JUDGMENT Hon’ble F.I. Rebello, C.J.—The appellant was petitioner No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 39090 of 2007, which came to be disposed of along with other petitions by common order dated 4.12.209. The appellant was initially appointed as L.T. Grade Teacher against a short-term vacancy (temporary vacancy). The appellant along with others filed Writ Petition No. 39090 of 2007 for quashing the order dated 27.7.2007 and for a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to stop their salary. This appeal will be restricted to the claim of the appellant. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order has noted the claim of the appellant that he was appointed as an ad hoc L.T. Grade Teacher against a vacancy caused due to promotion of one Lallan Prasad Shukla, who was working in Mahatma Gandhi Inter College, Sakhwania, Kushinagar, from L.T. Grade Teacher to Lecturers Grade, which was approved on 24.2.1981. The learned Judge has further noted the case of the appellant that his appointment was made after following the procedure prescribed under the Second Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981.The District Inspector of Schools refused to accord approval to the appointment of the appellant. Against the said decision, a writ petition came to be filed, which was disposed of by requiring the District Inspector of Schools to examine the matter. The District Inspector of Schools passed an order approving the appointment of the appellant. However, by a subsequent order dated 9.11.1999, the District Inspector of Schools withheld the salary of the appellant. Another writ petition was filed by the appellant wherein an interim order was granted on 9.11.2000. Thereafter, an order was passed by the District Magistrate for payment of salary on 15.2.2001. The Secretary, Secondary Education by order dated 19.2.2001 held that the District Magistrate had no power to issue any direction qua teachers of Intermediate Colleges. The matter was referred to the State Government. A report was submitted by the authorities and it was pointed out that the appointment of the appellant was not in accordance with law. The State Government, however, issued an order sanctioning salary to the appellant, and by order dated 17.2.2004 directed the absorption of the appellant in other institution. vide order dated 27.2.2007, the State Government recalled its order dated 17.2.2004. The State Government, however, issued an order sanctioning salary to the appellant, and by order dated 17.2.2004 directed the absorption of the appellant in other institution. vide order dated 27.2.2007, the State Government recalled its order dated 17.2.2004. The stand of the State had been that the appointment of the appellant along with others was not in accordance with law and, therefore, he was not entitled to salary. 2. A supplementary affidavit was filed on behalf of the appellant and others. As regards the appellant, it was pointed out that the vacancy was advertised on 30.10.1980 in a local newspaper, namely, ‘Hindustan Ka Swaroop’ published from Deoria, and that the quality point marks had been awarded and the appellant was selected. The learned Single Judge proceeded on the footing that the advertisement of the vacancy did not satisfy the requirement of law as laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kumari Radha Raizada and others v. Committee of Management, Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter College and others, 1994(2) ESC 345 (All). Hence, the present appeal. 3. At the hearing of the appeal, on behalf of the appellant, learned counsel submits that the learned Judge misdirected himself in law inasmuch as the judgment in Km. Radha Raizada (supra) relied upon had no application, as the appointment of the appellant was made in the year 1980, whereas the amendment, which was considered in the case of Km. Radha Raizada (supra), namely, the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act 1982’), came into force with effect from 14th July, 1981. It is, therefore, submitted that the procedure laid down in Km. Radha Raizada (supra) for publication of vacancy in two newspapers was not there when the appellant was appointed and the appellant’s appointment was in terms of the law then in force, namely, the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act 1921’), as amended by the U.P. Secondary Education Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Amendment Act 1975’). 4. To consider the question, we may first reproduce Section 16E (11) of the Act 1921, as substituted by the Amendment Act, 1975, which reads as under : “16-E. Procedure for selection of teachers and head of institutions.—(1) ......................... ................................................ 4. To consider the question, we may first reproduce Section 16E (11) of the Act 1921, as substituted by the Amendment Act, 1975, which reads as under : “16-E. Procedure for selection of teachers and head of institutions.—(1) ......................... ................................................ (11) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing sub-sections, appointments in the case of a temporary vacancy caused by the grant of leave to an incumbent for a period not exceeding six months or by death or retirement of an incumbent occurring during an educational session, may be made by direct recruitment or promotion without reference to the Selection Committee in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed.” 5. It would, thus, be clear that the appointment in the case of a temporary vacancy caused by grant of leave to an incumbent for a period not exceeding six months or by death or retirement of an incumbent occurring during an educational session, could be made by direct recruitment or promotion without reference to the Selection Committee in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. The Amendment Act 1975 also contained Section 22, which provided for removal of difficulties and conferred powers on the State Government to remove the difficulties by an order not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. Thereafter, various Orders came to be issued. The first Order was the U.P. Secondary Education (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1975. Order 2 (a) to 2 (g) of the said Order read as under : “2.