A. K. YOG, J. ( 1 ) YOGENDRA Pal Singh, Munish Kumar, Ajay Kumar Vishwas. Petitioners have approached this Court through this petition under Article 226 Constitution of india praying : (i) to issue a writ to quash order dated January 12, 1998 passed by Accounts Officer, Office of district Inspector of Schools, Saharanpur/ Respondent No. 2 (Annexure-6 to the Writ Petition); whereby said authority refused to release salary of the Petitioners on the ground that promotion of the Petitioners in C. T. Grade was not in accordance with law inasmuch as they did not fulfil prescribed eligibility condition since they were regularised with effect from January 6,1993 (and the Petitioners had not completed five years of continuous substantive service in C. T Grade on the relevant date i. e. occurrence of vacancy); (ii) to issue a suitable writ commanding the Respondents to permit the Petitioners to function as assistant Teacher in S. A. M. Inter College, Saharanpur and to pay their regular monthly salary, and (iii) to issue a writ which this Court may deem flat and proper in the circumstances of the case. The contesting Respondents have filed Counter Affidavit. Petitioners have filed Rejoinder affidavit. ( 2 ) HEARD, learned Counsel for the Petitioners as well as the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Shri S. K. Srivastava, Advocate represen- ting Respondent No. 3 and perused the record. S. A. M. Inter College, Saharanpur, called the college a private managed Government aided recognized educational institution, is governed by the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education act, U. P. Seconday Education Services Commission Act, 1981 and Payment of Salaries Act, 1971. Three Assistant Teachers (C. T. Grade), namely, Ramesh Chand Sharma, Mangal Ram Verma and Vijay Pal Bhatnagar were accorded ad-hoc promotion as Assistant Teachers (L. T. Grade) in the College and. consequently, short term vacancy occurred on three posts of Assistant Teacher (C. T. Grade) held by aforementioned three persons. ( 3 ) MANAGEMENT of the College made ad hoc appointment on aforesaid three posts of Assistant teacher (C. T. Grade) against short-term vacancy through direct selection and these Petitioners joined their posts (as Assistant Teacher C. T. Grade) with effect from January 5, 1989. ( 3 ) MANAGEMENT of the College made ad hoc appointment on aforesaid three posts of Assistant teacher (C. T. Grade) against short-term vacancy through direct selection and these Petitioners joined their posts (as Assistant Teacher C. T. Grade) with effect from January 5, 1989. On january 16, 1989 the then District Inspector of Schools approved ad-hoc appointments of the petitioners in C. T. Grade initially upto March 15, 1989 (Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition ). This appointment was subsequently extended upto April 30, 1989 vide order dated March 28, 1989 (Annexure-2 to the Writ Petition ). Adhoc appointment was again extended by the then District inspector of Schools vide order dated May 12, 1989 to continue till vacancy was converted into substantive vacancy or filled by regular promo- tion/selection through Commission (Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition ). Vide U. P. Act No. 1 of 1993, Section 33-B was incorporated in the U. P. Secondary Education services Commission Act, 1981 with effect from August 7, 1993. As a consequence thereof certain ad hoc teachers, like the Petitioners working between May 13, 1989 and May 14, 1991 were accorded benefit of regularisation as contemplated therein. ( 4 ) IN the light of Section 33-B management passed resolution dated January 26, 1995 and extended benefit of regularisation to the Petitioners, as Assistant Teacher (C. T. Grade) and the same was approved by the Deputy Director of Education vide letter dated January 16, 1995 addressed to the Manager of the College (Annexure-4 to the Writ Petition ). Petitioners thus continued to work as Assistant Teachers (C. T. Grade ). Three posts of Assistant teachers in L. T. Grade in the College meanwhile fell vacant on June 30, 1995 due to retirement of certain persons (namely, Nawab Anwar, Sukh Pal Singh and M. R. Verma ). It is also not disputed that these three posts of Assistant Teacher (L. T Grade) were under 50% promotional quota and required to be filled by promotion from Assistant Teachers (C. T. Grade) possessing requisite qualifications and fulfilled eligibility criterion prescribed under law for L. T. Grade post of Assistant Teacher (Paragraphs 14 and 15 of the Writ Petition ). ( 5 ) THE Committee of Management of the College passed Resolution dated September 21, 1997 deciding to make ad hoc promotions of the Petitioners against aforementioned posts of Assistant teachers in L. T. Grade (Writ Annexure-5 ). ( 5 ) THE Committee of Management of the College passed Resolution dated September 21, 1997 deciding to make ad hoc promotions of the Petitioners against aforementioned posts of Assistant teachers in L. T. Grade (Writ Annexure-5 ). The Accounts Officer, vide letter dated January 12, 1998 addressed to the