the State, challenging ^the selection of the petitioners are being considered in seriatim. 6. The first submission of learned counsel for the respondent is that the State Government had power to impose ban on the appointments even in private institutions which are recognised and aided by the Government. The various points raised on behalf of the State, challenging ^the selection of the petitioners are being considered in seriatim. 6. The first submission of learned counsel for the respondent is that the State Government had power to impose ban on the appointments even in private institutions which are recognised and aided by the Government. It is contended that the Government has to pay salary to the teachers of aided institutions and if a Government has imposed ban in making appoint ments, it cannot be challenged by the Management. He has placed reliance upon Dr. Ramji Dwivedi v. State of U. P. . 1982 Lab 1c 1130. In this case a Radiogram issued by the Government prohibiting managements of the schools from making appointments for a short period was challenged. A Division Bench of this Court has upheld the power of the State Government prohibiting the management from making appointments. It was held that the temporary suspension cannot be considered as depriving of or curtailing the rights of the management. In the present case, however, this aspect is not open for reconsideration. Their Lordships have already taken the view in Civil Appeal No. Nil of 1994 that the State Government cannot put a blanket ban on the management of the institution. It is necessary to refer the observations of their Lordships- "we have heard learned counsel for the parties. The learned Single Judge has allowed the petition on the short ground that under the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selec tion Boards Act, 1982 (in short as the Act) there was no power with the State Government to put a blanket ban on recruitment of teachers by the private institutions. The learned Single Judge took the view that the management could make ad hoc appoint ments in accordance with the provisions of the Act. We are of the view that the finding of the learned Single Judge is unexcep tionable. " It may further be noticed that the ban which was imposed by Telex dated 29-6-1991, and G. O. dated 17- 7-1991, was lifted by another G. O. dated 26-9-1991. 7. The second submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that there is nothing to show that any appointment letter was issued to the petitioners by the Management and unless any appointment letter was issued to them they cannot claim any right to the post. 7. The second submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that there is nothing to show that any appointment letter was issued to the petitioners by the Management and unless any appointment letter was issued to them they cannot claim any right to the post. He has placed reliance upon Surendra Narain Pandey v. State of U. P. , 1989 (1) UPLBEC 398. 8. The petitioners have annexed copy of the letter dated 15th July, 1991 written by the Principal of the institution to the Head Master, inform ing that the petitioners had already submitted joining report and they may be provided with the time table of the classes which they have to take. There is another letter dated 2nd November, 1991, written by the Manager of the institution to the District Inspector of Schools intimating that the petitioners have been selected by the Selection Committee and the approval be given for their appointment. These letters indicate that the petitioners were permitted to join the institution. The petitioners have further filed certificates issued by the Principal as Annexures 4 to 16 to the writ petition. These letters indicate that there is no specific letter issued by the Manager of the institution to the petitioners for appointment but he had approved their appointment as is clear from his recommendation to the District Inspector of Schools for according financial approval of their appointments. There is no issue in the present writ petition as to whether they are actually teaching in the institution since 15th July, 1991. 9 The third submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that the Management should have advertised the vacancy within three months from the date such vacancy had occurred and after lapse of three months the Management should have obtained fresh sanction for the post which had fallen vacant on account of death or retirement of any teacher He has placed reliance upon Regulation 20 of Chapter It of the Regulations under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, which reads as under: "20. Where the Committee of Management has failed to advertise any sanctioned post which has fallen vacant in accordance with the regulations contained in this Chapter within a period of three months from the date of occurrence of the vacancy, such post shall be deemed to have been surrendered and shall not be filled up unless its creation is sanctioned afresh by the Director. " U. P. Act No. 5 1982, came into force with effect from July 14, 1991, as referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Act. The permanent appointment of a teacher was to be made on the basis of the recommendation of the Commission or the Board as provided under Section 16 of the Act and ad hoc appointment was to be made in accordance with Section 18 of the Act. The provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act and Regulations framed therein, so far as it was inconsistent with the provisions of Act No. 5 of 