D. P. MOHAPATRA, CJ. The core ques tion that arised for determination in these appeals is whether a teacher appointed on ad hoc basis in a short-term vacancy, like leave vacancy, is entitled as of right to con tinue in the said post even after the short term vacancy has been converted to a per manent vacancy due to death, resignation or retirement of the permanent incumbent ? The answer to this question depends on the interpretation of Section 33-B of the U. P. Secondary Education Services and Selec tion Boards Act, 1982 (U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and its interaction with the provisions of the U. P. Secondary Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order, 1981. The point was referred to Full Bench by a Division Bench by the order passed on 12-4-1994 in Special Appeal No. 322 of 1993. The relevant portion of the said order reads: "cites judgments of the Division Bench in Civil Writ Petition 7786 of 1986, Rafiq Ahmad and another v. State of U. P. and others decided on March 10, 1988, Heera Lal Sahuv. District Inspec tor of Schools Kanpur Dehat and others, decided on May 20, 1988. A reading of these judgments would show that there is no reference in either of them to the provisions of Clause-3 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary- Education Services Commis sion (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order, 1981 regarding duration of ad hoc appointment. In this view of the matter both these judgments in our opinion require reconsideration and we con sequently admit this Special Appeal to Full Bench. " The other appeals have been ordered to he heard alongwith Special Appeal No. 322 of 1993 since they involve the same point. In the cases referred to in the reference order quoted above this Court took the view that an ad hoc teacher appointed in a short term vacancy, which is subsequently con verted into a permanent vacancy, is en titled to continue in the post till a can didate duly selected by the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission joins the post. It is relevant to note here that in both the cases the main question for con sideration of this Court was the claim of salary by the ad hoc teacher. It is relevant to note here that in both the cases the main question for con sideration of this Court was the claim of salary by the ad hoc teacher. While in the case of Heera Lal Sahu (supra) a direction was issued to the District Inspector of Schools for payment of arrears salary to the petitioner within three months from the date of production of a certified copy before him and to continue to pay salary in future till a candidate found best suitable, who is recommended by the Commission, joins the post, in the case of Rafiq Ahmad and another v. State of U. P. and others (Supra) the direction to the District In spector of Schools was to pay to the petitioners their respective salaries and treat them as teachers in the institution ""concerned till their services are either done away in accordance with law or the Board makes a selection of teachers and the selectees of the Board join the post held by the petitioners or Arif Siddiqui returns to his original post. 2. For the sake of brevity and con venience we will refer to the relevant facts in Special Appeal No. 898 of 1995, which is the case in which detailed arguments were ad vanced before us. This Special Appeal was filed by Smt. Pramila Mishra, an Assistant Teacher of Nagar Palika Balika Inter Col lege, Kalpi, District Jalaun at Orai challeng ing the judgment dated 29-9-1995 of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19152 of 1995. The writ petition was filed by Smt. Sneh Lata Mishra, respondent No. 5 in the appeal, citing the Deputy Director of Education Jhansi Division Jhansi, Regional In-spectress of Girls School/deputy Director of Education- II Jhansi, District Inspector of School Jalaun at Orai, Nagar Palika Balika Inter College, Kalpi, District Jalaun at Orai through its Officer-in- Charge and Smt. Pramila Mishra the appellant, as respondents. The petitioner challenged the order dated 6-7-1995 of the Deputy Direc tor of Education, Jhansi, disapproving the extension of her ad hoc appointment as Lec turer with effect from 19-4-1990. 3. The facts of the case relevant for the purpose of present proceedings may be stated thus : When Smt. L. R. Mishra, a Lec turer in Economics, proceeded on medical leave, short-term vacancy arose in the post on 1-7-1989. 3. The facts of the case relevant for the purpose of present proceedings may be stated thus : When Smt. L. R. Mishra, a Lec turer in Economics, proceeded on medical leave, short-term vacancy arose in the post on 1-7-1989. The petitioner Smt. Sneh Lata Mishra was appointed in the post on ad hoc basis by order dated 1-1-1990. Smt. Pramila Mishra who was appointed an Assistant Teacher in the institution in C. T. Grade on 31-11-1978, became entitled to hold a post in L. T. Grade with effect from 1-2-1988 on completion of 10 years service in C. T. Grade. Respondent No. 5 moved Writ Peti tion No. 1 0393 of 1994 challenging the order of the District Inspector of Schools refusing her claim for pay fixation in L. T. Grade with effect from 1-1-1986. She also filed a separate writ petition challenging the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner Smt. Sneh Lata Mishra which was summarily dis posed of on 7-2-1990 with the observation that she had an alternative remedy. Upon the death of Smt. L. R. Mishra, the short term vacancy, in which the petitioner was appointed, was converted into a permanent vacancy and the same was notified to the Commission. Then, the question arose whether the petitioner