JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.K. Gupta, J.—This writ petition had been filed inter-alia for the following reliefs : "(i) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction, in the nature of CERTIORARI quashing the order dated 18-10-1993; (ii) To issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to make payment of salary to the petitioner regularly alongwith all arrears on that account”. 2. The brief facts enumerated in the present writ petition are as follows : 3. Panchsheel Inter College Fatehganj, Jaunpur, (hereinafter referred to as “institution”) is a duly recognized institution and is governed by the provision of U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 and the Rules framed thereunder. The post of Principal fell vacant in the institution on 30-6-1993 on account of retirement of one Sri Raj Bahadur Singh. 4. The committee of management (in short “management”) had already notified the vacancy of the post of Principal to the Commission and it therefore promoted one Sri Raj Bahadur Singh, senior most lecturer as Principal on ad hoc basis. On account of ad hoc promotion of Sri Raj Bahadur Singh to the post of Principal, the post earlier occupied by him i.e. the post of lecturer in History fell vacant. The Committee of Management proceeded to fill up the post of lecturer on ad hoc basis under the provisions laid down under U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board (IInd Removal of Difficulties Order) 1981 (hereinafter referred to as Second Removal of Difficulties Order). 5. The Committee of Management thereafter informed the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur (in short “DIOS”) about the aforesaid vacancy and also advertised the post in question. In pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement several candidates including the petitioner applied and were called for interview, which took place on 5-9-1993. A merit list was prepared on the basis of quality point marks and the petitioner was found to be the best candidate amongst all the applicants. The committee of management thereafter passed a resolution in favour of the petitioner on 8-9-1993 and thereafter sent the papers regarding selection of the petitioner to the DIOS on 29-9-1993. The papers were duly received in the office of DIOS Jaunpur on the same day i.e. 29-9-1993. The DIOS however, did not pass any order in the matter as required under the provisions laid down in Second Removal of Difficulties Order. 6. The papers were duly received in the office of DIOS Jaunpur on the same day i.e. 29-9-1993. The DIOS however, did not pass any order in the matter as required under the provisions laid down in Second Removal of Difficulties Order. 6. After waiting for a period of more than one week, the Committee of Management issued an appointment letter in favour of the petitioner on 10-10-1993. In pursuance of the appointment letter, the petitioner joined duties on 11-10-1993 . The DIOS, Jaunpur however on 18-10-1993 passed an order rejecting the proposal submitted by the management regarding appointment of the petitioner on the post in question on the ground that the management has no power to make appointments on the post in question in view of the Ordinance dated 14-7-1992, wherein only the selection committee as provided therein has been empowered to make appointment. Therefore, the DIOS was of the opinion that the alleged appointment of the petitioner was in contravention of U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 (in short “Act, 1982”). 7. This Court by an interim order dated 31-1-1994 inter-alia had passed the following order : “In the meanwhile in case the short-term vacancy against which the petitioner had been appointed on 10-10-1993 could not be filled up by any promotion from the next below grade and there has not been any infirmity in following the procedure for making the appointment claimed by the petitioner, in that case the operation of the impugned order dated 18-10-1993 shall remain stayed and the petitioner will be entitled to the payment of salary hence forth admissible to a lecturer provided he has been discharging duties attached to the office. The payment of salary made if any shall however, remain subject to the final result of the writ petition.” 8. The counter affidavit dated 30-3-2008, the supplementary Counter affidavit dated 18-12-2008 and the supplementary affidavit dated 22-1-2009 have been filed by the management respondent No. 2, wherein the impugned order passed by respondent No. 1 has been justified. In the aforementioned affidavits inter alia it has been stated that Raj Bahadur Singh, lecturer in History who was promoted to the post of Principal also retired on 30-6-2003, as such the post of lecturer in History in the institution became substantive on 30-6-2003 and it no longer remained a short-term vacancy. In the aforementioned affidavits inter alia it has been stated that Raj Bahadur Singh, lecturer in History who was promoted to the post of Principal also retired on 30-6-2003, as such the post of lecturer in History in the