ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri B. B. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned standing counsel appearing for the State respondents. ( 2 ) THIS special appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 2nd July, 1997 of a learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 21698 of 1995, Anil Kumar Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. The learned single Judge by the impugned judgment has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner appellant. ( 3 ) BRIEF facts giving rise to this appeal are : "appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner") claims ad hoc appointment as Lecturer, geography in Gopi Ram Paliwal Inter College, Aligarh. One Sri S. P. Sharma who was working as Lecturer, Geography retired on 30th June, 1991, causing vacancy on the post of Lecturer, geography. The management claims to have notified the aforesaid vacancy to the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Board. The management issued an advertisement dated 31. 8. 1991 in the newspaper amar Ujala inviting applications for ad hoc appointment on the post of Lecturer, Geography and some other posts, 8th September, 1991, was fixed for the date of interview. Again on 5. 12. 1992 advertisement was issued in news paper aaj inviting applications for ad hoc appointment on the post of Lecturer, Geography and some other posts, 17th December, 1992, was fixed as the last date for submission of application. A resolution was passed by the School Selection Committee on 5. 2. 1993 selecting the petitioner for ad hoc appointment as Lecturer, Geography. On the same day, appointment letter was also issued to the petitioner by the manager and the petitioner claims to have joined on 10th February, 1993. On 12th February, 1993, the manager sent papers of the District Inspector of Schools for approval for payment of salary on the post of Lecturer, Geography. Certain correspondence took place between the manager and the District Inspector of Schools. Ultimately, the District inspector of Schools vide his order dated 29. 4. 1995, refused to approve the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner on the ground that the appointment of the petitioner has been made on permanent vacancy to be filled by direct recruitment. It was stated that the management has no jurisdiction to make appointment on permanent post, which is to be filled by direct recruitment. 4. 1995, refused to approve the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner on the ground that the appointment of the petitioner has been made on permanent vacancy to be filled by direct recruitment. It was stated that the management has no jurisdiction to make appointment on permanent post, which is to be filled by direct recruitment. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 21698 of 1995 challenging the said order dated 29. 4. 1995, passed by the District Inspector of Schools. Before the learned single Judge, the contention was raised on behalf of the appellant that since the selection process was initiated before 14. 7. 1992 on which date Section 18 of the U. P. Secondary Education Service commission and Selection Board Act, 1992 was amended, hence the management was competent to make ad hoc appointment and the amended Section 18 has no application. The learned single Judge vide his judgment dated 2. 7. 1997 dismissed the writ petition. The learned single Judge took the view that the selection process was not initiated through advertisement issued on 31. 8. 1991 since no steps were taken till second advertisement which was published on 5. 12. 1992, the learned single Judge held that the selection process started only after second advertisement, hence the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner-appellant is not acceptable. It was held that in the present case, selection process had been started after 14. 7. 1992, hence there is no infirmity in the order of District Inspector of Schools. The aforesaid judgment of the learned single Judge has been assailed to this special appeal. ( 4 ) SRI B. B. Paul learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant made following submissions in support of this appeal : (1) The vacancy on which the petitioner was given ad hoc appointment as Lecturer, Geography was short-term vacancy and the Committee of Management was fully empowered to make ad hoc appointment in accordance with the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981. Reliance has also been placed on judgments of this Court in Sri Niwas Singh v. District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur and Ors. , 1998 UPLBEC 276 and meena Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. , 1999 UPLBEC 196 . (2) Committee of Management had full jurisdiction to make ad hoc appointment since no candidate was recommended by the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission. , 1998 UPLBEC 276 and meena Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. , 1999 UPLBEC 196 . (2) Committee of Management had full jurisdiction to make ad hoc appointment since no candidate was recommended by the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission. Reliance has been placed on Judgments of this Court in Ravinder Singh Niranjan v. District Inspector of schools, 1988 (1) AWC 658 : 1988 UPLBEC 223 and Chhatra Pal v. District Inspector of schools, 1988 UPLBEC 640. (3) The petitioner who has been working with effect from 10. 