was entitled to con tinue as ad hoc teacher or the claim of the respondent No. 5 for her promotion in the substantive vacancy was to be accepted. The Deputy Director of Education by order dated 21-7-1990 upheld the ad hoc appoint ment of the petitioner. The respondent No. 5 challenged the said order in Writ Petition No. 19052 of 1990 in which an exparte order of stay was passed. Thereafter the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 17217 of 1992 for payment of her salary with effect from 22-1-1990 whereupon in interim mandamus was issued. Both the Writ Petitions No. 19052 of 1990 and 17217 of 1992 were considered together. While Writ Petition No. 19052 of 1990 was allowed on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the respondent No. 5 and the matter was remanded, in Writ Petition No. 17217 of 1992 a direction for payment of salary was made. Special Appeal No. 193 of 1993, filed by the respondent No. 5 against the interim order of payment of salary to the petitioner, was dismissed by order dated 2-2-1995. Special Appeal No. 193 of 1993, filed by the respondent No. 5 against the interim order of payment of salary to the petitioner, was dismissed by order dated 2-2-1995. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the order passed in Writ Petition No. 19052 of 1990 was also dismissed. The Deputy Direc tor of Education by order dated 6-7-1995 disapproved the extension of ad hoc ap pointment of the petitioner and held the respondent No. 5 to be entitled to promo tion to the post of Lecturer of Economics. This order was challenged in Writ Petition No. 19152 of 1995. The learned single Judge relying on previous decisions of the Court, including the decisions in Km. Meena Singh v. District Inspector of Schools, 1992 (3) A. W. C. 1733 and Virendra Kumar Singh v. District Inspector of Schools and another, 1989 (2) UPLBEC 607, held that a teacher appointed on ad hoc basis against a short term vacancy would be entitled to continue even after the vacancy is converted into a substantive one till such time as a candidate selected by the Commission turns up to jo in. Consequently, the learned single Judge held that respondent No. 6, who could not claim promotion on the date of creation of the short-term vacancy, could not be con sidered for promotion to the post after the short term vacancy was converted into a substantive one. On such findings the learned Single Judge allowed the writ peti tion, quashed the order dated 6-7-1995 and directed that the petitioner will continue as ad hoc teacher of Economics in the institu tion. 4. At the outset it would be convenient and useful to notice a few statutory provisions relevant for the consideration of the issues raised in the case. 4. At the outset it would be convenient and useful to notice a few statutory provisions relevant for the consideration of the issues raised in the case. Section 7-AAof the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (U. P. Act II of 1921), provides, inter alia, that not withstanding anything contained in the Act, the management of an institution may, from its own resources, employ as an inter im measure part-time teachers for impart ing instructions in any subject or group of subjects or for a higher class for which recognition is given or in any section of an existing class for which permission is granted under Section 7- A; that no part time teacher shall be employed in an institu tion unless such conditions may be specified by the State Government by order in this behalf are complied with; that no part-time teacher or part- time instructor shall be employed unless he possesses such mini mum qualifications as may be prescribed ; that a part-time teacher or a part-time in structor shall be paid such honorarium as may be fixed by the State Government by general or special order in this behalf; and that nothing in the Act shall preclude a person already serving as a teacher in an institution from being employed as a part time, teacher or a part-time instructor under section 7-AA. 5. Section 7-AB, which makes provisions for exemption, lays down that nothing in the Uttar Pradesh High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 (U. P. Act No. 24 of 1971) or the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Ser vices Commission and Selection Boards Act 1982 (U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982) shall apply in relation to part-time teachers and part-time instructors employed in an institution under Section 7-AA. 6. 6. Section 16-E of the said Act, which prescribes the procedure for selection of teachers and Head of institutions, provides, inter alia, that no person shall be appointed as Head of institution or teacher in an in stitution unless he possesses the minimum qualifications prescribed by the Regula tions, provided that a person who does not possess such qualification may also be ap pointed if he has been granted exemption by the Board having regard to his education, experience and other attainments ; that every application for appointment as Head of Institution or teacher of an institution in pursuance of an advertisement published under Sub-section (2) shall be made to the Inspector and shall be accompanied by such fee which shall be paid in such manner as may be prescribed ; that after the receipt of applications under sub-section (4), the In spector shall cause to be awarded, in respect of each such application, quality point marks in accordance with the procedure and principles prescribed and shall thereafter, forward the application to the Committee of Management; that the application shall be dealt with, the candidates shall be called for interview and the