Judgment By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 1 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought direction setting aside order dated 08-04-2003, passed by the respondent No.3, Principal of Kishan Vidyalaya Inter College, Laksar, District Haridwar (hereinafter referred as the College), whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated under Section 16-G read with Regulations 25 of Regulations framed under the UP. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner Rishi Pal was qualified for the appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in L. T. Grade and was appointed on said post in the pay scale of Rs. 1400 - 2300 vide order dated 30th August 1992, passed by respondent NO.1. The said appointment was made under Chapter 11- Regulation 9-A of the U .P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred as the Act) on ad hoc basis. Petitioner is teaching continuously in the institution, since then. It is alleged by the petitioner that vide impugned order dated 08-04-2003, the Principal of the College terminated services of the petitioner vide impugned order on the ground that one Jaydhwaj Kumar, Assistant Teacher, was to be reverted back to the C.T. Grade, and as such, the petitioner has to go from said post. Further, alleging that the petitioner was not in the C.T. Grade, and as such, due to the reversion of Jaydhwaj Kumar, his services could not have been terminated, the termination order is challenged by the petitioner claiming that he is entitled to continue on the post, till the regularly selected candidate is appointed, against said post. . 4. The respondents contested the petition and filed their separate counter affidavits. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, it is stated that the appointment of Jaydhwaj Kumar in L.T. Grade was an ad hoc promotion from C.T. Grade and a post fell vacant in the C.T. Grade against which the petitioner Rishi Pal was appointed (on ad hoc basis) in the year 1992. However, the ad hoc promotion of said Jaydhwaj Kumar was not regularized. 1 and 2, it is stated that the appointment of Jaydhwaj Kumar in L.T. Grade was an ad hoc promotion from C.T. Grade and a post fell vacant in the C.T. Grade against which the petitioner Rishi Pal was appointed (on ad hoc basis) in the year 1992. However, the ad hoc promotion of said Jaydhwaj Kumar was not regularized. Consequently, vide order dated 18-10-2002, Jaidhwaj Kumar was reverted back to his original post in C.T. Grade, as such, the petitioner had to go from the post held by him. Accordingly, the services of the petitioner were terminated. However, it is admitted in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that the Cadre of C.T. Grade was declared dying Cadre vide Government Order dated 11-08-1989. But, the impugned order, passed by the Principal of the College, was defended by the education authorities on the ground that Jaydhwaj Kumar had to be reverted back to his original position and petitioner on the basis of ad hoc appointment could not have continued on the post. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.3 i.e. the Principal of the College, it is stated that the petitioner's appointment was totally temporary and ad hoc, and he has no right to continue on the post. Stating the same fact, as stated in the counter affidavit of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, respondent No.3 also stated that the petitioner was actually appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 1350 - 2040, which was a C.T. Scale and not the L.T. Scale (Rs. 1400 - 2300). It is further stated in the counter affidavit of the Principal of the College (respondent No.3) that the petitioner's work was never found up to the mark, as he indulged in acts of indiscipline, time and again. It is also stated that termination order of the petitioner was, infact, consequence of reversion of Jaydhwaj Kumar (who was earlier promoted in L.T.Grade) back to his original post. Clarifying the same, it is stated in the counter affidavit of respondent No.3, that the vacancy available to the petitioner was not a substantive vacancy, rather it was a 'FALIT RIKTI' (resultant vacancy). 6. Clarifying the same, it is stated in the counter affidavit of respondent No.3, that the vacancy available to the petitioner was not a substantive vacancy, rather it was a 'FALIT RIKTI' (resultant vacancy). 6. Respondent No.4, the Manager of the College, who was impleaded during the pendency of writ petition, has also filed his counter affidavit and stated the same facts, as above, that in consequence of ad hoc promotion of Jaydhwaj Kumar in L.T. Grade, in the year 1992, the petitioner was appointed in his place on ad hoc basis on the post of Assistant Teacher in the pay scale of Rs. 1350 - 2200. It is further reiterated that since Jaydhwaj Kumar's regularization in L.T. Grade was not approved vide order dated 18-10-2002, passed by respondent No.1, as such Jaydhwaj Kumar was to be reverted back to his position. Resultantly, the petitioner has to go from service, as he was holding the post on ad hoc basis. Admitting that the C.T. Cadre was declared dying Cadre, vide Government Order dated 11-08-1989, it is clarified that the substantive posts held by the C.T. Grade teachers were given pay scale of the L.T. Grade. Defending the impugned order, passed by the Principal of the College, terminating the services of the petitioner it is stated that the petitioner has no right to continue on the post held by him, on ad hoc basis, particularly, when a person having lien in substantive post is reverted back to said post. 7. In the rejoinder affidavits filed by the petitioner the facts narrated in the writ petition are reiterated. 