institution became substantive on 30-6-2003 and it no longer remained a short-term vacancy. Therefore the petitioner who was appointed on ad hoc basis against short-term vacancy ceased to have any right to continue against the substantive vacancy. It has been further stated that respondent No. 2 notified the vacancy on the post of Lecturer in History to the Selection Commission on 5-7-2003. In pursuance of the same one Ajit Kumar Singh was selected by the Selection Board and appointment letter dated 28-10-2008 was issued in favour of Ajit Kumar Singh by the Committee of Management of the institution and he joined the post of lecturer in History in the institution on 31-10-2008. However, the DIOS Jaunpur in connivance with the petitioner sent a letter to the Selection Board to adjust Sri Ajit Kumar Singh in some other institution as the petitioner was working and getting, salary under the interim order dated 31-1-1994 of this Court. It has been further alleged in the aforementioned affidavits that in pursuance of the letter of the DIOS the Selection Board adjusted Ajit Kumar Singh in Ajhurai Intermediate College, Dharmraj Ganj Sherwa district Jaunpur by letter dated 31-12-2008. As soon as Ajit Kumar Singh came to know of the said order dated 31-12-2008 passed by the Selection Board, he immediately approached the Selection Board, informed it that he has already joined the post of lecturer in History in the institution on 31-10-2008, therefore, his adjustment in another institution is illegal. Selection Board, consequently by letter dated 12-1-2009, cancelled his earlier order of adjustment dated 12-1-2009. Copy of the order dated 31-12-2008 has been appended as ANNEXURE-1 to the affidavit filed by respondent No. 2. 9. Heard Sri G.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and perused the record. 10. The post of Principal fell vacant in the institution on 30-6-1993 on account of retirement of one Raj Bahadur Singh. 9. Heard Sri G.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and perused the record. 10. The post of Principal fell vacant in the institution on 30-6-1993 on account of retirement of one Raj Bahadur Singh. It has also not been disputed by the respondent No. 2 that the short-term vacancy on the post of lecturer in History had occurred on account of promotion of one Raj Bahadur Singh to the post of Principal on ad hoc basis. Since the vacancy caused on the post of lecturer in History, was short-term vacancy, it was governed by the provisions of Second Removal of Difficulties Order. 11. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the respondent No. 1 had treated the vacancy that arose on the post of lecturer in History as substantive vacancy and had proceeded on the assumption that the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner on the post of lecturer in History was not on short-term vacancy, under the provisions of IInd Removal of Difficulties Order, but it was an appointment under Section 18 of Act, 1982. Therefore, the DIOS Jaunpur was of the view that selection of the petitioner should have been made by the Selection Committee as constituted in accordance with Ordinance dated 14-7-1992 (whereby Section 18 of the Act 1982 was amended) and not by the management. 12. Now the question for determination is whether the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner was under the provision of the IInd Removal of Difficulties Order or it was under Section 18 of the Act. 13. The Second Removal of Difficulties Order provides that short-term vacancy is the vacancy which is substantive and is of limited duration. There is no dispute that the vacancy on the post of lecturer in History fell vacant on account of ad hoc promotion of one Raj Bahadur Singh to the post of Principal. As such in accordance with IInd Removal of Difficulties Order vacancy was not substantive but was short-term vacancy and the provisions of IInd Removal of Difficulties Order would have been applicable and the provision of Section 18 of Act, 1982 had no application, as the vacancy of the post of lecturer in History was not substantive. As such in accordance with IInd Removal of Difficulties Order vacancy was not substantive but was short-term vacancy and the provisions of IInd Removal of Difficulties Order would have been applicable and the provision of Section 18 of Act, 1982 had no application, as the vacancy of the post of lecturer in History was not substantive. The appointment of the petitioner was on short-term vacancy, therefore the Committee of Management was fully empowered to appoint the petitioner on the said short-term vacancy in accordance with Clause (2) and (3) of IInd Removal of Difficulties Order. Since the appointment of the petitioner was not under Section 18 of the Act, 1982, Selection Committee as provided under the said Ordinance, had no role to play. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued that provision of Second Removal of Difficulties Order has not been complied with by the management and the appointment has been made without approval of the DIOS Jaunpur. As such the order is illegal. I do not subscribe to the view of learned counsel for the respondents. 