Manager containing impugned order declined to accord financial sanction (Writ Annexure-6 ). ( 6 ) BEFORE dealing with the rival contentions at the Bar, it will be useful to reproduce relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules : REGULATIONS FRAMED UNDER U. P. INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION ACT Chapter II "3. (1) The Committee of Management of every institution shall cause a seniority list of teachers to be prepared in accordance with the following provisions : (a) The seniority list shall be prepared separately for each grade of teachers whether permanent or temporary on any substantive post. (b) Seniority of teachers in a grade shall be determined on the basis of their substantive appointment in that grade, if two or more teachers were so appointed on the same date, seniority shall be determined on the basis of age. (bb) Where two or more teachers working in a grade are promoted to the next higher grade on the same their, seniority inter se shall be determined on the basis of the length of their service to be reckoned from the date of their substantive appointment in the grade for which they were promoted: provided that if such length of service is equal, seniority shall be determined on the basis of age. (c) A teacher in a higher grade shall be deemed to be senior to a teacher in the lower grade irrespective of the length of service. (d ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (e ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (g ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (g ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. (1) Where any vacancy in the lecturers grade or in the L. T. grade as determined under regulation 5 is to be filled by promotion, all teachers working in the L. T. or the C. T. grade as the case may be, heaving a minimum of five years continuous substantive service to their credit on the date of occurrence of the vacancy shall be considered for promotion by the Committee of management without their having to apply for the same provided they possess the prescribed minimum qualifications for teaching the subject in which the teacher in the lecturers grade or in the L. T. grade is required. Note.-For purposes of this clause, service rendered by a teacher in the L. T. or the C. T. grade in any other recognised institution shall count for eligibility, unless interrupted by removal, dismissal or reduction to a lower post. (2) Selection for promotion to the next higher grade shall be made on the basis of service, standing achievements in service, academic qualifications, and integrity. (3) Subject to clause (2) where more than one teacher in the L. T. grade are eligible for promotion to the post of lecturer in any subject preference shall be given to the teacher who is the senior-most amongst them in service in that grade. (4) (a) The claim of any teacher who is eligible for promotion shall not be ignored merely because he has proceeded on long leave or is officiating or working temporarily on a post in the higher grade. (b) In the case of a teacher who is under suspension, the claim for promotion shall not be ignored if he is reinstated prior to the selection for promotion. . (b) In the case of a teacher who is under suspension, the claim for promotion shall not be ignored if he is reinstated prior to the selection for promotion. . (5) In respect of any teacher selected for appointment by promotion in accordance with these regulations, the Manager of the Institution shall within a week from the date of resolution passed by the Committee of Management in regard to such appointment forward the proposal for the concurrence of the Inspector together with a copy of such resolution and a statement, showing the following particulars: (i) the total number of sanctioned posts in the grade in which promotion is to be made; (ii) the number of posts to be reserved for promotion; (iii) the number of posts already filled by promotion giving names of the incumbents; (iv) the total number of vacancies which have occurred; (v) the number of vacancies determined by the Committee of Management to be filled by (a) promotion (b) direct recruitment (vi) the names of all eligible candidates for promotion, their qualifications and the length of their service from the date of their substantial appointment in the grade from which they are to be promoted; and (vii) names of persons selected for promotion. ( 7 ) (1) Every vacancy in the post of teachers in the C. T. grade or in the J. T. C. /b. T. C grade shall except as provided in clause (2) be filled by direct recruitment (2) Where in an institution any teacher working in the J. T. C. /b. T. C. grade has passed intermediate or an equivalent examination or is a trained graduate and has completed five years service in that grade, he shall be promoted in the C. T. Grade by the Committee of Management and information of such promotion shall be immediately conveyed to the Inspector. (3) If the Inspector has reason to believe that any promotion under clause (2) has been made in contravention of the Act and