1982, are not applicable. Section 32 of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982, provides that the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, and the Regulations made thereunder, in so far as they are not incon sistent with the provisions of the Act or the Rules and the Regulations made thereunder, shall continue to be in force for purpose of selection, appoint ment, removal, dismissal, termination or reduction in rank of a teacher, The Management could not issue an advertisement after 14th July, 1991, the date on which U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982, came into force except in accord ance with the provisions of the said Act. This question was considered in Yogendra Nath Singh v. District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur, 1991 (ii) UPLBEC 484. The Court took the following view : "8. Another objection is that this vacancy lapsed within the mean ing of Regulation 20 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. This question was considered in Yogendra Nath Singh v. District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur, 1991 (ii) UPLBEC 484. The Court took the following view : "8. Another objection is that this vacancy lapsed within the mean ing of Regulation 20 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Regula tion 20 states that where the Committee of Management has failed to advertise any sanctioned post, which has fallen vacant, in accordance with the Regulations within a period of three months from the date of occurrence of the vacancy, such posts shall be deemed to have been surrendered and shall not be filled up, unless its creation is sanctioned afresh by the Director, No sanction having been obtained from the Director, the respondent No. 2 stated in the impugned order that the post would be deemed to have been surrendered. This was the posi tion before the Act, 19 58, became operative, But after the enforcement of the Act, 1982, every vacancy has to be filled in only by the Commission and ad hoc appointment can be made by the Management Committee only in the circumstances as contained in Section 18 (l) (b ). Petitioners appointment cannot be impugned on that ground. " This decision was followed in Mahendra Prasad Mishra v. District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad, 1994 (1) UPLBEC 446. In view of these decisions there is no reason to take a contrary view in this case. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent urged that the procedure as prescribed by Regulation 10 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 is not inconsistent with the provisions of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 and that should have been followed in making the appointment of the petitioners. Regulation 10 of Chapter II of 1921 Act lays down the procedure for making the permanent appoint ment in a recognised institution. It provides that the post shall be advertised by the Manager of the institution in the employment news or Rojgar Samachar and at least one Hindi and one English newspaper having circulation in the State giving particulars as to the nature and number of vacancies. It provides that the post shall be advertised by the Manager of the institution in the employment news or Rojgar Samachar and at least one Hindi and one English newspaper having circulation in the State giving particulars as to the nature and number of vacancies. The applications in the prescribed form duly completed by the candidate shall be received in the office of the District Inspector of Schools or the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools in case of institution for girls. The selection is to be made by a Selection Committee as provided in the Regulation and the selection shall be made on the basis of the quality points as referred to in the, said Regulation. This procedure cannot be made applicable in case a different procedure has been prescribed under the provi sions of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982. The provision for making ad hoc appointment has been given under Section 18 of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 and also under the various orders issued from time to time under Section 33 of the Act, 1982. The contention of learned counsel for the respondent that the ad hoc appointment should have been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Regulation 10 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, cannot be accepted. 11. The fourth submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is that Section 18 of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982, provides certain conditions when the Management can exercise the power of making ad hoc appointment and the petitioners failed to prove existence of these conditions. Section 18 (1) reads as under : "18. Ad hoc Teachers.- (1) Where the Management has notified a vacancy to the Commission in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and- (a) the Commission has failed to recommend the name of any suitable candidate for being appointed as a teacher specified in the Schedule within one year from the date of such noti fication ; or (b) 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 persons possessing qualifica tions prescribed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or the Regulations made thereunder. It is contended that the petitioners have not given the dates on which the Management had notified the vacancies in question to the Commission. Six of the posts in question had fallen vacant in June 1981. The post was advertised on 3rd July, 1991 and it is alleged that the selection had taken place on 12th July, 1991 and the petitioners are alleged to have been permit ted to join on 15th July, 1991. The Management should have taken steps for making ad hoc appointment by direct recruitment if the post remains vacant for more than two months after the posts are notified to the Commission. The Management immediately after notifying vacancy to the Commission advertised the post on 3rd July, 1991 and is alleged to have selected the candidates on 12th July, 1991 and permitted them to join on 15th July, 1991. This entire procedure is against the provisions of Section I9 (l))b) of the Act. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the fact that selection and appointments were made within two months from the date the vacancy was notified to the Commission. It is, however, contended that such appointment can be treated as irregular. The Commission had admit tedly not recommended the name of any candidate selected for appointment even till today. In case the Management had taken steps for making selec tion even after expiry of two months, the position still would have remained the same and no material difference would have taken place. The District Inspector of Schools could have accorded financial approval of the appoint ment for the period after the expiry of two months. He has placed reliance upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Km. Madhu Chauhan v. District inspector of Schools, 1988 UPLBEC 397, wherein the Court inter preting similar provision under Section 16 (1) of U. P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 held that if any ad hoc appointment has been made by the Management before expiry of three months from the date of notification of vacancy to the Commission, such appointment may be treated as irregular but the appointee is entitled to get salary. Similar view was taken in 1994 (1) HVD 109. Similar view was taken in 1994 (1) HVD 109. In view of these decisions the appointment of the petitioners even if made within two months from the date of notifica tion of the vacancy, can be treated as irregular and in case the appointment is approved by the District Inspector of Schools, the salary may be paid for the period after the expiry of two months from the date of notifying the vacancy to the Commission. 13. The last submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Management failed to follow the procedure prescribed under U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981. Paragraph 5 of the Order provides that the selection shall be made by the District Inspector of Schools. It is relevant to quote paragraph 5 of this Order which reads as under : "5. Ad hoc appointment by direct recruitment.- (1) Where any vacancy cannot be filled by promotion under paragraph 4, the same may be filled by direct recruitment in accordance with clauses (2) to (5 ). (2) The Management shall be soon as may be, inform the District Inspector of Schools about the details of the vacancy and such Inspector shall invite applications from the local Employment Exchange and also through public advertisement in at least two newspapers having adequate circulation in Uttar Pradesh. (3) Every application referred to in clause (2) shall be addressed to the District Inspector of Schools and shall be accompanied- (a) by a crossed postal order worth ten rupees payable to such Inspector ; (b) by a self-addressed envelope bearing postal stamp for pur poses of registration. (4) The District Inspector of Schools shall cause the best candidates selected on the basis of quality points specified in Appendix. The compilation of quality points may be done on remunerative basis by the retired Gazetted Government servants under the personal supervision of such Inspector. (5) If more than one teacher of the same subject or category is to be recruited for more than one institution, the names of the selected teachers and names of the institution shall be arranged in Hindi alphabetical order. The candidate whose name appears on the top of the list shall be allotted to the institution the name whereof appears on the top of the list of the institution. This process shall be repeated till both the lists are exhausted. " 14. The candidate whose name appears on the top of the list shall be allotted to the institution the name whereof appears on the top of the list of the institution. This process shall be repeated till both the lists are exhausted. " 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the appointment is to be made by the Management under Section 18 of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 (in short Act 1982 ). Section 18 of the Act does not provide that the Management has to follow any particular procedure in making ad hoc appointment. 