15. To appreciate the contentions of the parties it would be useful to refer to clause (1), (2) and (3) of Second Removal of Difficulties Order, which is in the following terms : “Procedure for filling up short-term vacancies.—(1) If short-term vacancy in the post of a teacher, caused by grant of leave to him or on account of his suspension duly approved by the District Inspector of Schools or otherwise shall be filled by the Management of the institution, by promotion of the permanent senior most teacher of the institution in the next lower grade. The Management shall immediately inform the District Inspector of Schools of such promotion along with the particulars of the teacher so promoted. (2) Where any vacancy referred to in clause (1) cannot be filled by promotion due to non-availability of a teacher in the next lower grade in the institution, possessing the prescribed minimum qualifications, it shall be filled by direct recruitment in the manner laid down in clause (3). (3) (i) The management shall intimate the vacancies to the District Inspector of Schools and shall also immediately notify the same on the notice board of the institution, requiring the candidates to apply to the Manager of the institution along with particulars vein in Appendix-B to this order. (3) (i) The management shall intimate the vacancies to the District Inspector of Schools and shall also immediately notify the same on the notice board of the institution, requiring the candidates to apply to the Manager of the institution along with particulars vein in Appendix-B to this order. The selection shall be made on the basis of quantity point marks specified in the Appendix to the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 issued with Notification No. Ma-1993/XV74 (79)-1981 dated 31st July, 1981 hereinafter to be referred to as the First Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981. The compilation of quality point marks shall be done under the personal supervision of the Head of institution.” (ii) The names and particulars of the candidate selected and also of other candidates and the quality point marks allotted to them shall be forwarded by the Manager to the District Inspector of Schools for his prior approval. (iii) The District Inspector of Schools shall communicate his decision within seven days of the date of particulars by him failing which the Inspector will be deemed to have given his approval. (iv) On receipt of the approval of the District Inspector of Schools or as the case may be, on his failure to communicate his decision within seven days of the receipt of papers by him from the manager, the Management shall appoint the selected candidate and an order of appointment shall be issued under the signature of the Manager.” 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the procedure as prescribed in Second Removal of Difficulties Order, has been fully complied with and has drawn my attention to few paragraphs of the writ petition. For ready reference paragraphs 7, 11, 12 and 13 of the writ petition are quoted below : “7. That the Committee of Management thereafter informed the District Inspector of Schools about the aforesaid vacancy and also advertised the post in question. A true copy of the advertisement dated 15-8-1993 is being filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. 11. That the committee thereafter sent the papers regarding selection of the petitioner to the DIOS on 29-9-1993. It is pertinent to point out that the papers were duly received in the office of DIOS on the same date i.e. on 29-9-1993. 12. A true copy of the advertisement dated 15-8-1993 is being filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. 11. That the committee thereafter sent the papers regarding selection of the petitioner to the DIOS on 29-9-1993. It is pertinent to point out that the papers were duly received in the office of DIOS on the same date i.e. on 29-9-1993. 12. That the DIOS however did not pass any orders in the matter as required under the provisions laid down in the Second Removal of Difficulties Order. 13. That after waiting for a period of more than one week, the committee of management issued appointment order in favour of the petitioner on 10-10-1993. A true copy of the order dated 10-10-1993 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure-4 to this petition.” 17. In the Counter affidavit filed by the State the respondent No. 1 has not denied the aforesaid averments that management had sent papers regarding selection of the petitioner to the DIOS Jaunpur on 29-9-1993. However, the DIOS did not pass any order or communicated his decision within seven days. As such in view of clause (3) of Second Removal of Difficulties Order, the DIOS will be deemed to have given his approval. 18. Thus the impugned order passed by DIOS cannot stand the scrutiny of law and the view of DIOS Jaunpur cannot be sustained. It cannot be said that the appointment of the petitioner in the post of Lecturer in History in short-term vacancy, is contrary to the provisions of Second Removal of Difficulties Order. The impugned order dated 18-10-1993 is hereby quashed. 