S. R. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition is directed against the order dated 17. 6. 1996 passed by the Regional Deputy director of Education (Secondary), IVth Region. Allahabad and the consequential notice dated 1. 7. 1996 issued by the Manager, Kamla a Balika Inter College, Khaga, Fatehpur being annexures-11 and 13 respectively to the writ petition. The Regional Deputy Director of education IVth Region, Allahabad by her order dated 17. 6. 1996 has set aside the petitioners ad hoc appointment to the post of Lecturer (Economics) in Kamla Balika Inter College. Khaga. Fatehpur (in short the College) and ordered for promotion of respondent Smt. Suman Sinha on the said post. The impugned notice dated 1. 7. 1996 was consequently issued by the Manager terminating the services of the petitioner w. e. f. 31. 7. 1996. ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this writ petition briefly stated are these : Smt. Sarla Joshi, permanent principal of the College died resulting in a vacancy in the post of Principal. Smt. Pramila Sinha, the senior most teacher of the college in Lecturer grade was given ad hoc appointment on the post of Principal. Smt. Pramila Sinha was Lecturer in Economics. Her appointment as Principal resulted in a short term vacancy in the post of Lecturer in Economics. One Smt. Pratibha Paul, the senior most teacher of the college in L. T. grade was given ad hoc promotion to the vacant post of Lecturer in Economics. Smt, Pratibha Paul was, however, superannuated on 30. 6. 1990 and consequently, the post of Lecturer in Economics again fell vacant. The Management of the college being of the view that no qualified teacher was available for promotion advertised the vacancy to be filled in by direct recruitment on ad hoc basis vide publication in news paper "aaj" on December 8. 1990. The petitioner being a candidate was selected and appointed on the post in question vide letter dated 24. 12. 1990 which contained a stipulation that the ad hoc appointment would come to an end on the reversion of Smt. Pramila Sinha from the post of principal to her substantive post of Lecturer. The appointment was approved by the Regional inspectress of the Girls School. IVth Region. Allahabad vide letter dated 6. 6. 1991 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition ). It would appear that the fourth respondent Km. The appointment was approved by the Regional inspectress of the Girls School. IVth Region. Allahabad vide letter dated 6. 6. 1991 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition ). It would appear that the fourth respondent Km. Suman Sinha represented her case to the Regional Deputy Director of Education and also filed a writ petition being Civil misc. Writ Petition No. 33143 of 1995 challenging the appointment of the petitioner on the post in question. The said writ petition came to be disposed of by judgment and order dated 21. 11. 1995 with a direction to the Regional Deputy Director of Education, IVth Region. Allahabad to look into the grievances of the petitioner therein and dispose of her representation in accordance with law. Consequent upon the said order, the Regional Deputy Director of education, IVth Region, Allahabad after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties passed the impugned order dated 17. 6. 1996 thereby holding that the appointment of the petitioner on the post was illegal in that the post ought to have been filled under 50% quota by promotion of fourth respondent Smt. Suman Sinha who was qualified for appointment by promotion. ( 3 ) DR. R. Dwivedi. Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner urged that the fourth respondent was not eligible and qualified for promotion to the post in question and the Management was, therefore, justified in taking recourse to direct appointment and the Regional Deputy Director of education has erred in holding otherwise. It has been submitted by Dr. Dwivedi that the fourth respondent was appointed as C. T. grade teacher in which grade she was confirmed in 1973 and the post and status of L. T. grade teacher was not given to her, albeit, the scale of pay admissible to L. T. grade teachers was given pursuant to Government Orders on the basis of having completed a stipulated length of service in the C. T. grade. It has also been submitted by Dr. Dwivedi that the pay of the fourth respondent was illegally fixed even in the Lecturer grade w. e. f. 1. 7. 1988 and on that basis, she was paid salary of Lecturer grade for the recovery of which an order dated 11. 12. 1990 being Annexure-5 was passed by the District Inspector of Schools. Fatehpur. Dwivedi that the pay of the fourth respondent was illegally fixed even in the Lecturer grade w. e. f. 1. 7. 1988 and on that basis, she was paid salary of Lecturer grade for the recovery of which an order dated 11. 12. 1990 being Annexure-5 was passed by the District Inspector of Schools. Fatehpur. Sri T. P. Singh, senior advocate appearing for the fourth respondent submitted, on the other hand, that the petitioner was a teacher in L. T. grade and being possessed of requisite qualifications on the date of occurrence of vacancy was entitled to be promoted to the post of lecturer in Economics which was illegally filled up by direct recruitment. ( 4 ) HAVING given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel. I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, is unsustainable for the Regional Deputy Director of Education does not appear to have properly perceived the controversy involved in the case. The vacancy, as would appear from the pleadings of the parties, was of a short term nature liable to be filled up in accordance with the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order, 1981. Mere fact that the teacher who was given ad hoc promotion on the post in question retired would not change the nature of vacancy into permanent one. The Regional Deputy Director of education, has illegally proceeded on the assumption that the vacancy had became permanent w. e. f. 1. 7. 1990 due to the retirement of Smt. Pratibha Paul w. e. f. 30. 6. 