15. The precise question as to what procedure the Committee of Management has to follow while making ad hoc appointment under Sec tion 18 of 1982 Act, was considered by the Full Bench in Radlia Raizada v. Committee of Management, Vidyawati Darhari Girls College, 1994 (3) UPLBEC 1551 . The following question was framed by the Full Bench :- " (c) What would be the criteria and procedure for ad hoc appoint ment of a teacher or Principal either under the Removal of Difficulties Order or under Section 18 of the U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 ?" The Court taking into consideration the different legislative changes brought under the Act divided the period in three stages- (1) period between 31st My, 1981 to 13-7-1992 after which date U. P. Act No. 24 of 1992 came into force ; (2) period beginning from 14-7-1992 to 6th August, 1993 ; and (3) period beginning from 7th of August, 1993 when U. P. Act No. 1 of 1993 was in force up till date. 16. As in the present case the process of appointment started in July, 1991 and the appointment is alleged to have been made on 15th July, 1991, it is covered by the first period as referred to in Radha Raizadas case (supra ). The Court after considering the provisions of Section 18 of the Act and First Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981, held that the ad hoc appointment under Section 18 of the Act is to be made by Management in accordance with the procedure laid down under the First Removal of Diffi culties Order. Paragraph 37 of the judgment reads as undei1:- "37. Paragraph 37 of the judgment reads as undei1:- "37. Second Removal of Difficulties Order provides for ad hoc appointment against the short term vacancy in the post of teachers caused by grant of leave to him or on account of his suspension duly approved by the District Inspector of Schools or otherwise. Thus, these provisions show that Section 18 and First Removal of Difficulties Order, both independently empowers the Management of institutions to make ad hoc appointment of teachers in the institutions. But Section 18 does not provide the method and manner of such appointment. Whereas Removal of Difficulties Orders while empowering the Management of the institutions to appoint teachers on ad hoc basis further lay down the procedure of such ad hoc appoint ment of teachers. In fact Section 18 as well as First Removal of Difficulties Order operate in one field and are part of one integrated scheme, namely for providing ad hoc teachers who are urgently required in the institutions. Thus, ad hoc appointment of teacher either under Section 18 of the Act or under the provisions of First Removal of Difficulties Orders has to be done in the manner laid down in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the First Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981. " This was further clarified in paragraph 21 making the following obser vations ; "-----Thus, both under Section 18 of the Act and under the Removal of Difficulties Order the Management of an institution is empowered to make ad hoc appointment by direct recruitment, in the manner laid down in paragraph 5 of the First Removal of Difficulties Order only when such vacancy cannot be filled by promotion and for a period till a candidate duly selected by the Commission joins the post. As noticed earlier both Section 18 of the Act and the provisions of First Removal of Difficulties Order provide for ad hoc appointment of teacher in the institu tion, later further providing for method and manner of such appointments are part of one scheme. Scheme being provision for ad hoc appointments of teacher in the absence of duly selected teachers by the Commission. The provisions may be two but the power to appoint is one and the same and, there fore, the provisions contained in Section 18 and Removal of Difficulties Order are to harmonise. Scheme being provision for ad hoc appointments of teacher in the absence of duly selected teachers by the Commission. The provisions may be two but the power to appoint is one and the same and, there fore, the provisions contained in Section 18 and Removal of Difficulties Order are to harmonise. It is, therefore, not correct to say that appointment of a teacher on ad hoc basis is either under Section 18 of the Act or under the Removal of Difficulties Order. Thus if contingency arises for ad hoc appointment of teacher by direct recruitment the procedure provided under the First Removal of Difficulties Order has to be followed. " (emphasis supplied) The conclusion drawn was that in view of these provisions the ad hoc appointment of a teacher by making recruitment can be resorted to only when the condition precedent for exercise of such power as stated in Sec tion 18 of the Act are present and only in the manner provided for in paragraph 5 of the Removal of Difficulties Order. 17. Admittedly, the procedure prescribed in paragraph 5 of the Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981, has not bean followed by the Manage ment of the Institution. If there was any vacancy, the Management was to inform the District Inspector of Schools about the details of the vacancy and on receiving such details the Inspector should have invited the appli cation from the local Employment Exchange and also through public adver tisement in at least two newspapers having adequate circulation in Uttar Pradesh. The applications were to be addressed to the District Inspector of Schools by the candidates. The candidates were to be selected on the basis of the quality points specified in the Appendix. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contender that the appointment under Section 18 of 1982 Act and the appointment which is contemplated under U. P, Secondary Education (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981, are two different kinds of appointments. They have bean treated as different appointments by various decisions of this Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 33-A of 1982 Act which provides for regularisation of service of the teachers appointed on ad hoc basis. The appointment under Section 18 of the Act can be made only when the condi tions mentioned therein namely. They have bean treated as different appointments by various decisions of this Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 33-A of 1982 Act which provides for regularisation of service of the teachers appointed on ad hoc basis. The appointment under Section 18 of the Act can be made only when the condi tions mentioned therein namely. Management has specifically notified vacancy to the Commission in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Commission has failed to recommend 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 the post of such teacher has actually remained vacant for more than two months. U. P. Secondary Education Services Condition (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981, does not lay down this condition. Paragraph 2 of the Order indicates that the Management of the institution may appoint by promotion or by direct recruitment a teacher on purely ad hoc basis in accordance with the provi sions of the Order. Paragraph 2 reads as under ;- "2. Vacancies in which ad hoc appointment can be made,-The Management of an institution may appoint by promotion or by direct recruitment a teacher on purely ad hoc basis in accord ance with the provisions of this order in the following cases, namely : (a) in the case of a substantive vacancy existing on the date of commencement of this Order caused by death, retirement or otherwise ; (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. " Paragraph 5 provides the manner in which the appointment by direct recruitment can be made. Under the Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 there is no provision that the Management should have intimated the vacancy to the Commission before making ad hoc appointment. If a subs tantive vacancy is existing the Management may intimate to the District Inspector of Schools and he shall take steps to make selection of suitable candidates in accordance with paragraph 5 of the Order. If a subs tantive vacancy is existing the Management may intimate to the District Inspector of Schools and he shall take steps to make selection of suitable candidates in accordance with paragraph 5 of the Order. Section 18 of the Act and Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 both provides for ad hoc appointment of teacher. Section 18 of the Act does not provide for any procedure to be followed by the Committee of Management in making ad hoc appointment. In case no procedure is taken to have been provided the Management would be absolutely free to make appointment in any way it chooses and adopt such procedure as it determines. The Act does not contemplate such arbitrary procedure to be appointed by the Management. Section 32 of the Act provides that the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act. 1921, and the Regulations made thereunder in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of 1982 Act or Regulations framed thereunder shall continue to be in force. In case the provisions of U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order 1981 is not applicable, Regulation 10 of Chapter II of the Regulations franked under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act will become operative. Regulation 10 also contemplates that the applications of the candidates for appointment shall be received by the Office of the District Inspector of Schools and be shall take necessary steps for making selection 19. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the only proce dure to be adopted by the Committee of Management is to make the adver tisement as provided in paragraph 2 of the Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981, and further the selection is to be made on the basis of the quality points but the procedure as provided in paragraph 5 of the Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 is not to be adopted. This submission cannot be accepted. There is no jurisdiction to hold that only some of paras of Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 are to be followed and the remaining part of it be ignored by the Management while making ad hoc appointment. 20. This submission cannot be accepted. There is no jurisdiction to hold that only some of paras of Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 are to be followed and the remaining part of it be ignored by the Management while making ad hoc appointment. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Umesh Chandra v. District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur, 1987 UPLBEC 195, wherein the question involved was if the service of the teachers appointed by the Management under Section 18 of U, P. Act No. 5 of 1981 or U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order framed thereunder have not been otherwise duly terminated and there is no candidate recommended for appointment by the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission or Selected by Regional Selection Board, the teachers concerned may continue or not on ad hoc basis beyond June 1986. It was held that the teachers appointed on ad hoc basis shall continue to function till the regularly selected candidate if recommended by the Commission. , In the judgment, however, the scope of Section 18 of the Act as well as U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 was considered. It was observed :- "the power conferred on the Management to fill in substantive vacancies on ad hoc basis following the norms laid down in the Removal of Difficulties Order is, it will be noticed, in addition or supplemental to the power conferred by Section 18 of the Act. The Removal of Difficulties Order occupies the field and provides the requisite mechanism for so long as the Act in all its relevant provisions cannot be implemented. " In