8. Before further discussions, it is pertinent to mention here, the relevant provision of law applicable to this case. Sub-section (1) of Section 16-G of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, reads as under: "16-G Conditions of service of Head of Institutions, teachers and other Employees.(1) Every person employed in a recognized institution shall be governed by such conditions of service as may be prescribed by Regulations and any agreement between the Management and such employee in so far as it is inconsistent that the provisions of this Act or with the Regulation shall be void. ' (2) ................................." Sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 6 of Chapter II framed under the UP. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, reads as under: "6. ' (2) ................................." Sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 6 of Chapter II framed under the UP. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, reads as under: "6. (1) Where any vacancy in the lecturer's 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, having 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 lecturer's grade or in the L. T. grade is required. Rgulation 9-A Chapter II of the Regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921, reads as under: "9-A. A teacher appointed to a post to fill a vacancy caused by the promotion of a permanent teacher from a lower grade to higher grade shall be deemed to have been appointed in substantive capacity on that post from the date of confirmation of such permanent teacher in the higher grade." Regulation 25 of Chapter III framed under Section 16(G) of the aforesaid Act, provides as under: "Temporary employee-appointed for leave vacancy. 25. The services of a temporary employee (other than a probationer) or of a probationer during the term of his probation, may be terminated at any time by giving him one month's notice or one month's pay in lieu thereof. " 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court toAnnexure-1 to the writ petition and argued that petitioner's appointment is in L. T. Grade in the pay scale of Rs. 1400 - 2300, and not in the C.T. Grade (in the pay scale of Rs. 1350 - 2040), as alleged by the respondents. On perusal of said letter, no doubt, it indicates that the petitioner's appointment is made on L.T. Grade in the pay scale of Rs. 1400 - 2300, but the conditions mentioned in said appointment letter itself show that the appointment is being made under the service conditions applicable as per the orders from the authorities concerned, issued from time to time. 1400 - 2300, but the conditions mentioned in said appointment letter itself show that the appointment is being made under the service conditions applicable as per the orders from the authorities concerned, issued from time to time. The letter No. Sa (1) (Shivir)/46308/400/9293 dated 11-01-1992 shows that the Director of Education issued the orders that till the vacancy does not become the substantive vacancy the incumbent to such post would continue to draw pay scale of CT. Grade Le. Rs. 1350-30-1560-90-2040. It is on the basis of this Government Order that in the audit report it was found that the petitioner is being wrongly paid pay scale of Rs. 1400-40-1800-502300 i.e. of L.T. Grade, though, his appointment is ad hoc in nature, in place of a C.T. Grade teacher, who was promoted in L.T. Grade. Copy of said report is part of Annexure-12 to the counter affidavit filed by respondent NO.3 which clarifies the entire position. In reply to this, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that though vide letter dated 02-07-1993 (copy Annexure-1 to the RA 1 of the first rejoinder affidavit), the Principal of the College, initially issued a letter for recovery of the excess salary paid to the petitioner. However, said letter was withdrawn vide letter dated 24-08-1993 (copy Annexure2 to the R.A. 1 of the first rejoinder affidavit), by the Principal of the College. In the opinion of this Court, the letter of Principal cannot and does not change the legal position, applicable to this case. 10. From the affidavits filed by the parties and the annexures annexed thereto, it is clear that one Javdhwai Kumar was holding substantive post of Assistant Teacher in C.T. Grade, who was promoted to L.T. Grade and against a consequential vacancy under Regulation 9-Aof Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Act, the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis. It is also established on record that Jaydhwai Kumar's services could not be regularized in L.T. Grade as is evident from Annexure-18 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.3. and he had to be reverted back to his substantive post in C.T. Grade (with the pay scale of L.T. Grade), as he was holding the substantive post in said dying Cadre. Resultantly, the petitioner could not have continued on the post in which he was working on ad hoc basis. and he had to be reverted back to his substantive post in C.T. Grade (with the pay scale of L.T. Grade), as he was holding the substantive post in said dying Cadre. Resultantly, the petitioner could not have continued on the post in which he was working on ad hoc basis. Annexure-17 to the counter affidavit of respondent NO.3 further clarified the position that when the petitioner sought his regularization in L.T. Grade, the same was rejected by respondent No. 1 vide its order dated 29-04-2000, on the ground that the petitioner was not holding substantive post, rather, his appointment was against a resultant vacancy (FALIT RIKTI). 11. In the above circumstances, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 08-04-2003, whereby the services of the petitioner was terminated. As such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (All pending applications in this Petition also stand disposed of).