2. 1993 was entitled to be regularised in accordance with Section 33c of the U. P. Act V of 1982. Reliance has been placed on Full Bench judgment of this Court in Pramila Misra v. Deputy Director of Education, Jhansi division, Jhansi and Ors. , 1997 (2) UPLBEC 1284 and Smt. Sashi Saxena v. Deputy Director of education and Ors. , 2000 (4) AWC 2685 : 2000 (3) ESC 1990. (4) Provision of Section 18 as amended by U. P. Act XXIV of 1992, has been deleted by U. P. Act No. 1 of 1993, hence after the said deletion the power of Committee of Management to make ad hoc appointment has revived. ( 5 ) LEARNED standing counsel, refuting the submissions of the counsel for the appellant, supported the Judgment of the learned single Judge and has submitted that the writ petition of the petitioner has rightly been dismissed by the learned single Judge. Learned standing counsel contended that the Committee of Management has no authority or Jurisdiction to make ad hoc appointment after 14th July, 1992 and the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner made on 5. 2. 1993, is void and the district Inspector of Schools has rightly refused to approve the said ad hoc appointment. He has further submitted that the vacancy on which the petitioner claims ad hoc appointment is not a short-term vacancy but is substantive vacancy on which after 14. 7. 1992 the power to make ad hoc appointment is only with the Selection Committee constituted under Section 18 (8) of the U. P. Act No. V of 1982. ( 6 ) WE have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. 1992 the power to make ad hoc appointment is only with the Selection Committee constituted under Section 18 (8) of the U. P. Act No. V of 1982. ( 6 ) WE have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. The first submission of the counsel for the appellant is that the vacancy on which the petitioner-appellant was appointed was short-term vacancy and the management has power to make ad hoc appointment on short term vacancy. The first issue to be determined in this appeal is as to what is the nature of vacancy on which the petitioner-appellant claims ad hoc appointment. This is not disputed that Sonpal Singh who was functioning as Lecturer Geography, retired on 30th June, 1991, causing vacancy on the post of Lecturer Geography. The resolution of Committee of Management dated 11. 8. 1991, has been brought on record by the appellant himself as Annexure-A1 to the supplementary-affidavit which clearly noticed that Sonpal Singh retired on 30th June. 1991, due to which post of lecturer Geography is vacant since 1. 7. 1991. The vacancy of post on which the petitioner claims appointment is substantive vacancy and not short-term vacancy. The short-term vacancy has been defined in U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order, 1981. Paragraph 2 Explanation (iii) defines the short-term vacancy in following words : " (iii) short-term vacancy which is not substantive and Is of a limited duration. " ( 7 ) THUS, the short-term vacancy is only that vacancy which is of limited duration and not substantive. Short-term vacancy may arise by suspension, ad hoc promotion, grant of leave, which may be for a limited duration but a vacancy caused by retirement of a teacher cannot be said to be short-term vacancy or of a limited duration. The procedure for ad hoc appointment with regard to short-term, vacancy and the substantive vacancy is different. For filling of short-term vacancy the procedure prescribed under U. P. Secondary Education Service commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order, 1981, was applicable, whereas substantive vacancy has to be filled up on ad hoc basis in accordance with Section 18 of U. P. Act V of 1982. The submission of counsel for the appellant that the vacancy in question is short-term vacancy and the management is empowered to make ad hoc appointment, is not acceptable. The submission of counsel for the appellant that the vacancy in question is short-term vacancy and the management is empowered to make ad hoc appointment, is not acceptable. The judgment in Sri Niwas Singhs case (supra) relied by the counsel for the appellant was with regard to short-term vacancy. In that case, Daya Shankar Singh senior most lecturer was promoted as ad hoc Principal due to which vacancy arose on the post of Lecturer, l. T. grade teacher was given promotion as Lecturer due to which vacancy in L. T. grade came into existence. Since the promotion was not confirmed, the said vacancy was short-term vacancy. In the above facts, ad hoc appointment was made on that short-term vacancy, in view of above facts, this Court held that the management was empowered to make ad hoc appointment in short-term vacancy in accordance with the U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order, 1981. Another judgment relied by the counsel for the appellant in Meena Singhs case (supra) is also a case of short-term vacancy. The District inspector of Schools has rejected the claim in that case on the ground that the management has no right to appoint teacher on a short-term vacancy. Thus, the above decision cited by the counsel for the appellant does not support his case. Since the vacancy in the present case is substantive vacancy caused by retirement, the procedure prescribed in U. P. Secondary education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order, 1981, cannot be pressed into service. ( 8 ) THE counsel for the appellant has next contended that the management was fully empowered to make ad hoc appointment since the Commission did not send any candidate even after intimation of vacancy. The provisions of U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission and selection Board Act, 1982, were substituted by U. P. Act No. XXIV of 1992. Section 18 as substituted with effect from 14. 