(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 14 of the aforesaid Act, any substantive or leave vacancy or any vacancy existing or occurring during the current academic session of the Head of Institution or, a teacher of an institution may be filled in by the Committee of Management, on ad hoc basis in the manner provided hereunder till such period, not exceeding six months in any case, as a person duly selected in accordance with Section 14 aforesaid is appointed against such vacancy. (b) The vacancy of the Head of Institution shall be filled- (i) in case of Intermediate College, by the seniormost teacher of the institution in the Lecturer’s grade; (ii) in case of High School raised to the level of Intermediate College, or a Junior High School raised to the level of High School, during the current academic session, by the Headmaster of such High School or Junior High School, as the case may be: Provided that the seniormost teacher or the Headmaster, as the case may be, possesses a good record of service and administrative ability. (c) The vacancy of, a teacher in the Lecturer’s grade of L.T. Grade or C.T. Grade, shall be filled in by the seniormost teacher of the institution in the L.T. Grade, C.T. Grade and J.T.C./B.T.C. grade respectively. (d) Where any vacancy cannot be filled in the manner laid down in the preceding clauses, the same vacancy be filled in on ad hoc basis for the same maximum period as laid down in Clause (a), by appointment of outsiders after selection by a Selection Committee consisting of three members, which may be constituted for the purpose on an ad hoc basis by the Committee of Management. (e) Any person to be eligible for being appointed under Clauses (b), (c) and (d) shall possess the minimum qualifications prescribed in Appendix ‘A’ referred to in Regulation 1 of Chapter II of the calendar of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education. (f) Where an account of difference or dispute or for any other reason, there is no Committee of Management in effective control of the affairs of an institution or has not been recognized as such by the Inspector and no Authorised Controller has been appointed by the State Government in respect of such institution, the powers of the Committee of Management in the foregoing clauses shall in the case of appointment of the Head of institution be exercised by the Inspector and in the case of appointment of, a teacher be exercised by the Head of the Institution concerned. (g) All appointments made under the foregoing clauses shall as soon as may be reported to the Inspector giving particulars of qualifications and experience in respect of each person and the Inspector shall have the power to disapprove any appointment made in contravention of the foregoing provisions upon which the appointment in question shall cease. (g) All appointments made under the foregoing clauses shall as soon as may be reported to the Inspector giving particulars of qualifications and experience in respect of each person and the Inspector shall have the power to disapprove any appointment made in contravention of the foregoing provisions upon which the appointment in question shall cease. The decision of the Inspector in this regard shall be final.” 6. By the U.P. Secondary Education (Removal of Difficulties) Second Order, 1976, the period of ad hoc appointment was extended. Subsequent Orders were also issued. This continued to be a law till the Act 1982 came into force. 7. On behalf of the State respondents, learned counsel submits that the concept of short-term appointment came, for the first time, in view of the Act 1982 and the question, therefore, for payment of salary to the appellant appointed against a short-term vacancy would not arise. It is also submitted that there is no material on record to show that there was a short-term vacancy and, as such, the appointment of the appellant, being not against a regular vacancy, is illegal. 8. The question that we have been called upon to answer would be, whether the Appellant was appointed against a temporary vacancy, now described as Short-term Vacancy, and the procedure for appointment, as was existing at the time the vacancy was advertised, was followed? 9. The appellant, in the writ petition filed along with others, in paragraph 3 has clearly set out that he was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 26.12.1980 on a short-term vacancy that arose due to promotion of Sri Lallan Prasad Shukla to the Lecturers Grade in Mahatma Gandhi Inter College, Sakhwania, Kushinagar. In answer to that, the District Inspector of Schools in the affidavit has merely set out that the contents of paragraph 3 of the writ petition need no comments. Apart from that, the appellant had, along with others, relied on a document issued by the Additional Director of Education, which mentions, at serial No. 2, the name of the appellant and that his appointment has been shown against a short-term vacancy. Apart from that, the appellant had, along with others, relied on a document issued by the Additional Director of Education, which mentions, at serial No. 2, the name of the appellant and that his appointment has been shown against a short-term vacancy. A supplementary affidavit was also filed by the appellant, wherein it was pointed out that one Dasratha Nand Sahai, who was posted as Lecturer of Hindi got appointed as Lecturer in a Degree College at Barhaj, Deoria and, therefore, he resigned from the post of Lecturer from the Mahatma Gandhi Inter College and, as such, a vacancy arose and on the said vacancy, the Committee of Management recommended the name of Shri Lallan Prasad Shukla for promotion as Lecturer on ad hoc basis, who was duly qualified. Financial approval to his appointment was granted on 24.2.1981. Consequent to the vacancy caused by ad hoc promotion of Lallan Prasad Shukla, the post of L.T. Grade Teacher was advertised. Five candidates applied and the appellant’s name was proposed for appointment, as he had secured highest marks. All this material clearly establishes that the Appellant was appointed against a temporary vacancy and continued in the short-term vacancy. These aspects, it appears, have not been considered by the learned Single Judge. 