the regulation then without prejudice to any other action that may be taken in this behalf, he may refer the case to the Director whose decision in the matter shall be final. " 7. (3) If the Inspector has reason to believe that any promotion under clause (2) has been made in contravention of the Act and the regulation then without prejudice to any other action that may be taken in this behalf, he may refer the case to the Director whose decision in the matter shall be final. " 7. It will be noted that in Regulation 7, while dealing with promotion from J. T. C. /b. T. C. to C. T. post, word substantive has not been used even though the provision is more or less parallel to regulation 6 which contemplates promotion from C. T. to L. T. and/or L. T. to Lecturers post. This shows that in drafting these Regulations same expression in similar contingency has not been used. U. P. SECONDARY EDUCATION AND SERVICES SELECTION BOARDS ACT, 1982 sections 3 to 21 would show that legislature intended to regulate, through the Commission, regular/substantive appointments in recognised Government aided secondary educational institutions in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Section 18 contains provision by way of stopgap/temporary arrangement so as to enable management,, subject to following certain procedure and satisfying certain conditions precedent to make ad hoc appointment so that students of an institution do not suffer and thus to avoid and check casualty to the education of children. Schedule of the said Act prescribes categories of teachers to which the Act applied. THE U. P. SECONDARY EDUCATION SERVICES COMMISSION (REMOVAL OF difficulties) ORDER, 1981 4. Ad-hoc appointment by promotion.- (1) Every vacancy in the post of the 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 Intermediate College, by the headmaster of such High School. (c) in the case of Junior High School, raised to the level of a High School, by the Headmaster of such Junior High School. Every vacancy in the post of a teacher in Lecturers grade may be filled by promotion by the senior-most teacher of the institution in the trained graduate (L. T.) grade. 5. Ad-hoc appointment by direct recruitment.- (1) 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 ). 5. Ad-hoc appointment by direct recruitment.- (1) 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 ). (2) 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 exchange and also through public advertisement in at least two newspapers having adequate circulation in Uttar Pradesh. (3) Every application referred to in clause (2) shall be addressed to the District Inspector of schools and shall be accompanied : (a) by a crossed postal order worth ten rupees payable to such Inspector, (b) by a self-addressed envelope bearing postal stamp for purposes of registration. (4) The District Inspector of Schools shall cause the best candidates selected on the basis of quality point specified in Appendix. The compilation of quality points may be done on remunerative basis by the retired Gazetted Government servants under the personal supervision of such Inspector. (5) 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 alphabetic 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 institution. This process shall be repeated till both the lists are exhausted. Explanation.-In relation to an institution imparting instruction to women the expression district inspector of Schools shall mean the regional Inspector of Girls Schools. 6. Eligibility for appointment.-Every appointment of a teacher, under Paragraphs 4 or 5 shall be subject to the following conditions namely (a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (c) The candidate sought to be appointed by promotion under Paragraph 4 must have been serving the institution in substantive capacity from before the date of commencement of this order. The U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order (Second), 1981 Explanation 1 to Para 3 refers to substantive senior-most teacher. THE UTTAR PRADESH, SECONDARY EDUCATION SERVICES COMMISSION RULES, 1983 "rule 4. (1) The Management shall determine and intimate to the Commission, in the proforma given in Appendix a and in the manner her einafter specified, the number of vacancies existing or likely to fall vacant during the year of recruitment and, in the case of any post, other than the post of the head of an institution, also the number of vacancies to be reserved for the candidates belonging to the scheduled caste, scheduled tribes and other category of persons in accordance with the rules or orders issued by the Government in this behalf in regard to the educational institution. (ii) In regard to the post of head of an institution, the Management shall also forward the names of two senior most teachers copies of their service record (including character rolls) and such other record or particulars as the Commission may require from time to time. Explanation.-For the purpose of this sub-rule senior-most teachers means the senior most teachers in the post of the highest grade in the institution, irrespective of total service put in the institution. " "9. Procedure for appointment by promotion.