DR. A. N. GUPTA, J. In this Special Appeal which is directed against the judgment dated 7-9-1992 passed by a Single Judge of this Court, adjudication is sought on the question as to whether Ramjit Tewari appel lant or M. D. Pandey respondent No. 4 is entitled to hold to post of Principal of Brajendra Mani Inter Collage, Kohindaur, District Pratapgarh State of U. P. and the District Inspector of Schools, Pratapgarh are respon dents No. 1 and 2 to this Special Appeal and the Committee of Manage ment of the said Intermediate College is Respondent No. 3. This controversy has arisen in the circumstances appearing hereinafter. 2. Sri Jagdeo Prasad Misra was regularly appointed Principal of the said Sri Brajendra Mani Inter College (hereinafter referred to as the College ). He retired from service on 30-6-1988 on attaining the age of superannuation. Immediately before his retirement, Sri J. P. Misra address ed a letter jointly to the Chairman/president of the Managing Committee and its Secretary enquiring from them, as to whom he should hand over charge on his retirement. In that letter he mentioned that Respondent No. 4 was senior-most lecturer of the college having been appointed on 12-8-1969 and the second senior-most lecturer was the appellant. On this letter of the retiring Principal, the Secretary of the Managing Committee made an endorsement to the President/chairman of the Committee stating that Sri Jagdeo Prasad Misra was superannuating on 30-6-1988 and Respon dent No. 4 was the senior-most lecturer of the College, and, therefore, he recommended that the charge of the post of Principal be given to Respon dent No. 4. This recommendation was accepted by President/chairman on 1-7-1988. In pursuance of this order a letter of appointment dated 30-6-1988 was issued under the signatures of Chairman/president of the Managing Committee appointing Respondent No. 4 as the Principal of the College. However, no resolution of the Managing Committee appoint ing Respondent No. 4 to the post of Principal was passed. It was mentioned in this letter of appointment that respondent No. 4, was being appointed purely on ad hoc basis and his appointment shall last till a suitable candi date was made available by the U. P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as the^ Board) or till any other decision was taken by the Management. It was mentioned in this letter of appointment that respondent No. 4, was being appointed purely on ad hoc basis and his appointment shall last till a suitable candi date was made available by the U. P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as the^ Board) or till any other decision was taken by the Management. In pursuance of this appointment letter the Respondent No. 4 stated working as Principal of the said College. On 29-10-1988 the Managing Committee of the College passed a resolution approving ad hoc appointment of Respondent No. 4 on the post of Principal. This appointment was approved by the Di strict Inspector of Schools vide his letter dated 19-5-1989 for payment of salary under the provisions of U. P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries to Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971. In the said letter of approval it was mentioned that the approval was given for appointment under Section 18 of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the appointment was purely temporary and would last till a candidate selected by the Board was available. 3. It is admitted to the parties that Respondent No. 4 is senior, to the appellant. The Respondent No. 4 was appointed as a lecturer in Sanskrit w. e. f. 12-8-1969 whereas the appellant was appointed as a lecturer in Geography on 14-8-1969. It is further admitted that the Management in July, 1988, sent a requisition to the U. P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board for selection of a regular Principal of the College As prescribed under the Rules framed under the Act, the Management forwarded names of Respondent No. 4 and the appellant to the Board which called both the candidates and others for Interview. The Board after interviews notified on 3-5-1991 that it had selected the appellant at Serial No 1a?d another person namely, Sri Shiv Sagar Shukla at Serial No. 2 in order of merit for the post of Principal of the College. However, the Responded No. 4 was not selected. The Board communicated the said notification to the management vide its letter dated 6-5-1991. However, the Responded No. 4 was not selected. The Board communicated the said notification to the management vide its letter dated 6-5-1991. In pursuance of the said selection the Committee of Management appointed the appellant to the post of principal of the College vide its resolution dated 13-5-1991 and letter of appointment of the same date was issued in favour of the appellant who took over charge from Respondent No. 4 on 14-5-1991. 