7. 1992 is quoted below : "18. Ad hoc teachers.-- (1) Where the management has notified a vacancy to the Commission in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and the post of such teacher has 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 in this section. (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 (9 ). (3) A teacher, other than a Principal or Headmaster who is to be appointed by promotion, may in the manner prescribed be appointed by promoting the senior-most teacher possessing prescribed qualification : (a) in the trained graduates grade, as Lecturer, in the case of vacancy in Lecturers grade. (b) in the Certificate of Teaching grade, as a teacher in the trained graduates grade, in the case of vacancy in trained graduates grade. (4) A vacancy in the post of a Principal may be filled by promoting the senior most teacher in the Lecturers grade. (5) A vacancy in the post of a Head Master may be filled by promoting the senior most teacher in the trained graduates grade. (6) For the purpose of making appointments under Sub-sections (2) and (3), the management shall determine the number of vacancies, as also the number of vacancies to be reserved for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and other categories in accordance with the rules or orders issued by the State Government in this behalf. If in determining the vacancies it is found that persons belonging to such categories are not holding such number of posts as should have been held by them in accordance with such rules or orders, then the vacancies shall be determined that first and every alternate vacancy shall be reserved for the persons of such categories until the required percentage of posts is held by them. (7) After determining the number of vacancies as provided in Sub-section (6) management shall within fifteen days from the date of the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary education Service Commission and Selection Board (Second Amendment) Act, 1992, intimate the vacancies to be filled by direct recruitment to the District Inspector of Schools. If the management fails to intimate such vacancies within the said period of fifteen days, the District inspector of Schools may, after verification from such institution or from his own records, determine such vacancies himself. If the management fails to intimate such vacancies within the said period of fifteen days, the District inspector of Schools may, after verification from such institution or from his own records, determine such vacancies himself. (8) The District Inspector of Schools shall, on receipt of intimation of vacancies or, as the case may be, after determining the vacancies under Sub-section (7), invite applications, from the persons possessing qualifications prescribed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or the regulations made thereunder, for ad hoc appointment to the post of teachers, other than Principal or Head Masters in such manner as may be prescribed. (9) (a) For each district, there shall be a selection committee for selection of candidates for ad hoc appointment by direct recruitment comprising : (i) District Inspector of Schools, who shall be the Chairman ; (ii) Basic Shiksha Adhikari ; (iii) District Inspectress of Girls Schools and where there is no such Inspectress, the Principal of the Government Girls Intermediate College and where there are more than one such college, the seniormost Principal of such colleges and where there is no such college, the Principal of the government Girls Intermediate College as nominated by the State Government. (b) The selection committee constituted under Clause (a) shall make selection of the candidates, prepare a list of the selected candidates, allocate them to the institutions and recommend their names to the management for appointment under Sub-section (2 ). (c) The criteria and procedure for selection of candidates and the manner of preparation of list of selected candidates and their allocation to the institutions shall be such as may be prescribed. (10) Every appointment of an ad hoc teacher under Sub-section (1) shall cease to have effect from the date when the candidate recommended by the Commission or the Board joins the post. (11) The provisions of Section 21d shall mutatis mutandis, apply to the teacher who are to be appointed under the provisions of this section. " ( 9 ) FROM Section 18 as amended with effect from 14. 7. 1992, it is clear that the management may appoint ad hoc teacher by direct recruitment or promotion in the manner provided in that section. The procedure for direct recruitment on ad hoc basis has been provided in Sub-section (6) to sub-section (9) of Section 18. " ( 9 ) FROM Section 18 as amended with effect from 14. 7. 