meeting of the Selec tion Committee shall be held, in accordance with the Regulations ; that the Selection Committee shall prepare a list containing in order of preference the names as far as prac ticable of three candidates for each post found by it to be suitable for appointment shall communicate its recommendation together with such list to the Committee of Management; that subject to the provisions of sub-section (8) the Committee of Management shall, on receipt of the recom mendations of the Selection Committee under sub-section (6), first offer appoint ment to the candidate given the first preference by the Selection Committee and on his failure to join the post, the candidate next to him in the list prepared by the Selec tion Committee under this Section and on the failure of such candidate also, to the last candidate specified in such list and in sub section (8) it is provided that the Commit tee of Management shall, where it does not agree with the recommendations of the Selection Committee, refer the matter together with the reasons of such disagree ment to the Regional Deputy Director of Education in the case of appointment to the post of Head of the Institution and to the Inspector in the case of appointment to the post of teacher of an institution and his decision shall be final. Sub-section (11) of Section 16-E provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing sub section, appointment in the case of tem porary vacancy caused by the grant of leave to an incumbent of a period not exceeding six months or by death, termination or otherwise of an incumbent occurring during an educational session, may be made by direct recruitment or promotion without reference to the Selection Committee in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, provided that no ap pointment made under this sub-section shall, in any case, continue beyond the end of the educational session during which such appointment was made. 7. The Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selec tion Boards Act, 1982 was enacted for the purpose of establishing Secondary Educa tion Services Commission and Selection Boards for the selection of teacher in secondary institutions recognised under the In termediate Education Act, 1921. institution as defined in Section 2 (e) of the said Act means an Intermediate College or Higher Secondary School or a High School recognised under the Intermediate Educa tion Act, 1921 and includes institution maintained by a local authority but does not include an institution maintained by the State Government; Section 18 of the said Act, which makes provision for ad hoc teacher, provides, inter alia, that where the management has notified a vacancy to the Commission in accordance with the provisions of this Act and (a) the Commis sion 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 (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 qualifications prescribed under the Intermediate Educa tion Act, 1921 or the Regulations made thereunder. Sub-section (2) of the said Sec tion extend the provisions of sub- section (1) 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. Sub-section (2) of the said Sec tion extend the provisions of sub- section (1) 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. In sub-section (3) of the said Section it is laid down that every appoint ment of an ad hoc teacher under sub- section (1) or 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 ; and (c) thirtieth day of June following the date of such ad hoc appointment. 8. Section 33 of the Act vests power in the State Government to remove difficul ties, provided, inter alia, that 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 prescribed in the order, have effect subject to such adap tations, whether by way of modification, ad dition or commission, as it may deem fit to be necessary or expedient, provided that no such order shall be made after two years from the date of commencement of this Act. The Section also provides that no order under sub-section (1) shall be called in ques tion in any court on the ground that no difficulty as is referred to in sub-section (1) existed or required to be removed. 9. Section 33-A, (which was introduced by amendment by U. P. Act 19 of 1985 with effect from 12th June, 1985), makes provision regarding regularisation of cer tain appointments. 9. Section 33-A, (which was introduced by amendment by U. P. Act 19 of 1985 with effect from 12th June, 1985), makes provision regarding regularisation of cer tain appointments. Sub-section (1) of the said section mandates that every teacher directly appointed, before the commence ment of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selec tion Boards (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 Difficul ties) Order, 1981, as amended from time to time, who possesses the qualifications prescribed under, or exempted from such qualifications in accordance with the provisions of the U. P. Intermediate Educa tion Act, 1921, shall, with effect from the date of such commencement, be deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity provided such teacher had been continuously serving the institution from the date of such appointment up to the date of such commencement. Sub-section (3) of the said section lays down that nothing in this section shall be construed to entitle any teacher to substantive appointment, (a) if on the date of such commencement, such post has already been filled or selection for such post had already been made in accord ance 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. 10. 