4. The respondent No. 4 filed W. P. No. 2848 (S/s) of 1991 claiming that his appointment as Principal of the College came to be regularised under sub-section (1-A) of Section 33-A of the Act. Another W P No 6564 (SS) of 1991 was also filed by him substantially for the same relief. On the other hand, the appellant filed W. P. No. 7076 (S/s) of 1991 contend, that since he was selected by the Board under the Act and as he had taken over the charge, he was entitled to continue on the post. These three petitions were disposed of by one judgment dated /-9-1992 by a Single of this Court. He allowed the writ petitions of Respondent No 4 dismissed the writ petition of the appellant. He held that the a of Respondent No. 4 came to be regularised statutorily under the of sub-section (1-A) of Section 33-A of the Act. Aggrieved by the said judgment Ram Jeet Tewari has filed this Special Appeal. 5. Before proceeding further it may be mentioned that in the writ petitions this Court passed several interim orders directing that status quo be maintained regarding the post of Principal. The appellant had proceeded on earned leave and Respondent No. 4 was again given charge by the management. 6. Considering that the managements of aided institutions were indulging into malpractices in appointment of teachers and Heads of institutions and as the Government had taken liability of payment of their salary under the U. P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971, the U. P. Legislature enacted the Act which was preceded by Ordinances, namely U P Ordinance, No. 8 of 1981 and U. P. Ordinance No. 23 of 1981. The Ordinances com menced w. e. f. 14-7-1981. The Act was amended by U. P. Ordinance No 28 of 1991 which came into effect on 6-5-1991. The Ordinances com menced w. e. f. 14-7-1981. The Act was amended by U. P. Ordinance No 28 of 1991 which came into effect on 6-5-1991. It was subsequently replaced by U. P. Act No. 26 of 1991. By this amending Act sub- section (1-A) (1-B) and (1-C) were inserted. in Section 33-A and sub-section (2) was substituted Section 16 of the Act provides that subject to the provisions of Section 33-A every appointment of a teacher shall be made by the management only on the recommendation of the Board. It further provides that any appointment made in contravention of the said provision, shall be void. Section 18 of the Act as it stood at the relevant time prior to its deletion by U P Act No. 1 of 1983 reads as follow : 18. Ad hoc Teacher.- Where the management has notified 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 notifi cation ; 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. (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 of an ad hoc teacher under sub-section (2) shall cease to have effect from the earliest of the following 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 hoe appointment. 7. Section 33-A of the Act which is material for our purposes, after amendment by U. P. Act No. 26 of 1v91 w. e. f. 6-4-1991 reads as under : 33-A.-Regularisa1ion of certain appointments. 7. Section 33-A of the Act which is material for our purposes, after amendment by U. P. Act No. 26 of 1v91 w. e. f. 6-4-1991 reads as under : 33-A.-Regularisa1ion of certain appointments. (I) Every teacher directly appointed before the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board (Amendment) Ordinance, 1985 on ad hoc basis against a substantive vacancy in accordance with paragraph 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 as amended from time to time, who possesses the qualifications prescribed under, or is exempted from such qualifications in accordance with the provi sions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, shall with effect from the date of such commencement, be deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity, provided such teacher has been continuously serving the institution from the date of such appointment up to the date of such commencement. (1-A) Every teacher appointed by promotion, on ad hoc basis against a substantive vacancy in accordance with paragraph 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order 1981, as amended from time to time, who possesses the qualifications prescribed under, or is exempted from such qualifications in accordance with the pro visions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 shall, with effect from the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards (Amendment) Act, 1991 be deemed to have been appointed in substantive capacity provided such teacher has been continuously serving the institution from the date of such ad hoe appointment to the date of such commencement. (1-B) Every teacher directly appointed after June 12, 1985 and before May 13, 1989 on ad hoc basis against a substantive vacancy in the Certificate of Teaching grade, in accordance with paragraph 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Commis sion (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981, as amended from time to time, who possesses, the qualifications prescribed under, or is exempted from such qualifications in accordance with the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 shall, with effect from the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards (Amend ment) Act, 1991, be deemed to have been appointed in a substan tive capacity provided such teacher has been continuously serving the institution from the date of such ad