- (1) Where any vacancy is to be filled by promotion, all teachers working in L. T. or C. T. grade, who possess the minimum qualifications and have put in at least 5 years continuous service as teacher in the concerned subject on the date of occurrence of vacancy shall be considered for promotion without their having applied for the same. Note.-For the purpose of this sub-rule, service rendered in any other recognised institution shall count for eligibility, unless interrupted by removal, dismissal or reduction to a lower post. Note.-For the purpose of this sub-rule, service rendered in any other recognised institution shall count for eligibility, unless interrupted by removal, dismissal or reduction to a lower post. (2) The criterion for promotion shall be seniority subject to the rejection of unfit. (3) The Management shall prepare a list of teachers, referred to in sub-rule (1), and forward it to the Commission through the Inspector with a copy of seniority list, service records (including the character rolls) and a statement in the proforma given in Appendix a. Relevant extract of appendix a1 to the said rule reads appendix a. (See Rules 4 and 9)Requisition Form for the Recruitment of Candidates for Appointment to the Post of teacher/head of Institutions. 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Names of all candidates eligible for promotion, their qualification and length of service from the date of regular appointment in the grade from which promotion is to be made. " u. P. Ordinance No. 3 of 1985 (replaced by U. P. Act No. 19 of 1985) section 5. . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Names of all candidates eligible for promotion, their qualification and length of service from the date of regular appointment in the grade from which promotion is to be made. " u. P. Ordinance No. 3 of 1985 (replaced by U. P. Act No. 19 of 1985) section 5. Insertion of new Section 33-A.-After Section 33 of the principal Act, the following section shall be inserted, namely" 33-A. Regularisation of certain appointments.- (1) Every teacher directly appointed, before the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection 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 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 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. (2) Every teacher deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity under Sub-section (1), shall be deemed to be on probation from the date of such commencement. (3) Nothing in this section shall be construed to entitle any teacher to substantive appointment (a) If on the date of such commencement 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 Headmaster 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 UTTAR PRADESH SECONDARY EDUCATION SERVICES COMMISSION RULES, 1995 "2. " THE UTTAR PRADESH SECONDARY EDUCATION SERVICES COMMISSION RULES, 1995 "2. (c) "substantive appointment" means an appointment, not being an adhoc appointment, on the post of a teacher made in accordance with the provisions in the Act and the rules made thereunder and includes, the appointments regularised under Sections 33-A or 33-B of the Act. (c) "vacancy" means a vacancy arising out as a result of death, retirement, resignation, termination, dismissal or removal of a teacher or creation of new post or appointment or promotion of the incumbent to any higher post in a substantive capacity. " "10. Source of recruitment: (a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (ii) 50 per cent by promotion from amongst substantively appointed teachers or the trained graduates (L. T.) grade; (c ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Teachers of trained graduates (L. T ) grade. (1 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (ii) 50 per cent by promotion from amongst the substantively appointed teachers of Certificate of teaching (C. T.) grade. " Rule 11 and aforementioned other provisions of the Act and Rules would show that expression grade has been used in place of cadre. "14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (ii) 50 per cent by promotion from amongst the substantively appointed teachers of Certificate of teaching (C. T.) grade. " Rule 11 and aforementioned other provisions of the Act and Rules would show that expression grade has been used in place of cadre. "14. Procedure for recruitment by promotion.- (1) Where any vacancy is to be filled by promotion all teachers working in trained graduates (L. T.) grade or Certificate of Teaching (C. T.) grade, if any, who possess the qualifications prescribed for the post and have completed five years continuous service as such on the first day of the year of recruitment shall be considered for promotion to the lecturers grade or the trained graduates (L. T. ). grade as the case may be, without their having applied for the same. Note.