S. R. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THE question that crops up for consideration in this Special Appeal is as to whether ad hoc appointment of a Lecturer in a recognised intermediate College can be made by promotion under section 18 of U. P. Secondary Education Service Selection Boards Act, 1982 (in short the Act), read with provisions contained in the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission Rules, 1995 (in short the Rules) in respect of a vacancy which is ultimately to be filled in by direct recruitment in accordance with the provisions of the Act read with Rule 14 of the Rules. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case lie in a short compass. Lady Prasanna Kaur Inter College. Sardar Nagar, gorakhpur is a recognised Intermediate College (in short the college ). A substantive vacancy in the post of Lecturer (English) occurred on 1. 7. 1996. The vacancy fell in the 50% quota prescribed for direct recruitment. The Committee of Management of the college, however, passed a resolution on 16. 11. 1995 for giving ad hoc promotion to the appellant in the vacant post of Lecturer in English as the appellant according to the Committee of Management was qualified for appointment to the post of Lecturer in English. The papers were sent to the District Inspector of Schools vide letter dated 11. 3. 1997 for financial approval for the promotion of the appellant. The letter dated 11. 3. 1997 states that the Committee of Management had taken the vacancy in question to be one falling within 50% quota to be filled in by promotion. It appears that no decision in the matter was communicated by the District Inspector of Schools to the management of the college whereupon the appellant filed a writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 30587 of 1997 seeking issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents therein to pay him salary in the Lecturers grade since the date he started functioning as such. The said writ petition was disposed of by Judgment and order dated 18. 9. 1997 with the direction that the petitioner would submit a representation before the District Inspector of Schools who would examine as to whether ad hoc promotion of the appellant was valid in accordance with the provisions of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties)Order. 1981. 9. 1997 with the direction that the petitioner would submit a representation before the District Inspector of Schools who would examine as to whether ad hoc promotion of the appellant was valid in accordance with the provisions of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties)Order. 1981. It appears that the attention of the learned Judge was not invited to the amended section 18 and the Rules providing for ad hoc appointment of teachers and that is why the direction was to examine whether the ad hoc promotion was valid in accordance with the provisions of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties)Order, 1981. The District Inspector of Schools rejected the representation vide order dated 16. 3. 1998. Whereupon the appellant filed another writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ petition no. 10770 of 1998 which was dismissed on the ground that the appellant-petitioner had an alternative remedy to approach the Regional Deputy Director of Education under clause 7 of the u. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 as amended by U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Fourth order, 1982. Thereafter the, matter was taken up in Special Appeal wherein the question raised was that the rule of 50% quota of promotion and direct recruitment would not be applicable to ad hoc appointments. The Special Appeal Bench declined to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge but disposed of the appeal with the direction that the Regional Deputy director of Education will take note of the contention and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. ( 3 ) THEREAFTER the matter was examined by the Joint Director of Education 7th Region. Gorakhpur who rejected the representation and maintained the order passed by the District Inspector of schools though on a different ground holding that the ad hoc promotion of the appellant was not in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. referred to above. The Joint Director clearly held that the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties)Order. 1981 would not apply and instead the provisions in the U. P. Secondary Education service Commission Rules. 1995 would govern the appointment. Aggrieved against the order dated 15. 2. referred to above. The Joint Director clearly held that the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties)Order. 1981 would not apply and instead the provisions in the U. P. Secondary Education service Commission Rules. 1995 would govern the appointment. Aggrieved against the order dated 15. 2. 1999 passed by the Joint Director of Education, the appellant filed the writ petition which came to be dismissed vide judgment and order under challenge in this appeal. The learned single Judge was of the view that the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission Rules. 1995 which came into force on 8. 5. 1995 would govern the present case and the Rule of 50% quota of direct recruitment and promotion would govern ad hoc appointment as well. Aggrieved the petitioner-appellant has filed the instant appeal. ( 4 ) WE have heard Shri R. K. Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Standing counsel representing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. ( 5 ) THE thrust of the submissions made by Shri R. K. Ojha is that in the matter of ad hoc appointment, the rule providing that 50% vacancies would be filled by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion as visualised by Rule 10 of the Rules need not be adhered to. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the Division Bench decision of this Court in Charu Chandra tiwari v. District Inspector of Schools Deorla and another, 1990 (1) UPLBEC 160 (DB) : Full bench decision in Radha Raizada v. Committee of Management, 1994 (3) UPLBEC 1551 (FB)and the Supreme Court decision in Prabhat Kumar Sharma v. State of U. P. , 3996 (3) UPLBEC 1959 (SC ). In support of his contention that if an occasion arises for ad hoc appointment in terms of Section 18 of the Act, every vacancy will have to be filled in by ad hoc promotion if suitable and qualified candidates are available for promotion. Recourse to appointment by direct recruitment, proceeds the submission, may be taken only if no suitable and qualified candidate is available for giving ad hoc promotion to the post of Lecturer. The submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be countenanced. The Division Bench decision in the case of Charu Chandra Tiwari, (supra) is based upon consideration of the provisions contained in the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order. The submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be countenanced. The Division Bench decision in the case of Charu Chandra Tiwari, (supra) is based upon consideration of the provisions contained in the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order. 