hoc appointment to the date of such commencement. (1-C) Every teacher appointed by promotion or by direct recruitment before July 31, 1988 on ad hoc basis against a substantive vacancy in accordance with Section 18, who possesses the qualifications prescribed under, or is exempted from such quali fications in accordance with the provision of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 shall, with effect from the date of com mencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards (Amendment) Act, 1991 be deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity provided such teacher has been continuously serving the institu tion from the date of such ad hoc appointment to the dated of such commencement. (2) Every teacher deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity under sub-section (1) or (1- A) or (1-B) or (1 C), shall be deemed to be on probation from the date of commencement referred to in sub-section (1) or (1-A) or (1-B) or (1-C) as the case may be. (3) Nothing in this section shall be construed to entitle any teacher to substantive appointment, (a) if on the date of commence ment referred to in sub-section (1) or (1-A) or (l-B)or (;-Q such post had already been filled or selection for such post had already been made in accordance with this Act, or (b) if such teacher was related to any member of the Committee of Management or the Principal, or Head Master of the institution concerned. Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section a person shall be deemed to be related to another if- (i) they are members of a Hindu undivided family ; or (ii) they are husband and wife, or (iii) the one is related to the other in the manner indicated in the Second Schedule to the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The Act was first enacted in 1981 by means of Ordinances which later on were converted into U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 but since the establishment of the Board was likely to take some time and even after its establishment it was not possible to make selection of the teachers for the first few months, the U. P. Government passed the removal of Difficulties Order known as U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981, under Section 33 of the Act (hereinafter referred to as the order ). This was done in order to fill up large number of vacancies in the High Schools and Intermediate Colleges so that the teach ing of the students may not suffer. This removal of Difficulties Order makes provision for ad hoc appointments. Paragraph 2 of the order makes provision for ad hoc appointment of teachers whereas paragraph 4 of the order provides for ad hoc appointment by promotion on the post of Head of an Institution and Paragraph 5 provides for ad hoc appointment by direct recruitment with which we are not concerned because the Respondent No. 4 was promoted and was not directly recruited. The said Paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Order read as under : "2. Vacancies in which ad hoc appointment can be made.-The manage ment 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 following cases, namely : (a) in the case of substantive vacancy existing on the date of commencement of this Order caused by death, retirement, resignation 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) whose a vacancy of the nature specified in clause (a) or clause (b) comes into existence with a period of two months subsequent to the date of such commencement. " "4. Ad hoc Appointment by promotion.- (1) Every vacancy in the post of Head of an institution may be filled by promotion- (a) in the case of an Intermediate College, by the senior most teacher of the institution in the lecturers grade ; (b) in the case of a High School raised to the level of an inter mediate College, by the Headmaster of such High School; (c) in the case of Junior High School raised to the level of a School, by the Headmaster of such Junior High School. (2) Every vacancy in the post of a teacher in lecturers grade may be filled by promotion by the senior most teacher of the institu tion in the trained graduate (L. T.) grade. (2) Every vacancy in the post of a teacher in lecturers grade may be filled by promotion by the senior most teacher of the institu tion in the trained graduate (L. T.) grade. (3) Every vacancy in the post of a teacher in the trained graduate (L. T.) grade shall be filled by promotion by the senior most teacher of the institution in the trained under-graduute (C. T.) grade. (4) Every vacancy in the post of teacher in the trained under graduate (C. T.) grade shall be filled by the promotion by the senior most teacher of the institution in the J. T. C. grade or B. T. C. grade. Explanation,-For the purposes of Clauses ^1) to (4) of this para graph the expression "senior most teacher means the teacher having longest continuous service in the Lecturers grade or the trained graduate (L. T.) grade, or trained under graduate (C. 1.) grade, J. T. C. or B. T. C. grade, as the case may be. " 9. Having noted the relevant provisions, we now first take up the question as to from which date ad hoc appointment of respondent No. 4 