10. Section 33-B of the Act (which was inserted in the statute by U. P. Act No. 1 of 1993 with effect from 7th August, 1993), provides in sub-section (1) that any teacher, other than the Principal or Head-master, who (a) (i) was appointed by promotion or by direct recruitment in the lecturer grade or Trained Graduate grade on or before May 14, 1991 or in the Certificate of Teaching grade on or before May 13, 1989 agaisnt a short-term vacancy in accordance with para graph 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order, 1981 and such vacancy was subsequently converted into a substative vacancy, or (ii) was ap pointed by direct recruitment on or after July 14, 1981 but not later than June 12, 1985 on ad hoc basis against a substantive vacancy in the Certificate of Teaching grade through advertisement and such appoint ment was approved by the Inspector, or (iii) was appointed by promotion or by direct recruitment on or after July 31, 1988 but not later than May 14, 1991 on ad hoc basis against a substantive vacancy in accordance with Section 18, as it stood before the omis sion by the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Educa tion Services Commission and Selection Boards (Amendment) Act, 1992 ; (b) pos sesses the qualification prescribed under, or is exempted from such qualifications in ac cordance with the provisions of the Inter mediate Education Act, 1921, (c) has been. continuously serving the Institution from the date of such appointment up to the date of the commencement of the Act referred to in sub-clause (iii) of clause (a), (d) is not related to any member of the management or the Principal or Headmaster of the In stitution concerned in the manner specified in the explanation to sub- section (3) of Section 33-A, (e) has been found suitable for appointment in a substantive capacity by a Selection Committee constituted under sub section (2), shall be given substantive ap pointment by the management. (Emphasis supplied) Sub-section (2) makes provision for constituting Selection Committee for each region, the procedure and the manner to be followed by the Selection Committee in recommending names for appointment of teachers. (Emphasis supplied) Sub-section (2) makes provision for constituting Selection Committee for each region, the procedure and the manner to be followed by the Selection Committee in recommending names for appointment of teachers. Sub-section (5) provides that a teacher who is not found suitable under sub-section (1) and a teacher who is not eligible to get a substantive appointment under that sub-section shall cease to hold the appointment on such date as the State Government may by order specify. Sub-sec tion (6) of Section 33-B mandates that noth ing in this section shall be construed to entitle any teacher to substantive appoint ment, if on the date of commencement of the Act referred to in sub-clause (iii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1), such vacancy had already been filled or selection for such vacancy had already been made in accord ance with this Act. 11. Section 34 of the Act vests power in the Commission to make or amend Regula tions with the prior approval of the State Government for certain purposes. It is fur ther provided in the section that such Regulations shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Act or the Rules made under Section 35 and as far as possible, be followed by the Board for discharging its duties and performing its functions under the Act. Section 35 vests power in the State Government to make Rules, by notification, for carrying out the purposes of the Act. 12. Rule 9-B of the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission Rules, 1983 lays down the procedure for ad hoc appoint ment by promotion. The Rule provides, inter alia, (i) that the management shall in respect of the vacancies to be filled by promotion, consider the cases of such teachers who are working in trained graduate (L. T.) or Certificate of Teaching (C. T) grade and possess the qualifications prescribed under the Intermediate Educa tion Act, 1921 or the Regulations made thereunder and have put in at least five years continuous service as such on the date of occurrence of vacancy for promotion to the lecturer or trained graduate (L. T.) grade, as the case may be, on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of unfit without their having applied for the same. Sub-rule (2) provide that the management shall forward the name of the selected teacher alongwith the copy of seniority list and his service record including character roll to the Dis trict Inspector of Schools for approval and in sub-rule (3) it is laid down that the Dis trict Inspector of Schools, shall, within ten days from the date of receipt of names under sub-rule (2), send the names of approved teachers to the management of the con cerned institution and the provisions of sub-rules (6) and (7)of Rule 9-A shall mutatis mutandis apply. 