1981 wherein there was a clear stipulation in para 4 (2) that every vacancy in the post of a teacher in lecturers grade may be filed by promotion by the senior most teacher of the institution in the trained graduate (L. T.) grade. Recourse to ad hoc appointment by direct recruitment, it was provided in paragraph 5 was to be taken only where any vacancy cannot be filled by promotion under Paragraph 4. The Division Bench had no occasion to examine Section 18 of the Act as it stands substituted by U. P. Act No. 24, 1992 w. e. f. 14. 7. 1992 and again by U. P. Act No. 1 of 1993 and the provisions contained in Rules 9a and 9b of U. P. Secondary Education Services commission Rules, 1983 or those of the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission Rules, 1995, which contain the procedure for ad hoc appointment by direct recruitment and by promotion respectively. ( 6 ) THE Full Bench of this Court in Radha Ratzada case, (supra) no doubt noticed the substituted/ amended Section 18 as well as U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission Rules. 1983 but the question that has arisen in the present caste was neither raised nor decided by the Full Bench in that case. The Supreme Court decision in Prabhat Kumar Sharma, (supra) too did not go into the question raised in the present case. The question raised herein was neither examined nor decided in that case. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, we are of the view that the decisions aforestated are not of much avail to the appellant for the purpose of construction of the provisions contained in Rules 15 and 16 of the rules. Appointments of teachers in recognised High Schools and intermediate Colleges are governed by the Act. Earlier the field was occupied by intermediate Education Act, 1921. Section 16 (1) of the Act as it stands amended upto date envisages that "every appointment of a teacher, shall, on or after the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education services Selection Boards (Amendment) Act. 1995. Earlier the field was occupied by intermediate Education Act, 1921. Section 16 (1) of the Act as it stands amended upto date envisages that "every appointment of a teacher, shall, on or after the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education services Selection Boards (Amendment) Act. 1995. be made by the management only on the recommendation of the Commission. " This is, however, subject to certain exceptions, e. g. , ad hoc appointment under Section 18 ; absorption of reserve pool teachers under Chapter IV-A ; appointments under the provisions to sub-section (1) of Section 16, etc. "any appointment", in contravention of the Act, it is provided in sub-section (2) of Section 16, shall be void. By amendment vide U. P. Act No. 25 of 1998, the word commission has been substituted by the word board, Section 18 (1) provides that where the Management has notified a vacancy to the board in accordance with Section 10 (1) and the post of a teacher actually remained vacant for more than two months, "the Management may appoint by direct recruitment or promotion a teacher on purely ad hoc basis, in the manner hereinafter provided. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 18 read as under : " (2) A teacher other than a Principal or Headmaster, who is to be appointed by direct recruitment may be appointed on the recommendation of the Selection Committee referred to in sub-section (8 ). (3) A teacher other than a Principal or Headmaster, who is to be appointed by promotion, may in the prescribed manner be appointed by promoting the seniormost teacher, possessing prescribed qualifications (a) in the trained graduates grade, as a lecturer, in the case of a vacancy in the lecturers grade ; (b) in the Certificate of Teaching grade, as teacher in the trained graduates grade, in the case of a vacancy in the Trained graduates grade. " ( 8 ) IT would be evident from the provisions quoted above that ad hoc appointment by direct recruitment may be made only on the recommendation of the Selection Committee referred to in sub-section (8) while appointment by promotion in the Lecturer grade is required to be made in prescribed manner by promoting the seniormost teacher in the L. T. grade possessing prescribed qualifications. The manner is prescribed in the Rules. The manner is prescribed in the Rules. Rule 15 of the Rules provides the procedure for ad hoc appointment by direct recruitment under Section 18 of the Act "in respect of vacancies to be jilted in by direct recruitment. Rule 16 provides the procedure for ad hoc appointment under Section 18 of the Act by promotion "in respect of the vacancies to be filled in by promotion". It is not disputed that 50% of the posts in the Lecturers grade are to be filled by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment vide Rule 10 of the Rules. The expressions "in respect of the vacancies to be filled in by direct recruitment" and "in respect of the vacancies to be filled in by promotion" occurring in Rules 15 (1) and 16 (1) respectively are significant. These expressions in our opinion have reference to vacancies as determined and notified in accordance with Section 10 read with Rules 10 and 11 of the Rules. The notification of vacancies to the board contains statement of vacancies for each category of posts to be filled in by direct recruitment or by promotion. Ad hoc appointment under Section 18 is permissible only on fulfilment of the twin conditions precedent : firstly the vacancy had been notified, and secondly ; the post remained vacant for two months. If the vacancy determined in the aforesaid manner falls in the quota of promotion and the conditions precedent as visualised in Section 18 (1) are satisfied, it can be filled in on ad hoc basis only in the manner prescribed by Rule 16 of the Rules as prescribed in Section 18 (3) and not by direct recruitment under subsection (2) read with sub-section (8) of Section 18 and Rule 15 of the Rules except on pains of invalidation of appointment in terms of Section 16 (2) of the Act. In our opinion. therefore, if the vacancy Jails in the quota of direct recruit, then the same cannot be filled by ad hoc promotion under Rule 16 of the Rules which provides procedure for ad hoc appointment by promotion where such appointments are to be made under Section 18 of the Act "in respect of the vacancies to be filled in by promotion". therefore, if the vacancy Jails in the quota of direct recruit, then the same cannot be filled by ad hoc promotion under Rule 16 of the Rules which provides procedure for ad hoc appointment by promotion where such appointments are to be made under Section 18 of the Act "in respect of the vacancies to be filled in by promotion". It may be observed that the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 has since been rescinded and the procedure laid down in the Rules holds the field of ad hoc appointment. The view taken by the learned single Judge warrants no interference. ( 9 ) BEFORE parting with the case, it may be observed that the Act has been amended in certain respects by U. P. Act No. 25 and the Rules have been replaced by the U. P. Secondary Education services Selection Board Rules. 1998 but the legal position discussed above remains unaltered even under the new Rules. In the instant case, the 1995 Rules were very much in force at the time of the appointment in question herein. Regular promotion is now to be made on the recommendation of a Selection Committee constituted under Section 12 inserted by U. P. Act no. 25 (preceded by Ordinance No. 3 of 1998 ). ( 10 ) IN view of the above discussion, the appeal fails and is dismissed without any order as to costs. .