commenced, the respondent No. 4 had been given charge of the post of Principal on 1-7-1988 on the retirement of Sri J. P. Misra under the orders of the Chairman/president of the Managing Committee on the recommen dation of the Manager of the College. It was followed by a letter of appointment dated 1-7-1988. However, this was done without a resolution of the managing committee because no such resolution has been produced before us. The Managing Committee passed the resolution on 29-10-1988 appointing Respondent No. 4 on the post of Principal. This appointment cannot be said to relate back w. e. f. 1-7-1988 because firstly that order was a working arrangement only for taking over from the retiring Principal. It was a Incharge arrangement and no rights, equities and expectations could be built upon it as has been held by Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ramakant Shripad Sinai Advalpalkar v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1145 . Secondly, admittedly the Managing Committee is the appointing authority for the post of Principal and it had passed no resolution prior to 29-10-1988 and mere issuance of letter of appointment under the signatures of the President/chairman of the Managing Committee can be of no avail to Respondent No. 4. Secondly, admittedly the Managing Committee is the appointing authority for the post of Principal and it had passed no resolution prior to 29-10-1988 and mere issuance of letter of appointment under the signatures of the President/chairman of the Managing Committee can be of no avail to Respondent No. 4. It has been held by this Court in the case of Committee of Management, Rani Laxmi Bai Girls Inter College, Unnao v. Director of Education, U. P. Allahabad, 1985 UPLBEC 552 that the promotion can be accepted only from the date of resolution of the Managing Committee. Thirdly, the tenor of resolution dated 29-10-1988 passed by Managing Com mittee does not at all show that it appointed the Respondent No. 4 to the post of Principal of the College w. e. f. 1-7-1988. On the other hand it shows that appointment was from the date when the resolution of the Committee of Management was passed i. e. 19-10-1988. It is mentioned in the resolution that it had received the application of Respondent No. 4 alongwith certificates of his qualifications and the comments of the Manager were also produced before it. It also took note of the fax that the post was vacant on account of retirement of Jagdeo Prasad Misra. It is further mentioned in the resolution that under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 16 (cha) of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 the post is to be filled by the senior most lecturer of the college. The resolution ends by say ing that the Managing Committee unanimously accepts the appointment of Respondent No. 4, being the senior most lecturer, on ad hoc basis as officiating Principal. Fourthly, appointment of Respondent No. 4 on the post of Principal was given financial approval by District Inspector of Schools vide his latter dated 19-5-1^89 for payment of salary under the provisions of U. P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries to Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 after the resolution of Managing Committee was passed on 29-10-1988. In view of the above, ad hoc appointment of Respondent No. 4 on the post of Principal is w. e. f. 29-10-1988. 10. Now, it has to be seen as to whether ad hoc appointment of Respondent No. 4 got regularised under the provisions of Section 33-A of the Act. In view of the above, ad hoc appointment of Respondent No. 4 on the post of Principal is w. e. f. 29-10-1988. 10. Now, it has to be seen as to whether ad hoc appointment of Respondent No. 4 got regularised under the provisions of Section 33-A of the Act. While the contention of the appellant was that ad hoc appoint ment of Respondent No. 4 could be regularised if at all only under the provisions of sub-section (1-G) of Section 33-A whereas according to Respondent No. 4, his ad hoc appointment got regularised under the provisions of sub-section (1-A) of Section 33-A of the Act. Both the parties addressed lengthy arguments on the point whether the ad hoc ap pointment of Respondent No. 4 was under Section 18 of the Act or under the Order. 11. It is not necessary to go into the question whether ad hoc appoint ment of Respondent No. 4 on the post of principal was under Section 18 of the Act or under the order because the case of Respondent No. 4 does not fall under either of the provisions. Sub-section (1-A; of Section 33-A. of the Act provides for regularisation of teachers appointed on ad hoc basis under Paragraph 2 of U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 whereas Paragraph 4 of the said order provides for ad hoc appointment of Principal in Intermediate College by promotion. Two different provisions exist in the Order. One is for the ad hoc appointment of teachers under Paragraph 2 of the Order and the other is in Paragraph 4 of the Order which relates to ad hoc appointment of Head of an institution by promotion. No. definition has been given in this Order which has been issued under Section 33 of the Act and, therefore, the definitions given in the Act will have to be used for interpreting the Order. It is true that in Section 2 (k) of the Act teacher has been defined as follows :- "2. Definitions.