13. The Government under the provisions of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1981 issued several orders styled as removal of Difficulties Order. The Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the First Order) and the Uttar Pradesh Secon dary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Second Order), which are relevant for the present purpose. Paragraph 2 of the First Order which enumerates vacancies in which ad hoc appointments can be made, lays down that the management of an institution may ap point by promotion or by direct recruitment a teacher on purely ad hoc basis in accord ance with the provision of the order in the following cases, namely (a) in the case of a substantive vacancy existing on the date of commencement of the 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) 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 3 of the First Order, which makes provision regarding duration of ad hoc appointments, lays down that every appointment of an ad hoc teacher under Paragraph 2 shall cease to have effect from the earliest of the dates, namely, (a) when the candidate recom mended by the Commission or the Board, joins the post; or (b) when the period of six months from the date of such ad hoc ap pointment expires. Paragraph 4 makes provision for ad hoc appointment by promotion. Paragraph 4 makes provision for ad hoc appointment by promotion. Clause (2) of the said paragraph mandates that every vacancy in the post of a teacher in Lecturer grade may be filled by promotion by the senior-most teacher of the institution in the trained-graduate (L. T) grade. In Clauses (3) and (4) it is laid down that 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-graduate (C. T) grade and every vacancy in the post of a teacher in the trained under-graduate (C. T.) grade shall be filled by promotion by the senior most teacher of the institution in the J. T. C. grade or B. TC. grade. Paragraph 5 of the First Order provides, inter alia, that 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 ). On a perusal of clauses (2) to (5) it is manifest that the management shall, as 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 Ex change and also through public advertise ment in at least two newspapers having ade quate circulation in Uttar Pradesh ; that every application referred to in Clause (2) shall be addressed to the District Inspector of Schools ; that the District Inspector of Schools shall cause the best candidate selected on the basis of quality point specified in Appendix and 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 institutions 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 institutions ; the process shall be repeated till both the lists are exhausted. In relation to an institution imparting instruction to women the expression "district Inspector of Schools" shall mean the "regional Inspectress of Girls Schools". 14. In relation to an institution imparting instruction to women the expression "district Inspector of Schools" shall mean the "regional Inspectress of Girls Schools". 14. The Second Order deals with filling up of certain short-term vacancies caused by grant of leave to or on account of suspen sion of a teacher or otherwise. Paragraph 2 of the Second Order, which lays down the procedure for filling up short-term vacan cies, provides, inter alia, that if short-term vacancy in the post to a teacher, caused by grant of leave to him or on account of his suspension duly approved by the District Inspector of Schools or otherwise; shall be filled by the management of the institution, by promotion of the permanent senior most teacher, in the next lower grade ; the management shall immediately inform the District Inspector of Schools of such promotion alongwith the particulars of the teacher so promoted. In Clause (2) of the said Paragraph it is provided that where any vacancy referred to in Clause (1) cannot be filled by promotion due to non- availability of a teacher in the next lower grade in the institution, possessing the prescribed mini mum qualifications, it shall be filled by direct recruitment in the manner laid down in Clause (3 ). In Clause (3) it is mandated that the management shall intimate the vacancies to the District Inspector of Schools and shall also immediately notify the same on the notice board of the institu tion, requiring the candidates to apply to the Manager of the institution alongwith the particulars given in Appendix b of this Order ; that the selection shall be made on the basis of quality point marks specified in the Appendix to the Uttar Pradesh Secon dary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981, is sued with notification dated 31st July, 1981 and that the compilation of quality point marks shall be done under the personal su pervision of the Head of institution. The District Inspector of Schools shall com municate his decision within 7 days of the date of receipt of particulars by him failing which the Inspector will be deemed to have given his approval. The District Inspector of Schools shall com municate his decision within 7 days of the date of receipt of particulars by him failing which the Inspector will be deemed to have given his approval. On receipt of approval of the District Inspector of Schools or as the case may be on his failure, to communicate his decision within seven days of the receipt of papers by him from the Manager, the management shall appoint the selected can didate and an order of appointment shall be issued under the signature of the Manager. Paragraph 3 of the Second Order makes provision regarding duration of ad hoc ap pointment. In the said paragraph it is laid down that every appointment of a teacher under paragraph 2 of this Order shall cease from the earliest of the following dates, namely, (a) when the teacher, who was on leave or under suspension joins the post; (b) when the period of six months from the date of such ad hoc appointment expires; or (c) when the short-term vacancy otherwise, ceases to exist. (Emphasis supplied) 15. Paragraph 4 of the Second Order lays down that every appointment of a teacher under paragraph 2 shall mutatis mutandis be subject to the conditions laid down in paragraph 6 of the First Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981. 