1992, it is clear that the management may appoint ad hoc teacher by direct recruitment or promotion in the manner provided in that section. The procedure for direct recruitment on ad hoc basis has been provided in Sub-section (6) to sub-section (9) of Section 18. Sub-section (6) requires management to intimate the vacancy to be filled by direct recruitment to the District Inspector of Schools. Sub-section (8) provides that the District Inspector of Schools after scrutiny shall invite applications from the persons possessing qualification. Sub-section (9) provides selection committee for each region consisting of District Inspector of Schools, who shall be the Chairman, Basic Shiksha Adhikari and District inspectress of Girls Schools. Thus, the ad hoc appointment of teachers after 14. 7. 1992, has to be made in accordance with the provisions prescribed under Section 18 and the management is neither empowered to issue any advertisement or to constitute Selection Committee or to recommend any candidate. In the present case, the selection process began after advertisement dated 15. 12. 1992 which advertisement was issued by the manager. The Selection Committee appointed by the Committee of Management on 5. 2. 1993, recommended the petitioner who was appointed by the manager on 5. 2,1993. As noted above the manager has no power to issue advertisement on 5. 12. 1992 nor School Selection Committee has any power to recommend a candidate. The advertisement as well as the process of Selection Committee has been filed as annexures-C. A. 2 and C. A. 3 to the counter-affidavit filed by the Committee of Management. The Selection Committee which recommended the petitioner was not the Selection Committee as contemplated under Sub-section (9) of Section 18. The Full Bench of this Court In Kumari radha Raizada and etc. etc. v. Committee of Management, Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter college and Ors. etc. etc. , 1994 All LJ 1077, considered the procedure of ad hoc appointment before 14. 7. 1982 as well as after 14. 7. 1992. While considering the process of selection by amended Section 18 with effect from 14. 7. etc. v. Committee of Management, Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter college and Ors. etc. etc. , 1994 All LJ 1077, considered the procedure of ad hoc appointment before 14. 7. 1982 as well as after 14. 7. 1992. While considering the process of selection by amended Section 18 with effect from 14. 7. 1992, the Full Bench held in paragraph 46 which is quoted below : "a perusal of this new section would show that it is substantially the same provision excepting the provision for constitution of Selection Committee for selection of candidate for ad hoc appointment in place of giving quality point marks as contained in the First Removal of difficulties Order. In fact what was contained in the First. Removal of Difficulties Order has not been brought in the Act, by this amending Act. Thus, the method of ad hoc appointment by promotion of teacher remained the same as it was during the period 14. 7. 1981 to 13. 7. 1992. The method of ad hoc appointment of Principal and Head Master in the institution also remains the same as it was in the period 14. 7. 1981 to 13. 7. 1992 (first period ). Similarly, the provision in respect of appointment against the short-term vacancy also remains the same as it was in 14. 7. 1981 to 13. 7. 1992. The only change that has been brought by the new Section 18 is in respect of method of ad hoc appointment by direct recruitment. Under Sub-section (8) of Section 18. the District Inspector of Schools on receipt of intimation of vacancy or as the case may be after determining the vacancy in Sub-section (7) is required to invite application from the person possessing qualification prescribed in the Intermediate Education Act or the regulations framed thereunder for ad hoc appointment to the post of teacher. Under Sub-section (9) of Section 18 a selection committee is to be constituted for a selection of candidate for ad hoc appointment by direct recruitment comprising of District Inspector of Schools as Chairman, Basic Shiksha adhikari and District Inspectress of Girls Schools. The Selection Committee constituted is further required to make selection of the candidate and prepare a list of selected candidate and allocate them to the institution and recommend their name to the management for appointment. The Selection Committee constituted is further required to make selection of the candidate and prepare a list of selected candidate and allocate them to the institution and recommend their name to the management for appointment. This is in brief the procedure which is required to be undergone where the ad hoc appointment is to be made by the direct recruitment. If the ad hoc appointment by direct recruitment is made under Sub-section (9) of Section 18, no further approval of the District Inspector of Schools for such appointment is required. " ( 10 ) COUNSEL for the appellant has placed reliance on the case of Ravindra Singh Niranjan v. District Inspector of Schools and Ors. , 1988 (1) AWC 658 : 1988 UPLBEC 223. In the aforesaid case, the Division Bench of this Court considered the provisions of Section 18 as it stood before 1988. The aforesaid Division Bench is not attracted in the facts of the present case since the aforesaid Division Bench had no occasion to consider the provisions of Section 18, as amended with effect from 14. 