A. K. YOG, J. ( 1 ) THIS special appeal by the District Inspector of Schools. Kanpur Nagar and another has been filed against the judgment and order dated April 16, 1999 passed by learned single Judge in Writ petition No. 9767 of 1994. Diwakar Lal and 3 others v. District Inspector of Schools. Kanpur nagar and others. ( 2 ) P. N. N. Inter College, Kanpur (called college) is, admittedly, a recognised Intermediate college governed by the provisions of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, Payment of salaries Act, 1971, and U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission Act, 1981. Four posts of Lecturers in the College fell vacant. Requisition was sent to the Commission, Still the posts remained vacant for more than two months as the Commission failed to select and recommend candidates. Hence, four Assistant Teachers in L. T. grade were promoted on the posts of Lecturer in the College--purely on ad hoc basis as follows : 1. S. K. Srtvastava, L. T. Grade Teacher--given ad hoc promotion--on post of Lecturer chemistry. 2. S. K. Tiwari, L. T. Grade Teacher--given ad hoc promotion--on post of Lecturer Economics. ( 3 ) RAM Surat Misra, L. T. Grade Teacher--promoted ad hoc on--post of Lecturer Sanskrit. ( 4 ) MOHAN Lal Yadav, L. T. Grade Teacher--promoted ad hoc--on the post of Lecturer geography. 3. Consequently, short term vacancies occurred on four posts of Assistant Teachers in L. T. Grade under Removal of Difficulties Second Order 1981. The management sought to fill up the resultant short term vacancies by making short term ad hoc appointments of the petitioners--Diwakar Lal, Deepak Kumar Shukla, Surcndra Mohan Srtvastava and Lal Bahadur and appointment letters (Annexures-1, 2, 3 and 4 to the writ petition) were issued. Papers were sent to the District Inspector Schools and they were allowed to Join the posts. In paragraph 10 of the writ petition, it is stated that these petitioners actually joined the College and started discharging their duties to the full satisfaction of the Management. The District Inspector of schools refused to approve these appointments and withheld financial sanction. The petitioners made representations until the District Inspector of Schools officially passed order dated 9th february. 1994. {annexure-10 to the writ petition) Informing the Manager of the College that resultant vacancies could not be filled up under Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981. 4. The District Inspector of schools refused to approve these appointments and withheld financial sanction. The petitioners made representations until the District Inspector of Schools officially passed order dated 9th february. 1994. {annexure-10 to the writ petition) Informing the Manager of the College that resultant vacancies could not be filled up under Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981. 4. Feeling aggrieved petitioners filed abovementioned Writ Petition No. 9767 of 1994 and an interim order dated 9th March, 1994, was passed ; relevant extract is reproduced below : ". . . . . meanwhile respondents are directed to pay salary to the petitioner with effect from 2. 7. 1993. in accordance with law or show cause. . . . . " Parties exchanged counter and rejoinder-affidavits. ( 5 ) THIS writ petition has been finally disposed of by the learned single Judge vide judgment and order dated 16th April, 1999. which has given rise to the present special appeal. ( 6 ) THE learned single Judge observed that respondents, apart from the ground mentioned in the impugned order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 9th February, 1994 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition), made an attempt to support their defence by offering an additional ground in the counter affidavit to the effect that the posts were not properly advertised. ( 7 ) THE learned single Judge held that by adding a ground in the counter-affidavit, which did not find mention in the Impugned order passed by the District Inspector of Schools, the respondents cannot be permitted to support the Impugned order by carving out a new case or raise a new ground for the first time before the Appellate/higher authority or Court to make the order valid. In support, reference was made to the case of Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election commissioner. AIR 1978 SC 851 . ( 8 ) THE learned single Judge In the alternative considered that assuming the post was not advertised, the appointment in question shall not be rendered Invalid relying upon the judgment in the case of Ashika Prased Shukla v. District Inspector Schools. Allahabad, 1998 (3) UPLBEC 1722 (DB) : Pr 14, wherein this Court observed that if an appointment of Assistant Teacher for short term vacancy is made prior to the Judgment dated 13th January. 