16. From the provisions of the Acts, Rules, Regulations and Removal of Dif ficulties Orders discussed above, it is manifest that a clear distinction has been maintained between substantive vacancy and short-term vacancy of the post of teacher. The authority to make the appoint ment, the procedure to be followed in making the appointment and the considera tions to be made in making the appoint ments in the two cases are distinct and dif ferent from each other. In each case the duration of ad hoc appointment is also laid down under the statutory provisions. In the case of ad hoc appointment in a short-term vacancy Paragraph 3 of the Second Order specifically lays down that the appointment will come to an end if the short-term vacan cy otherwise ceases to exist. In each case the duration of ad hoc appointment is also laid down under the statutory provisions. In the case of ad hoc appointment in a short-term vacancy Paragraph 3 of the Second Order specifically lays down that the appointment will come to an end if the short-term vacan cy otherwise ceases to exist. It follows, therefore, that when a vacancy caused due to grant of leave to or suspension of the per manent incumbent becomes a substative vacancy on account of his death, resignation or termination or removal from service, the short-term vacancy ceases to exist and a substantive vacancy is created in its place. On a perusal of the relevant provisions of the Acts, Rules and Removal of Difficulties Orders and giving our anxious considera tion to the matter, we do not find any provision which directly or even indirectly vests a right in a person appointed as an ad hoc teacher in a short-term vacancy to con tinue even after the said vacancy has ceased to exist and a substantive vacancy has been created in its place. The contention raised on behalf of the respondents that such an appointee (in short term vacancy) is entitled to continue in the post (substantive vacan cy) till a candidate selected by the Commis sion/board joins the post does not get any support from the statutory provisions and, therefore, cannot be accepted. The conten tion is also not acceptable for the reason that it runs counter to the intendment of the provisions of the Acts, Rules and Regula tions. We should not be understood to be saying that an ad hoc teacher in a short term vacancy cannot be appointed in a substan tive vacancy. He can be appointed in the substantive vacancy if he is selected in ac cordance with the procedure and in the manner laid down in the relevant provisions of the Acts, Rules, Regulations and Removal of Difficulties Orders. What we want to stress and which is clear to us is that he cannot claim as a matter of right that he is entitled to continue in the post till the can didate selected by the Commission/board joins even if the short-term vacancy has ceased and a substative vacancy in the post of teacher has been created in its place. 17, In the case of Virendra Kumar Singh v. District Inspector of Schools, District Al lahabad and another, (1989) 2 UPLBEC 607 a Division Bench of this Court held that an appointment on leave vacancy continues till person in whose leave vacancy that appoint ment was made comes to join that post or other candidate is recommended by the Commission or Board and that candidate is ready to join the post. Considering the un disputed factual position in that case that neither the person in whose vacancy the petitioner was appointed had come back or was ready to join the post nor some one else had been recommended by the Commission to join the post in which the petitioner con tinued, this Court held that the respondents erred in law in not treating the petitioner to continue in service and in not paying the salary to the petitioner. 18. In the case of Charu Chandra Tiwari v. District Inspector of School, Deoria and others, (1990) 1 UPLBEC 160, a Division Bench of this Court interpreting Section 18 (1) of the U. P. Secondary Educa tion Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 held that the said Section empowers the management to make ad hoc appointment in case the vacancy is not filled for more than two months by the Commis sion ; that the nature of appointment is apparent from use of expression, purely ad hoc basis, that it does not create any right in the appointee except to continue till regular selection is made. This Court also held that under the said clause the method of ap pointment could be by direct recruitment or promotion, but manner is not provided, nor it provides if the two methods are exclusive of each other or are alternative. Discussing the purpose and objective of the appoint ment and legislative background of ad hoc appointment in educational institutions, the Court observed: "a superficial reading of Section 18 (1) may create an impression that it is open to manage ment to fill ad hoc vacancy either by direct ap pointment or by promotion. But a close scrutiny in the light of purpose and objective of the appoint ment and legislative background of ad hoc ap pointment in educational institutions, dispels this doubt. Purpose, obviously, is the interest of the institution and students. Delay in appointment by the Commission may not cause dislocation in teaching. But a close scrutiny in the light of purpose and objective of the appoint ment and legislative background of ad hoc ap pointment in educational institutions, dispels this doubt. Purpose, obviously, is the interest of the institution and students. Delay in appointment by the Commission may not cause dislocation in teaching. To avoid it the senior most teacher avail able in the subject, who in fact normally must be taking classes, should be promoted. It is conduc tive to the institution, in encouraging for the teacher and avoids any disturbance. But more than this is the construction of the clause both on the