7. 1992. The Court took the view in that case that till the Board is not constituted. Section 18 of the Act would be applicable in the case of appointment of a teacher in c. T. grade where the District Inspector of Schools does not make appointment under U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981. The aforesaid case has no application in the facts of the present case and does not help the appellant in any manner. Another case relied by the counsel for the appellant in Chhatra Pal v. District Inspector of Schools, 1988 UPLBEC 640, in which this Court considered the ad hoc appointment which was made in the year 1985 i. e. , under unamended Section 18. The aforesaid case is also not applicable in the facts of the present case since the Court in that case had no occasion to consider the amended Section 18 with effect from 14. 7. 1992 and the power of ad hoc appointment thereafter. ( 11 ) THE third submission of the counsel for the appellant was with regard to claim of regularisation under Section 33c of the U. P. Act No. V of 1982. Section 33c contains provision for regularisation of certain ad hoc appointment. Section 33c (1) is quoted below : "33c. 7. 1992 and the power of ad hoc appointment thereafter. ( 11 ) THE third submission of the counsel for the appellant was with regard to claim of regularisation under Section 33c of the U. P. Act No. V of 1982. Section 33c contains provision for regularisation of certain ad hoc appointment. Section 33c (1) is quoted below : "33c. (1) Any teacher who : (a) (i) was appointed by promotion or by direct recruitment on or after May 14, 1991 but not later than August 6, 1993 on ad hoc basis against substantive vacancy in accordance with Section 18, in the Lecturer grade or Trained Graduate grade ; (ii) was appointed by promotion on or after July 31, 1988 but not later than August 6, 1993, on ad hoc basis against a substantive vacancy in the post of a Principal or Headmaster in accordance with Section 18 ; (b) possesses the qualifications prescribed under, or is exempted from such qualifications in accordance with the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 ; (c) has been continuously serving the Institution from the date of such appointment upto the date of the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Commission (Amendment) Act, 1998 ; (d) has been found suitable for appointment in a substantive capacity by a selection committee constituted under Sub-section (2) ; shall be given substantive appointment by the management. " ( 12 ) A look of above provision makes it clear that the regularisation of only that teacher is to be considered who was appointed by direct recruitment in accordance with Section 18. The benefit of Section 33c can be available only when his ad hoc appointment was made in accordance with section 18. In the present case, when the appointment of the appellant itself has not been accepted as valid appointment made under Section 18 of U. P. Act No. V of 1982, there is no question of considering the case of the appellant for regularisation. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner-appellant challenging the order of the District Inspector of Schools refusing to accept the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner. When the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner itself was not valid and not accepted, the consideration of question of regularisation is out of question. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner-appellant challenging the order of the District Inspector of Schools refusing to accept the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner. When the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner itself was not valid and not accepted, the consideration of question of regularisation is out of question. In view of the fact that petitioners ad hoc appointment has not been accepted to be in accordance with Section 18 of U. P. Act No. V of 1982, the application of Section 33c is out of question. The reliance placed by the counsel for the petitioner on Full Bench of this Court in the case of Pramila Misra v. Deputy Director of Education and Ors. (supra) is misplaced. In the case of Pramila Misra the question was regarding entitlement of ad hoc appointment to continue on conversion of such vacancy to a permanent vacancy. The case of Pramila Misra is not attracted to the facts of the present case. Similarly reliance placed by the appellants counsel on the decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Sashi Saxena (supra) is also not attracted. In the case of smt. Sashi Saxena the Court was considering the consequence when a short-term vacancy is converted into substantive vacancy. In Smt Sashi Saxenas case there was no dispute regarding ad hoc appointment. The case of Smt. Sashi Saxena does not help the appellant. ( 13 ) THE last submission of the counsel for the appellant is that the power of Committee of management to make ad hoc appointment will revive after deletion of Section 18 by U. P: Act no. 1 of 1993. The U. P. Act No. 1 of 1993 came in force with effect from 7. 8. 1993 by notification issued in accordance with Section 1 (2) of U. P. Act No. 1 of 1993. In the present case, the advertisement after which the selection process began was issued on 5. 12. 1992. The petitioner applied on 21. 12. 