-For the purposes of this sub-rule regular service rendered in any other recognised institution shall be counted for eligibility, unless interrupted by removal, dismissal or reduction to a lower post. (2) The criterion for promotion shall be seniority subject to the rejection of unfit. (3) The Management shall prepare a list of teachers referred to in sub-rule (1), and forward it to the Commission through the Inspector with a copy of seniority list, service records, including the character rolls and a statement in the proforma given in Appendix a. Rule 16. Procedure for ad-hoc appointment by promotion.- (1) Where ad-hoc appointments of teachers, in respect of the vacancies to be filled in by promotion, are to be made under Section 18 of the Act, the Management shall consider the cases of such teachers who are working in trained graduates (L. T.) or Certificate of Teaching (C. T.) grades and possess the qualifications prescribed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or the regulations made thereunder and have put in at least five years promotion to the lecturers or trained graduates (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. as the case may be, on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of unfit without their having applied for the same. Explanation.-For the purpose of the sub-rule (a) service rendered in any other recognised institution shall count for eligibility, unless interrupted by removal, dismissal or reduction to a lower post; (b) a teacher shall be deemed to be unfit if (i) any criminal case involving moral turpitude is pending enquiry or trial against him, or (ii) any disciplinary proceeding is being conducted against him. (2) The management shall forward the name of the selected teacher along with the copy of seniority list and his service record including character roll to the Inspector for approval. " "appendix "a" [see Rules 1 (2) and 14 (3)] requismon FORM FOR THE RECRUITMENT OF candidates FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF teacher/principal/head MASTER (To be sent in quadruplicate)5. Name of all candidates eligible for promotion their qualification and length of service from the date of regular appointment in the grade from which promotion is to be made. " ( 8 ) IT is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, in the instant case, that it is being claimed as regular promotion under Rule 14 of Rules, 1995 (aforequoted ). Contention of the Petitioners is two-fold. (1) The word substantive used in Regulation 6 of Chapter II framed under U. P. Intermediate education Act, 1921 has been omitted. ( 9 ) ACCORDING to the Petitioners the word substantive has been intentionally omitted and consequently five years continuous service means that a teacher should have worked for five years and it is not relevant whether it is in substantive capacity or in ad-hoc capacity. The above contention, on a little deeper scrutiny, will show that this argument cannot stand to reason. Merely that word substantive does not find place in Rule 14 does not show that intention of the legislature was otherwise nor it necessarily require a different meaning to be assigned. Omission of a word/phrase or Explanation might be simply because it is considered superfluous or not required. Reference may be made to the decision reported in R. D. Ram Nath and Co. and Anr. v. Girdhari Lal and Anr. , 1975 ALJ 1 (D. B. ). Omission of a word/phrase or Explanation might be simply because it is considered superfluous or not required. Reference may be made to the decision reported in R. D. Ram Nath and Co. and Anr. v. Girdhari Lal and Anr. , 1975 ALJ 1 (D. B. ). ( 10 ) IT is well settled that in order to interpret certain statutory provision, Court should assign plain and simple meaning to the language used. While interpreting statutory provision Court should keep in mind the object of the entire scheme enshrined in a particular statute. It should not ignore any other provisions and an endeavour be made to interpret and to assign such meaning which makes all the provisions in the Statute meaningful and furthers the object and purpose of the legislation. ( 11 ) IN Rule 14 phrase "all teachers working in trained graduates (L. T.) Grade or Certificate of teaching (C. T ). Grade, if any," clearly indicates that such teachers must be in the concerned cadre, A teacher engaged/appointed on ad- hoc basis is an exception to regular selection and such teacher is not included in seniority list contemplated under Chapter II, Regulation 3 of the regulations framed under U. P. Intermediate Education Act (aforequoted ). Word regular in the Note appended to Rule 14 (1) of Rules, 1995, should be read as continuous with reference to and in the context of the word continuous employed in Rule 14 (1) of Rules, 1995. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, thus, has no merit. Firstly, when word continuous has been used in main rule, there is no sense or purpose in conveying same meaning by using another term namely-regular and that too by adding a Note. Use of two different expressions in one and the same provision in a Statute normally, unless otherwise absurd or unnatural, clearly indicate that the person, while drafting statutory provision bears in his mind two different meanings; and when a particular given meaning of a phrase/word fits in the context as well as goes in harmony one should unhesitatingly adopt that meaning instead of resorting to a meaning which does violence with other provisions of that very statutory enactment. ( 12 ) IN view of the above the word regular used in aforesaid Rule 14, cannot be interpreted as continuous particularly when this meaning does not go friendly in the context of other provisions of that enactment. Expression regular in Rule 14, therefore, means nothing but that which is not irregular or illegal. Secondly, word regular can convey more than one meaning and hence one must pick up the meaning, which may be relevant in a given context. Blacks Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 1155 defines the word regular as- Conformable to law, steady or uniform in course, practice, or occurrence made according to rule arranged according to established plan, law or principle. Antonym of casual or "occasional". Websters Dictionary, Volume II, page 1913 defines "regular" as to mean- "formed" built, arranged or ordered according to some established rule, law, principle. . . . " compare-irregular. . . . . . . "regular" may imply conformity to a prescribed rule. ( 13 ) ACCORDING to English Dictionary as well as Legal Dictionaries expression regular is derived regularly meaning real. "legality" and "regularity" are well understood terms and well recognised term. ( 14 ) AN order is illegal if it is opposed to any enactment of any rule having force of law. It is irregular if the procedure followed is in violation of principles of natural justice or fair play or any other procedural law or rules (AIR 1957 AP 55 PP. 57): ( 15 ) WEBSTERs Dictionary defines regular" to mean conformable to a rule, agreeable to an established rule, law or a principle to a prescribed mode. . . . . . . . . . If rule 14 (1) is read in the light of the dictionary meaning of the word "regular" it will be apparent that legislature has intended to mean in accordance with law. No other meaning can be assigned to the word regular used in the note appended to Rule 14 of the Rules. This inference is further fortified from the reading of appendix a required to be sent by the Management in the matter of recruitment by promotion under Rule 14 of the Rules. Clause 5 of Appendix a (aforequoted) clearly shows that the management is required to furnish details including length of service from the date of regular appointment in the grade from which promotion is to be made. Clause 5 of Appendix a (aforequoted) clearly shows that the management is required to furnish details including length of service from the date of regular appointment in the grade from which promotion is to be made. By seeking information in appendix a (i. e. date of regular appointment), legislature in its own wisdom did not consider to use word substantive or regular in Rule 14 (1 ). One may refer to Rule 10, which contemplates source of recruitment for making promotion under Rule 15. Rule 10 read with Rule 2 of the Rules, 1995 clinches beyond doubt that only a regular/substantively appointed teacher on having completed 5 years continuous service as such is eligible for being considered for promotion under Rule 14 of Rules, 1995. Period during which a teacher has worked on ad-hoc/officiating/stop-gap/part time basis cannot be taken into consideration for promotion under this provision inasmuch as his working on such basis cannot be included while computing five years continuous regular service under law. ( 16 ) THE learned Counsel for the Respondents, Ms. Sunita Agarwal, Advocate submitted that the expression grade used in the said Rule and elsewhere in these Rules, Commission Act and intermediate Education Act have been used for the word cadre. This is not disputed by the petitioner. Otherwise also, on perusing several provisions of the U. P. Intermediate Education act. Commission Act, etc. it is abundantly clear that the expression grade has been used for cadre. Again the words if any in the concerned enactment cannot be ignored. According to the learned Counsel for the Respondents, use of the word if any refers to a teacher working in L. T. grade or C. T. grade in the institution and in turn it refers to Rule 10, which prescribes the source of recruitment. Rule 10 contemplates filling of vacancy upto that 50 per cent by promotion from amongst the substantively appointed teachers of C. T. grade. Rule 10 of Rules, 1995, restricts the eligibility field to such teachers, who have been working after substantive appointment in the concerned institution. ( 17 ) THE learned Counsel for the Respondents contended that no teacher will be entitled to be counted for seniority unless such a teacher has entered in service after regular appointment on substantive and becomes member of the concerned cadre. In support of her contention reliance has been placed on the follows : 1. ( 17 ) THE learned Counsel for the Respondents contended that no teacher will be entitled