language and legislative background. In U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 there was no concept of ad hoc appointments. By Act No. XXVI of 1975 the Act was amended. Procedure for appointment of teachers by the Management on recommendation of Selection Committee was provided. The transitory provision empowered the Government to remove difficulties by issuing orders to give effect to provisions of the Act. In pursuance of it, the U. P. Secondary Education (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1975 was issued on 18th August, 1975. " "since the Government was empowered to frame regulations notwithstanding anything con tained in Chapter II and III of Regulations and the Removal of Difficulties Order provided for filling up vacancy of teacher in Lecturer or L. T. grade or even C. T. by promotion of senior most teacher and the power to appoint by direct recruitment was available if the vacancy could not be filled; in the manner laid down in preceding clause, that is, by promotion it is obvious that rule of 40% and 60% was not adhered to tor ad hoc appointments. It was clearly visualised that all posts in the institu tion and ad hoc basis were primarily to be filled by promoting senior most teacher and the method of direct recruitment for such appointment could be resorted to only if such teachers were not available or they were not qualified. Regulations 5 and 6 of Chapter II framed under U. P. Intermediate Education Act providing for every appointment by direct recruitment except to the extent of 40% by promotion has to be deemed to be modified so far ad hoc appointments are concerned. Ad hoc appointments are short term appointments. Regulations 5 and 6 of Chapter II framed under U. P. Intermediate Education Act providing for every appointment by direct recruitment except to the extent of 40% by promotion has to be deemed to be modified so far ad hoc appointments are concerned. Ad hoc appointments are short term appointments. The appointee has no right except to continue till regular selection is made or the short term vacan cy comes to an end. Why should the senior most teacher otherwise fully qualified be deprived of that benefit. It is, therefore, clear that any vacancy whether substantive or temporary which is to be filled by ad hoc selection has first to be filled by promotion and in absence of availability of a can didate by direct recruitment. There appears no rationale to exclude this method from Section 18 of the Act empowering the Committee of Management to make direct recruitment even though senior most teacher in the institution was available. Section 18 only empowers the manage ment to make ad hoc appointments. It is silent in respect of procedure. In absence of any rationale it cannot be construed as contrary to the scheme visualised by Removal of Difficulties Order and in vouge from 1975. Any other construction or con ceding power to the management to fill ad hoc vacancy under Section 18 by direct recruitment even though senior most teacher was available shall result in arbitrariness and would be against the interest of teachers to protect whose interests the Legislature has intervened from time to time since 1975 and State Government has issued Removal of Difficulties Order. Therefore, whether from the language of the Section or from the scheme the irresistible conclusion is that ad hoc vacancy under Section 18 should be filled by promotion and the method of direct recruitment should be adopted only if the teachers for promo tion are not available. " 19. In the case of Committee of Management, Kunwar R. C. Manila Degree College Mainpuri v. Vice Chancellor Agra University, Agra and another, (1990) 2 UPLBEC 997, a Division Bench of this Court considered the question whether management of the institution could ter minate the services of Miss. Galav, as an ad hoc lecturer in History, merely on the ground that the Principal had agreed to deliver 12 lectures per week in History to B. A. students. Galav, as an ad hoc lecturer in History, merely on the ground that the Principal had agreed to deliver 12 lectures per week in History to B. A. students. Taking note of the provision in Paragraph 2 of the U. P. Higher Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficul ties) Order, 1982 and Section 16 of the U. P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 the Court held that the manage ment is vested with no power to dismiss or remove or terminate the services of an ad hoc teacher under the provisions of the Commission Act or the Removal of Dif ficulties Order, but such power is vested elsewhere. However, on the contentions raised in that case, the court proceeded on the basis that the management did have the power to remove the lecturer concerned from service. 20. A learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Niranjan Rai v. District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur and others, (1991) 2 UPLBEC 1416, considering the question of ad hoc appointment of an out sider as lecturer on leave vacancy, which subsequently turned into a substantive vacancy, held that an outsider appointed on ad hoc basis loses his right to continue on the post after expiry of his term and it is only a senior teacher of that College, who has right to be appointed lecturer in the vacant post. Therein, this Court observed that when a post falls substantially vacant and any ad hoc appointment is to be made to the post, that appointment is to be made by promotion from the senior most teachers of the College; it is only when such a teacher of the College is not available then a man from outside the institution having qualification for the post may be appointed. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner in that case was appointed for short-term period on leave vacancy and his appointment order was also for a fixed term the Court held that with expiry of the term for which the petitioner was appointed his appointment ceased to be effective and even if he con tinued under some misconception, he could not claim appointment on ad hoc basis against the post which has substantively fal len vacant after his short-term appointment in the leave vacancy had ceased to be opera tive. This Court upheld the order of ter mination of petitioners service. This Court upheld the order of ter mination of petitioners service. The Court placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Cham Chandra Tiwari (supra ). 21. In the case of Vipin Kumar v. Dis trict Inspector of Schools, Muzaffarnagar and others, (1993) 3 UPLBEC 1800, a Division Bench of this Court agreeing with the view taken in Cham Chandra Tiwaris case (supra) held that direct recruitment is per missible only when eligible teacher for promotion is not available in the institution and that as Committee of Management did not consider the case of promotion of respondent No. 3 in that case to the post of lecturer in Economics in the College, the appointment of the appellant to the post by direct recruitment was rightly set aside. 22. In the case of Km. Meena Singh v. District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur and another, (1994) 3 UPLBEC. 1653, a single Judge of this Court (S. R. Singh, J.) held that a teacher duly appointed against short term vacancy under Para 2 of the Second Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981, would be entitled to continue even after the vacan cy is converted into a substantive one by reason of resignation, retirement, death or otherwise till such time as a candidate selected for regular appointment turns up to join the post held by ad hoc appointee unless his services are terminated earlier on grounds connected with misconduct, un-suitability or bonafide abolition of the post. The learned Judge relied on a previous single Judge decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1524 of 1989 Chandra Bhan Singh v. District Inspector of Schools and another, decided on 4-12-1991, in which, as stated in the judgment, Honble M. L. Bhat, J. had held that the tenure of an ad hoc appointee against short-term vacancy would not come to an end merely because the vacancy has become substantive one. That view had been taken relying on certain Division Bench decision referred to in the judgment dated 4-12-1991. That view had been taken relying on certain Division Bench decision referred to in the judgment dated 4-12-1991. While placing reliance on this judgment, S. R. Singh, J. observed in paragaph 15 of his judgment that it is true that there is no discussion in the judgment about the effect of clause (c) of Para 3 of the Second Removal of Difficul ties Order, 1981, but it appears from the said decisions that so far as the court is con cerned it has consistently taken the view that an ad hoc appointee against short-term vacancy should be allowed to continue even if the vacancy is converted into substantive one until he is replaced by a duly selected candidate or his service are terminated on the grounds connected with misconduct or abolition of the post. 23. In addition to the above citations some other citations were also made on the principles relating to interpretation of statutes and the scope and ambit of the equality, equal opportunity clauses ensh rined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitu tion. We do not consider it necessary to discuss those decisions for the reason that there is no dispute over general principles laid down therein and we find no difficulty in interpreting the provisions of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act and the First and the Second Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981. However we may only notice the cases cited by the learned counsel for parties. They are: Carew and Company Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1975 SC2260, Directorare of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan, AIR 1994 S. C. 1775, D. S. Nakara v. Union of India, - (AIR 1983 SC130, Manubhai Jethalal Patel v. State of Gujrat, AIR 1984 SC 120 , Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, AIR 1985 SC 1416 , Secretary, Finance Department v. West Bengal Registration Service Association, AIR 1992 SC 1203 , Venkateshwara Theatre v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1993) 2 SCC 677, Slate of Sikkim v. Surendra Prasad Sharma, (1994) 5 SCC 282 Prem Singh and others v. Haryana State Electricity Board and others, JT 1996 (5)SC 219. 24. 24. Summing up our conclusions in the light of the discussions in the foregoing paragraphs, we hold that a teacher ap pointed by the management of the institu tion on ad hoc basis in a short-term vacancy (leave vacancy/suspension vacancy), which is subsequently converted into a substantive vacancy in accordance with the provisions of the Act, Rules and Orders (On death, resig nation, dismissal or removal of the per manent incumbent), cannot claim a right to continue. He has, however, a right to be considered alongwith other eligible can didates for ad hoc appointment in the sub stantive vacancy if he possesses the requisite qualifications. Consequent upon the view taken by us, as noted above, we hold that the decisions of this Court like Kni. Meena Singhs case (supra) and other cases taking contrary view, are declared to be no longer good law. 25. There would be no order as to costs. Order accordingly. .