1994, tn the case of K. N. Dwivedi v. District Inspector of Schools, 1994 (1) UPLBEC 461. Allahabad, 1998 (3) UPLBEC 1722 (DB) : Pr 14, wherein this Court observed that if an appointment of Assistant Teacher for short term vacancy is made prior to the Judgment dated 13th January. 1994, tn the case of K. N. Dwivedi v. District Inspector of Schools, 1994 (1) UPLBEC 461. and that of Radha Ralzada without advertisement In two newspapers of wide circulation, the appointment will not be invalid. This observation was made by the Division Bench in the case of Ashika Prasad Shukla (supra), after the decision in the case of Radha Ralzada v. Committee of Management, 1994 (3)UPLBEC 1551 (FB ). The learned single Judge, in the present case, found that the petitioners in the Instant case were appointed as ad hoc teachers in terms of short term vacancies on 1st July, 1993, i. e. . prior to the Full Bench decision of Radha Raizada (supra), and also the judgment In the case of K. N. Dwivedi (supra) and held that the appointments in question on ad hoc vacancies could not be faulted if advertisement was not made in two newspapers since the then existing requirement of law to notify the vacancy on the notice board was duly fulfilled. ( 9 ) THE judgment of the learned single Judge cannot be faulted on any ground and the learned counsel for the appellant has failed to show otherwise. ( 10 ) THE view taken by the learned single Judge on the question of absence of advertisement is otherwise not bad. Appointments in question also not rendered void ab initio as held in AIR 1998 SC 331 . (paras 7, 19 and 20), Arun Tiwari v. Zila Mansari Shikshak Sangh. Supreme Court held that it is now well-settled that statutory provision requiring advertisement is procedural in nature. Rules may, in order to meet an emergent situation and when appointment is not substantive but by way of stopgap/temporary arrangement : dispense with public notice /advertisement in newspaper. Also see 1996 (7) SCC 577 (paras 66 and 67), 1982 UPLBEC 695 pr 7 (DB) Education Cases, 1983 Education Cases 51 (DB) and 1984 UPLBEC 484. If the condition of giving advertisement, akin to the requirement of advertisement in the case of regular selection/substantive appointment is to be followed, then it will frustrate the whole purpose to meet an unexpected or emergent situation to avoid larger harm. If the condition of giving advertisement, akin to the requirement of advertisement in the case of regular selection/substantive appointment is to be followed, then it will frustrate the whole purpose to meet an unexpected or emergent situation to avoid larger harm. Even otherwise this Court takes notice of the fact that candidates from outside places or other remote corner of the States of the country are not likely to come forward for short term/ temporary or stop gap appointments and normally the local candidates or the candidate In the adjoining areas alone will be willing to take up such appointments. ( 11 ) THEREFORE, apart from endorsing the view taken by learned single Judge, rejecting additional ground taken in the counter-affidavit by the respondents In the writ petition for countenancing the claim of the petitioners does not help the case of the respondents (present appellants ). With respect to the validity of the ground disclosed by the District Inspector of Schools in the impugned order, the learned single Judge observed that the objection raised by the District inspector of Schools was not sustatnable in law. It is held that under Removal of Difficulties orders, 1981, and second Removal of Difficulties Order power was conferred on management of a recognised college under law with the object that educational institutions do not suffer irreparably by resorting to the procedure prescribed for regular selection, teaching in the college will be completely paralyzed. In the result, the learned single Judge, allowed the writ petition, issued a writ in the nature of ceritorari quashing the order dated 19th February, 1994, passed by district Inspector of Schools (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) and also issued a writ of mandamus directing that In case the petitioners have been working in the institution as ad hoc teachers and no regular appointment were made against these posts, the petitioners will be allowed to work and shall be paid salary till regularly selected candidate sent by the Commission joins the post In question. ( 12 ) IN appeal the learned standing counsel has submitted that in view of the decision In the case of Smt. Pramila Mishra, 1997 (2) UPLBEC 1329 (para 4), the