1990. The vacancy in fact could be converted into permanent one, either on the permanent incumbent Smt. Pramila Sinha being substantively appointed as Principal ; or on her being superannuated. No finding has been recorded by the Regional Deputy Director of Education on either of the two eventualities. ( 5 ) IT would be pertinent to observe that validity of appointment depends on whether the prescribed procedure was followed and indisputedly different procedures are prescribed for ad hoc appointments on substantive and short term vacancies. If vacancy had become permanent on 1. 7. ( 5 ) IT would be pertinent to observe that validity of appointment depends on whether the prescribed procedure was followed and indisputedly different procedures are prescribed for ad hoc appointments on substantive and short term vacancies. If vacancy had become permanent on 1. 7. 1990, as held by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, then appointment of the petitioner would be void in view of Section 16 (2) of the Act being in contravention of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Radha Raizadas case, (1994) 3 UPLBEC 1551 . The procedure for ad hoc appointment against the substantive vacancy was admittedly not followed. In case, however, the vacancy was a short term one, the appointment of the petitioner would be illegal only if a qualified teacher in L. T. grade was available in the college for being promoted in as much recourse to direct recruitment on ad hoc basis is permissible only if no qualified teacher is available for promotion. Law in this regard is well settled in view of the Full Bench decision in Radha Raizada (supra), and the earlier Division Bench decision of this Court in Charu chandra Tiwari v. District Inspector of Schools, Deoria and others, (1990) 1 UPLBEC 160. Further, if the vacancy became substantive at any time subsequent to appointment of the petitioner, then in view of the Full Bench decision in Pramila Misra v. Deputy Director of education (1997) 2 UPLBEC 1329 , ad hoc appointment against short term vacancy would automatically cease w. e. f. the date the vacancy became substantive. The vacancy in that event may be filled in substantively by promotion if it falls in 50% quota fixed for promotion as claimed by 4th respondent or on ad hoc basis by promotion or direct recruitment under Section 18 of the Act read with the related Rules or Removal of Difficulties Order then in force. ( 6 ) AD hoc appointment by promotion in a short term vacancy could be made by the management as provided in U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order, 1981 but as against the substantive vacancies, Management had no power to select a candidate for appointment by direct recruitment as explained by the Full Bench in Radha raizadas case. After insertion of Rules 9a and 9b vide Notification dated 16. 7. 1992 published on 4. 9. After insertion of Rules 9a and 9b vide Notification dated 16. 7. 1992 published on 4. 9. 1992 in the U. P. Secondary education Service Commission Rules, 1983, the procedure for ad hoc appointment under Section 18 of the U. P. Act 5 of 1982 could be made in substantive vacancies only in accordance with these provisions. Similarly, Rules 15 and 16 of U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission Rules, 1955 lay down the procedure for ad hoc appointment by direct recruitment and promotion respectively in respect of vacancies to be filled in by direct recruitment and promotion under Section 18 of the Act. The Regional Deputy director of Education under these Rules could not have had himself promoted the fourth respondent even if the appointment of the petitioner were to be held illegal. The Regional deputy Director of Education does not appear to have adverted herself to the relevant questions. ( 7 ) THE Regional Deputy Director of Education has held in the order impugned herein that the 4th respondent was a teacher in L. T. grade and her claim for promotion was illegally ignored by the management. In this connection, the Regional Deputy Director of Education does not appear to have addressed herself to the relevant Government Orders whereby teachers in C. T. grade and l. T. grade were given only the scales of pay admissible to L. T. grade and lecturer grade respectively on completion of a specified period of substantive service in the lower grade. The question whether grant of higher scale of pay on account of completion of prescribed length of service would result in the teacher being promoted to the next higher grade/cadre has not been examined by the Regional Deputy Director of Education. Even the 4th respondent in para 3 of her representation dated 16. 12. 1995 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) addressed to the Regional deputy Director of Education, had stated that grant of higher scale of pay is not equivalent to grant of post in the higher grade. Para 3 of the representation reads thus : "yeh ki pachas pratishat kote mein padonnati ka auchitya Kala Pravakata vetankram pad nahin hai, Keval vetanman hat Atah meri padonnati pachas pratishat kote ke antargat Arthshastra pravakta pad par honi chahiye kyonki mujhe Pravakta Vetanman mila hai Pravakta pad nahin. Vidyalaya se prapt Kala Pravakta vetan kram jo dinank 1. 7. Para 3 of the representation reads thus : "yeh ki pachas pratishat kote mein padonnati ka auchitya Kala Pravakata vetankram pad nahin hai, Keval vetanman hat Atah meri padonnati pachas pratishat kote ke antargat Arthshastra pravakta pad par honi chahiye kyonki mujhe Pravakta Vetanman mila hai Pravakta pad nahin. Vidyalaya se prapt Kala Pravakta vetan kram jo dinank 1. 7. 1988 se darshaya gaya hai lekin san 1991 se diya gaya hai ko keval Pravakta vetankram hai Pravakta pad nahin. " ( 8 ) IN my opinion, the matter needs to be remitted back to the Regional Deputy Director of education for decision afresh in the light of the above observations after affording opportunity to the parties. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 17. 6. 1996 and the notice 1. 7. 1996 are quashed. The Regional Deputy Director of Education is directed to decide the representation afresh in the light of the observations made in this judgment within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Parties may submit their written statements etc. before the Regional Deputy Director of Education within a month. .