Km. Rishi Bhargava v. Deputy Director Education, Agra Region, Agra 1987 UPLBEC 415, the question was regarding the regularisation of teachers appointed on ad hoc basis. Section 33-A of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 provided for reqularisation of certain appointments. " In Km. Rishi Bhargava v. Deputy Director Education, Agra Region, Agra 1987 UPLBEC 415, the question was regarding the regularisation of teachers appointed on ad hoc basis. Section 33-A of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 provided for reqularisation of certain appointments. It provided that every teacher directly appointed before the commencement of Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards (Amend ment) Ordinance, 1985 on ad hoc basis against a substantive vacancy in accordance with paragraph 2 of Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Ser vices Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 as amended from time to time who possesses the qualification prescribed under, or is exempt ed from such qualification in accordance with the provisions of Intermediate Education Act, 1921 shall with effect from the date of such commencement be deemed to nave been appointed in a substantive capacity. The Court repelled the contention that the ad hoc appointment made under Section 18 of the Act is the same as appointment made under the Removal of Difficul ties Order. It was held that the appointments made under Section 18 of the Act are different and they do not overlap. 21. In Lalta Prasad Yadav v. State of U. P. , 1988 UPLBEC 344 the same view was expressed. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the provision is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution was nega tived. There was, however, followed observation made by the Court: "no procedure for selection for purpose of such ad hoc appoint ments was prescribed and such candidates were to be appointed under Section 18 and were not to face any selection or any objective considerations on merit. " Similar view was expressed in Promod Shnkla v. District Inspector of Schools, Vnnao, 1987 Edu. Cases 339. These decisions have taken the view that ad hoc appointment made under Section 18 of the Act and that under U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 do no overlap. 22. The ad hoc appointment under Section 18 of the Act can be made on condition that the Management has notified the vacancy but there is no such requirement under the U P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties; Order, 1981. 22. The ad hoc appointment under Section 18 of the Act can be made on condition that the Management has notified the vacancy but there is no such requirement under the U P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties; Order, 1981. Secondly, specific procedure has been provided under the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 which may not be the situation while making ad hoc appointment under Section 18 of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982. The question in these decisions was not as to what procedure should be adopted by the Committee of Management while making ad hoc appoint ment under Section 18 of the Act. In Radha Raizadas case (supra) the question has been specifically dealt with and it has been held that the procedure prescribed for making ad hoc appointment relating to a substan tive vacancy can be made only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981, and further paragraph 5 of the said Order shall be applicable. 23. In view of the above legal position the action of the District Inspector of Schools in not according financial sanction of the appointment of the petitioners to the post of Assistant Teachers in L. T. grade under Section 18 of U. P. Act No. 5 of b82, cannot be held as erroneous in law. 24. It may, however, be noted that the petitioners were appointed on 15th July, 1991 The Manager of the institution sent a letter on 2nd Novem ber, 1991 to the District Inspector of Schools. He made certain inquiries re garding the vacant post. The necessary information was given to him by the Manager. He. however, did not pass any specific order. It is alleged that the petitioners started teaching in the institution since 15th July, 1991 and they are continuing to teach in the institution. In these circumstances, the District Inspector of Schools, Ghaziabad, respondent No. 1 is directed to hold the selection by making fresh advertisement within a month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him by the peti tioners. In these circumstances, the District Inspector of Schools, Ghaziabad, respondent No. 1 is directed to hold the selection by making fresh advertisement within a month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him by the peti tioners. In case the fresh selection is made and the petitioners apply for appointment, they shall be duly considered and there is no reason that while considering the candidature the period for which they had already worked, shall not be taken as experience or working in the institution. In case they are again selected in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the order, they shall be paid the salary from the period they had joined the institution It will, however, be open to the District Inspector of Schools, respondent No. 1 to investigate as to since when the petitioners are teaching in the institution. 25. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed subject the directions given above. 26. The parties shall bear their own costs. Petition dismissed. .