1992 in pursuance of the said advertisement and School Selection committee recommended the petitioner on 5. 2. 1993 and appointment letter was issued to the petitioner on 5. 2. 1993 and the petitioner claimed to have joined on 10. 2. 1993. Even according to own submission of counsel for the appellant, the deletion of Section 18 will be with effect from 7. 8. 1993. 2. 1993 and appointment letter was issued to the petitioner on 5. 2. 1993 and the petitioner claimed to have joined on 10. 2. 1993. Even according to own submission of counsel for the appellant, the deletion of Section 18 will be with effect from 7. 8. 1993. Thus, all process including the appointment of the petitioner took place much before 7. 8. 1993. Thus, Section 18 as amended with effect from 14. 7. 1992 was very much in force at all relevant time and the deletion of Section 18 by U. P. Act No. 1 of 1993, does not help the appellant in any manner. The Full Bench of this Court had in Kumari Radha Raizadas case (supra) occasion to consider the above aspect of the matter and has held that the date for enforcement of U. P. Act No. 1 of 1993 is 7. 8. 1993. Considering all procedure for ad hoc appointment after 14. 7. 1992 and the effect of U. P. Act No. 1 of 1993, the Full Bench laid down in paragraph 26 as under : "26. In short it was made open to the management of the institutions to make ad hoc appointment of teachers against substantive vacancies either by promotion or by direct recruitment after following the procedure laid down in the Removal of Difficulties Order issued under Section 33 of the Act by the State Government. Subsequently by U. P. Act No. 24 of 1992 section 18 of the Act was amended and was substituted by new Section 18. This amendment came into force on 14. 7. 1992. The substituted Section 18 provided the manner and method of ad hoc appointment of a teacher in the institutions either by promotion or by direct recruitment. A selection Committee for selection of candidates for ad hoc appointment was required to be constituted considering of District Inspector of Schools. Basic Shiksha Adhikari and the District inspectress of Girls Schools. In pith and substance the only departure from earlier procedure was that the ad hoc appointment by direct recruitment was required to be done by a Selection committee constituting three officials. Thereafter U. P. Legislature passed an Act known as U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Board Amendment Act, 1992 being u. P. Act No. 1 of 1993. This Act was published In the U. P. Gazette on 6th January, 1993. Thereafter U. P. Legislature passed an Act known as U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Board Amendment Act, 1992 being u. P. Act No. 1 of 1993. This Act was published In the U. P. Gazette on 6th January, 1993. Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of this Act provided that the Act shall come into force on such date as the State Government may by notification appoint in this behalf and different dates may be appointed for different provisions. This amendment Act brought several amendments in the principal Act. Since I am not concerned with all the provisions of this amendment Act, I will notice only those provisions which are relevant for the purpose of my answer to questions referred. By Section 11 of U. P. Act No. 1 of 1993, the reference of Section 18 occurring in section 16 of the Act was omitted and Section 13 of the amending Act further provides that section 18 of the Principal Act shall be omitted. The State Government by a notification dated 7. 8. 1993 in exercise of its power under Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of U. P. Act No. 1 of 1993 appointed 7. 8. 1993 as the date on which the said Act except Section 13 shall come into force. The result of this notification is that although Section 18 is still continuing. Section 16 is not subject to the provisions of Section 18 of the Principal Act. Thus, any appointment made under section 18 is void under Sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Act. Thus, no ad hoc appointment can now be made under Section 18 of the Act which although omitted by U. P. Act No. 1 of 1993 but still continuing. " ( 14 ) IN view of the above facts, it is clear that the deletion of Section 18 as amended with effect from 14. 7. 1992, is of no avail to the petitioner. The amended provision of Section 18 enforced with effect from 14. 7. 1992, was fully operative during which the petitioner claims ad hoc appointment. Petitioners ad hoc appointment having not been made in accordance with Section 18, the appointment is void and has rightly been not approved by the District Inspector of schools. The amended provision of Section 18 enforced with effect from 14. 7. 1992, was fully operative during which the petitioner claims ad hoc appointment. Petitioners ad hoc appointment having not been made in accordance with Section 18, the appointment is void and has rightly been not approved by the District Inspector of schools. ( 15 ) IN view of the foregoing discussions, we do not find any merit in any of the submissions raised by the counsel for the appellant. The learned single Judge has rightly held that the committee of Management had no jurisdiction to make selection and appoint petitioner as ad hoc Lecturer. ( 16 ) WE do not find any merit in the special appeal and the same is dismissed accordingly. No order as to cost. .