to be counted for seniority unless such a teacher has entered in service after regular appointment on substantive and becomes member of the concerned cadre. In support of her contention reliance has been placed on the follows : 1. Raghu Raj Yadav v. State of U. P. , 1997 (1) ESC 513 (Pr. 8)2. V. Sreenivasa Reddy and Ors. v. Government of A. P. and Ors. , 1995 Suppl. (1) SCC 572 (Pr. 15) ( 18 ) LEARNED Counsel for the Respondents further submitted that a teacher, appointed on ad-hoc basis, cannot claim further ad-hoc promotion relying upon (1994) 1 UPLBEC 624. Petitioners Counsel submits that the aforesaid decision will not come in the way of the petitioners on the ground that the Act itself permits, adhoc appointment and hence it cannot be treated or termed- in any manner, illegal or irregular. On behalf of the Petitioners it is submitted that both the conditions precedent, contemplated under Rule 14 (1) of the Rules are fulfilled in the case of the Petitioners since the Petitioners got substantively appointed vide order of Deputy Director of Education dated January 26, 1985 (Annexure 4 to the Writ Petition ). According to the Petitioners the other condition of having continuously worked for five years in C. T. grade (no matter whether on ad-hoc or regular basis)is also satisfied. It is submitted that it is not relevant whether during this entire period the petitioners worked on substantive basis or otherwise. Contention of the Petitioners is that both the periods namely ad-hoc as well as substantive in C. T. Grade should be clubbed. If this preposition is accepted, Petitioners shall be in eligibility field for being considered for regular promotion under Rule 14 (1) of the Rules. ( 19 ) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioners In support of his contention has referred to the following decisions: "1. B. D. Bajoria Inter College, City and District Saharanpur and Ors. v. Director of Education (Secondary), U. P. , Lucknow and Ors. , 2000 (1) LBESR 872 (All ). (Pr. 10 and 11 ). ( 19 ) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioners In support of his contention has referred to the following decisions: "1. B. D. Bajoria Inter College, City and District Saharanpur and Ors. v. Director of Education (Secondary), U. P. , Lucknow and Ors. , 2000 (1) LBESR 872 (All ). (Pr. 10 and 11 ). In the above (supra) judgment of this Court in the case of Tulsi Ram v. State of U. P. , 1998 (3) ESC 1617 : air 1979 SC 979 ; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Shanker Mishra, AIR 1983 SC 509 and A. K. Bose v. Union of India. " ( 20 ) IN the case of Tulsi Ram (supra) appointment was made against a short- term vacancy of the lecturer. Petitioners were also appointed on adhoc basis in short term vacancies in C. T pay scale. The judgment in the case of B. D. Bajoria is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the case of B. D. Bajoria (supra) case of Tutsi Ram v. State of U. P. , 1998 (3) ESC 1617, has not been brought to the notice of the Bench. Judgment in the case of Tulsi Ram (supra), also is relevant for the present case. ( 21 ) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioners referred to paragraphs 6 to 12 of the judgment in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh (supra ). In the said case the Court considered expression of experience and whether experience gained by concerned teacher in his capacity other than substantive appointment could be taken into account or not. The Apex Court observed that it shall depend upon the explicit language implied in the statutory rules. In Paragraph 9 the judgment their Lordships observed. ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . If the rule expressly did not make any differentiation between the person working as a confirmed holder of substantive post and an incharge or officiating holder of the post, is there anything in the expression itself which by necessary implication excludes service in any other capacity except as a confirmed Head master/principal in a substantive post?" ( 22 ) IN Para II the Supreme Court observed ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Further, the emphasis in the expression is on working on the post meaning thereby performing the duties and discharging the functions assigned to the post and not the capacity in which the post is held. . . . . . . " in Para 13 their Lordship noted : ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The language here indicates emphasis on work being done while on the post irrespective of the capacity. . . . . . . . . . . " from the aforesaid observations it is apparent that in the said case itself the Apex Court has drawn distinction and held that in a case working of a teacher is required in a particular capacity that cannot be equated by his working in another capacity and that experience gained irrespective of capacity under relevant rule, according to theApex Court, should not and could be ignored. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners then referred to the case of Dr. Asim Kumar Bose v. Union of India and Ors. , AIR 1983 SC 509 (paragraphs 9, 29 and 30), Paragraph 29 of the judgment reads : "there is hardly any difference so far as teaching experience is concerned whether it is acquired on regular appointment or as Specialist in a teaching hospital with the ex-officio designation. As the statutory rules do not provide that the teaching experience gained in an ex-officio capacity shall not count towards the requisite teaching experience, the teaching experience gained by the appellant while holding the post of Radiologist-cum-Associate. Professor of Radiology (ex-officio) in the Irwin Hospital cannot be ignored in determining his eligibility for appointment as Professor of Radiology in Maulana Azad Medical College. " ( 23 ) FROM the above it is clear that if Rule requires exclusion of experience in ad-hoc capacity, then it could not be reckoned and connected under said rules. I have no doubt that Rule 14 (1)clearly contemplated five years continuous teaching service on regular/substantive basis. ( 24 ) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioners finally placed reliance on the case of Ram Swaroop v. State of U. P. and Ors. I have no doubt that Rule 14 (1)clearly contemplated five years continuous teaching service on regular/substantive basis. ( 24 ) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioners finally placed reliance on the case of Ram Swaroop v. State of U. P. and Ors. , 1996 (3) ESC 155 (All) (Honble Syed Rafat Alam, J. ). ( 25 ) IN the aforesaid decision learned Single Judge referred to the provisions of Chapter II, regulation 6 and Rules 9 and 9-B of the U. P. Secondary Services Commission Rules, 1983. ( 26 ) THE aforesaid decision, with respect, cannot be treated as a binding precedent being per incuriam. Rules 9, 9-B of Rules, 1983 are not couched in the same language in which Rule 14 of rules, 1995 has been framed. Note appended to Rule 9 did not contain and did not qualify it by the word regular. Secondly, the notice of the Court was not drawn to Appendix a referred to under Rule 9 (3 ). Clause 5 of Appendix a" (quoted above) makes it clear that only those, who were regularly appointed in the Court and had completed five years continuous services, could be treated in the eligibility field for being considered for appointment by promotion. Thirdly, notice of the Court was not drawn to Rule 4 and Appendix a to Rules 1983. The Court nor was apprised of the relevant provisions regarding seniority contemplated under Chapter 1, Regulation 3, which clearly contemplated that seniority shall be computed on the basis of the date of substantive appointment of a particular teacher and unless a teacher was substantively appointed, he could not claim to have borne on the cadre and question of considering seniority in appendix A under relevant Rules did not arise. Rule 14 of Rules 1995 was not under consideration in the case of Ram Swaroop (supra ). ( 27 ) IN view of the above, the above decision of the Court rendered in the case of Ram Swaroop is per incuriam and cannot be treated as binding precedent. In Deepak Sibal v. Punjab University, 1989 (2) SCC 145 (Paragraph 17), the Apex Court observed that if public interest requires, a wrong decision even if it has held field for a long time, may be interfered with and law should be correctly interpreted. In Deepak Sibal v. Punjab University, 1989 (2) SCC 145 (Paragraph 17), the Apex Court observed that if public interest requires, a wrong decision even if it has held field for a long time, may be interfered with and law should be correctly interpreted. ( 28 ) IN the case of Punjab Development and Reclamation Corporation Limited, Chandigarh v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh and Ors. . 1990 (3) SCC 682 , their Lordships in (Paragraphs 40, 41 and 43) Apex Court observed that per incuriam means the inadvertence and when Court has acted in ignorance of a previous decision or order and the Court has failed to take notice of relevant statutory provisions, matter need not be referred to Larger Bench as held in the following : 1. AIR 1972 SC 52 (Paragraph 9)2. 1991 (2) ARC 13. ( 29 ) IN the above cases exceptions have been clearly contemplated and held that reference need not be made to Larger Bench in case of difference of opinion in the two Benches of same strength of same Court. Reference may also be made to- 1987 AWC 491, Kishori @ Lalloo v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, relying upon 1989 SCC 101 , case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (1988) 2 SCC 602 , A. R. Antuley, case and 1990 (3) SCC 109 (Paragraphs 3,74,80 and 82) PLD Corporation v. Labour Court. ( 30 ) IN view of the above, there is no error apparent on the face of record in the impugned order passed by the concerned authority, which correctly appreciated statutory provisions and rightly came to the conclusion that Petitioners were not within eligibility field. ( 31 ) ACCORDINGLY, there is not ground for interference under Article 226, Constitution of India. ( 32 ) WRIT Petition lacks merits and, therefore, dismissed. ( 33 ) NO order as to costs. .