appointment of ad hoc teachers made against resultant short term vacancies (Phalit Riktiyan) will come to an end automatically when such a resultant short term vacancy became substantive. ( 12 ) IN appeal the learned standing counsel has submitted that in view of the decision In the case of Smt. Pramila Mishra, 1997 (2) UPLBEC 1329 (para 4), the appointment of ad hoc teachers made against resultant short term vacancies (Phalit Riktiyan) will come to an end automatically when such a resultant short term vacancy became substantive. ( 13 ) WE find that learned standing counsel has not laid foundation for his argument sought to be developed in special appeal as the relevant details regarding vacancies and the specific period of working of the respective incumbents (who were promoted as Lecturers) has not come on record with precision and clarity. In absence of relevant details, the submission of the Appellants could not be properly appreciated. A supplementary-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents (Petitioners in the writ petition) to overcome the shortcoming. Perusal of the supplementary-affidavit and supplementary counter-affidavit go to show that the facts mentioned therein will require this Court to adjudicate on questions of fact. This Court is neither competent nor willing to enter into disputed questions of fact or adjudicate the same at this stage : particularly on the basis of the facts brought before this Court for the first time through supplementary-affidavit at appellate stage. ( 14 ) ON merit, it may be noted that the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools dated 10th February, 1994. (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) clearly mentions that appointments were made against the resultant short-term vacancies (Phalit Riktiyan ). However, on the other hand, appellants have filed a photostat copy of this very order as annexure to the affidavit sworn by Dr. K. L. Varma. District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar (PP 16 ). In the said annexure word "phalit" has been changed by making addition so as to read it as "phaltoo", i. e. , surplus. Learned standing counsel being confronted with the same failed to explain the interpolation. We have perused the record as well as original copy of the order received by the Manager (produced before us by Shri Ashok Khare, Advocate) and it is found that the correct word used is phalit In the original order dated 10th February, 1994, passed by District Inspector of Schools. In view of this discrepancy, we are of the opinion that the documents filed by the authority cannot be safely relied upon. In view of this discrepancy, we are of the opinion that the documents filed by the authority cannot be safely relied upon. ( 15 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this Court refuses to go into factual dispute. ( 16 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant states that Deepak Kumar Shukla has already left the college and Joined another college elsewhere as such he is not Interested in the reliefs in present proceedings. In view of the judgment in 1992 (2) UPLBEC 1420, we are of the opinion that the incumbents working on ad hoc basis against short term vacancies should not be automatically thrown out of service-in view of the decision in the case of Pramila Mishra (supra), when short term vacancy became substantive vacancy. In such a situation, an ad hoc appointee should normally be allowed to continue (if there is no complaint about his working), till a regular ad hoc appointment is made against substantive vacancy as contemplated under Removal of Difficulties orders. ( 17 ) IN the Instant case, we find that petitioners-respondents were appointed in the year 1993. There Is no complaint about their working as teachers in the college. Nothing has been brought on record to otherwise disqualify and/or discontinue them in service. Management and authorities appear to have no complaint about their performance as teacher and seems satisfied with their functioning. From the supplementary-affidavit, ft transpires that some of the vacancies became substantively vacant in August, 1993, itself. There is nothing on record to show that district Inspector of Schools took any step to make regular ad hoc appointment when short term vacancy became substantive vacancy In accordance with Removal of Difficulties Order even though several years have passed. ( 18 ) TAKING a pragmatic view as well as interest of the educational Institution, we have no doubt that the direction given by the learned single Judge requires no Interference. ( 19 ) THE appeal lacks merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed. ( 20 ) NO costs.