-In this Act- (a ). . . . . . . . . . (b ). . . . . . . . . . (c ). . . . . . . . . . . (d ). . . . . . . . . . (e ). . . . . . . . . . (f ). . . . . . . . . . . . (b ). . . . . . . . . . (c ). . . . . . . . . . . (d ). . . . . . . . . . (e ). . . . . . . . . . (f ). . . . . . . . . . (g ). . . . . . . . . . (h ). . . . . . . . . . (i ). . . . . . . . . . (j ). . . . . . . . . . (k) teacher means a person employed for imparting instruc tion in an institution and includes a principal or a Head Master ;" 12. Thus, from the definition of teachers given in Section 2 (k) of the Act, it comes out that the Teacher includes a principal or Head Master also. However, in the Order, as mentioned above separate provisions in Paragraphs 2 and 4 have been made for ad hoc appointment of Teacher and Head of the institution respectively and therefore, it will have to be held on the basis of the principle that the general provision gives way to the Special provision that ad hoc appointment by promotion to the post of Head of institution can be made only under paragraph 4 and not under Paragraph 2. That being the position, the appointment of Respondent No. 4 to the post of Principal of the College, cannot be deemed to have been regularised under the provisions of sub-section (1-A) of Section 33-A of the Act because it speaks of appointment of teacher made under Paragraph 2 of the Order, in view of this, contention of learned counsel for Respondent No. 4 that ad hoc appointment of Respondent No. 4 was regularised under the provisions of sub-section (1-A) of Section 33 of the Act has no substance. 13. So far as regularisation of ad hoc appointment of respondent No. 4 under the provisions of sub- section (1-C) of Section 33-A of the Act is concerned, he cannot get any ^benefit out of the said provisions which is restricted to appointment made before July 31, 1988 on ad hoc basis. It has already keen held by us that ad hoc appointment of Respondent No. 4 was w. e. f. 29-10-1988. 14. It has already keen held by us that ad hoc appointment of Respondent No. 4 was w. e. f. 29-10-1988. 14. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 4 placed his reliance on a Full Bench decision of this Court given in the case of Radha Raizada v. Committee of Management, Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter Collegs, (1994) 3 UPLBEC 1951. In paragraph 37 of this judgment it has been observed that Section 18 of the Act as well as the 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. It has further bean observed that while Section 18 of the Act make provision for ad hoc appointments whereas the Order provides for the procedure. Even according to the said deci sion of the Full Bench the Respondent No. 4 doss not get any advantage because he cannot claim regularization under the provisions of sub-section (1-A) of Section 33-A of the Act for the reasons mentioned above. In fact, the Full Bench in Paragraph 44 of its judgment has observed that the ad hoc appointment on the post of principal of Intermediate College can be made under Paragraph 4 of the Order only by promoting the senior most Lecturer. In view of this also, Respondent No. 4 cannot claim regularisation under the provisions of sub-section (1-A) of Section 33-A of the Act as it is confined to the regularisation of ad hoc appointment of teachers made under paragraph 2 of the Order and it does not embrace in itself the regularisation of ad hoc appointment of Principal of Intermediate College made under Paragraph 4 of the Order. 15. In view of the above discussion, we find that ad hoc appointment of Sri Munishwar Dutt Pandey Respondent No. 4 to the post of Principal of Sri Brajendra Mani Inter College, cannot be deemed to have been regularised. Since Sri Ram Jeet Tewari appellant was duly selected by the Board under the provisions of U. P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982, he is regularly appointed Principal w. e. f. 14-4-1991. He shall be entitled to get salary with all consequential benefits of the said post with effect from the said date. If he is not already holding the post of Principal, he shall be given the said charge forthwith. He shall be entitled to get salary with all consequential benefits of the said post with effect from the said date. If he is not already holding the post of Principal, he shall be given the said charge forthwith. Sri Munishwar Dutt Pandey, Respondent No. 4 has held the post of the Principal in spells under different interim orders passed by this Court. In view of this, we direct that if he has been paid salary of the post of Principal, ha shall not be compelled to refund the same. However, if the salary of the said post has not been paid to him, he shall not be entitled to get it. 16. The appeal is allowed accordingly and the judgment of learned Single Judge is hereby set aside In the circumstances of the case we leave the parties to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed, .