19. Let us now proceed to examine the second prayer made by the petitioner in the writ petition which is as under : “To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to make payment of salary to the petitioner regularly along with all arrears on that account.” 20. It has not been disputed by the respondents that Raj Bahadur Singh the lecturer in History (Ad hoc Principal) also retired on 30-6-2003, as such, vacancy of lecturer in History became substantive. 21. It has not been disputed by the respondents that Raj Bahadur Singh the lecturer in History (Ad hoc Principal) also retired on 30-6-2003, as such, vacancy of lecturer in History became substantive. 21. It has been vehemently argued by learned counsel for respondent No. 2, that in view of the Full Bench decision in the case of Pramila Mishra v. Deputy Director of Education, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, and others, (1997)2 UPLBEC 1329 , petitioner, who was appointed on ad hoc basis in a short-term vacancy has no right to continue against substantive vacancy after the short-term vacancy of lecturer in History converted into a substantive vacancy on 30-6-2003. The Full Bench in the case of Smt. Pramila Mishra (supra) has held as follows : “24. Summing up our conclusions in the light of the discussions in the foregoing paragraphs, we hold that a teacher appointed by the management of the institution on ad hoc basis in a short-term vacancy (leave vacancy/suspension vacancy), which is subsequently converted into a substantive vacancy in accordance with the provisions of the Act, Rules and Orders (on death, resignation, dismissal or removal of the permanent incumbent), cannot claim a right to continue. He has, however, right to be considered along with other eligibility candidates for ad hoc appointment in the substantive vacancy if he possesses the requisite qualifications. Consequent, upon the view taken by us, as noted above, we hold that the decisions of this Court, like Km. Meena Singh’s case (supra) and other cases taking contrary view, are declared to be no longer good law.” 22. It has not been disputed by the respondents that Raj Bahadur Singh, lecturer in History who was promoted on ad hoc basis to the post of Principal in the institution has now retired on 30-6-2003 as such short-term vacancy of lecturer in History in the institution has been converted into a substantive vacancy on 30-6-2003. Therefore, in view of the Full Bench decision in the case of Smt. Pramila Mishra (supra) the petitioner did not have any right to continue after 30-6-2003. It has also come on record that this substantive vacancy was also notified to the Selection Board and one Ajit Kumar Singh was selected by the Selection Board although the legality of the appointment of Ajit Kumar Singh, in the institution is sub-judice before this Court in Writ Petition No. 4734 of 2009. It has also come on record that this substantive vacancy was also notified to the Selection Board and one Ajit Kumar Singh was selected by the Selection Board although the legality of the appointment of Ajit Kumar Singh, in the institution is sub-judice before this Court in Writ Petition No. 4734 of 2009. Therefore, since the matter with regard to the appointment of Ajit Kumar Singh in the institution is under consideration before this Court, it is not desirable to make any observation in this writ petition regarding the claim of Ajit Kumar Singh. However, as already held herein above, after the retirement of Raj Bahadur Singh, short-term vacancy on the post of lecturer in History has been converted into a substantive vacancy on 30-6-2003, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any right to continue after 30-6-2003 in view of the aforementioned Full Bench decision of this Court. 23. Summing up my conclusions in the light of the discussions in the foregoing paragraphs, I hold that the initial appointment of the petitioner on ad hoc basis to the post of lecturer in History was on short-term vacancy in accordance with Second Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981. Thus, the initial appointment of the petitioner dated 10-10-1993 is held valid. However, when the short-term vacancy in the post of lecturer in History was converted into substantive vacancy on 30-6-2003 after the retirement of Raj Bahadur Singh, the petitioner ceased to have any right to continue on the said post. As such, the continuance of the petitioner in the institution after 30-6-2003 cannot be said to be legal or proper in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Pramila Misra (supra). Even though the petitioner had no claim to continue in the post of lecturer in the institution, the salary or any renumeration paid to him however may not be recovered. Henceforth, the petitioner will neither be entitled to continue in the post of lecturer in History in the institution nor to any salary. 24. In the result writ petition is partly allowed subject to the aforesaid observations. ————