10. It has also been brought to our notice that the order dated 27.7.2007, impugned in the writ petition, also considered the order passed in Writ Petition No. 61288 of 2006. That was a petition filed by one Veer Bahadur Singh, who was appointed on the post of Assistant Clerk in Sri Krishn Intermediate College, Semara, Kushinagar. The grievance of the petitioner in the said writ petition was against the decision of the District Inspector of Schools, that there was no post. He had prayed in the said petition to direct the respondents to permit him to continue in service. The issue involved in this appeal, therefore, has no connection with the order in Writ Petition No. 61288 of 2006. To that extent, the impugned order based on irrelevant material, is also liable to be quashed and set aside on that count. 11. The question, then, for our consideration is, whether the judgment of the Full Bench in Km. Radha Raizada (supra) would apply to the facts of the present case. To that extent, the impugned order based on irrelevant material, is also liable to be quashed and set aside on that count. 11. The question, then, for our consideration is, whether the judgment of the Full Bench in Km. Radha Raizada (supra) would apply to the facts of the present case. The Full Bench framed four questions for consideration, which read as under : “(a) Whether Section 33 of the U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 suffers from vice of excessive delegation of legislative power and as such it is void? (b) If the answer to question No. (a) is in negative, whether Removal of Difficulties Orders published on 31st July, 1981, removal of Difficulties (Second) Order published on 11th September, 1981, and Removal of Difficulties (Third) Order published on 30th January, 1982 issued by the Government tend to amend, scheme and essential features of the Act and as such are ultra vires the provisions of Section 33 of the Act? (c) What would be the criteria and procedure for ad hoc appointment of a teacher or Principal either under the Removal of Difficulties Order or under Section 18 of the U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982? (d) Whether any approval of prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools or Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, as the case may be, is necessary for making ad hoc appointment of a teacher or Principal either under the Removal of Difficulties Order or under Section 18 of the Act? 12. The learned Full Bench was pleased to answer questions (c) and (d) together which are relevant for our case. The learned Bench noted that the Act, which replaced the U.P. Ordinance No. 8 of 1981, came into force with effect from 14th July, 1981. It is in that context, as there were difficulties, the First Removal of Difficulties Order was issued by notification dated 31st July, 1981. Therefore, the issue considered and answered had no connection either with the Amendment Act 1975 or with the Act 1921, and the judgment would, therefore, clearly be not applicable to the facts of the present case. 13. The Full Bench judgment in Km. Radha Raizada (supra) came up for consideration in the case of Ashika Prasad Shukla v. The District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad and another, (1998) 3 ESC 2006 (All). 13. The Full Bench judgment in Km. Radha Raizada (supra) came up for consideration in the case of Ashika Prasad Shukla v. The District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad and another, (1998) 3 ESC 2006 (All). But, however, again it was in respect of an appointment made after coming into force of the Act 1982. The learned Full Bench in Km. Radha Raizada (supra) noted that the procedure of advertisement, which had been followed by putting a notice on the notice board of the institution did not give equal opportunity to all eligible candidates of the District, Region or the State to apply for consideration for appointment against the said short-term vacancy and, therefore, directed that the Management, after intimating such vacancies to the District Inspector of Schools, should notify the same at least in two newspapers having adequate circulation in Uttar Pradesh, in addition to notifying the same on the notice board of the institution. Thus, it is by judicial interpretation, in order to meet the test of Article 16 of the Constitution of India, the requirement was put for advertising the vacancy in two newspapers having circulation in the State. If at the relevant time the Management had followed the procedure for advertising a temporary vacancy, in the absence of a challenge to that procedure, that procedure cannot be faulted. 14. Considering these aspects of the matter, we are clearly of the opinion that under the Act 1921 and/or Amendment Act 1975, and/or various Orders passed to remove the difficulties, there was no requirement that the vacancy should be notified by publication in two newspapers. Nothing has been placed before us by the State showing the manner and the conditions of appointment prescribed for filling in the temporary vacancies other than that followed by the Management. The Management, as is apparent from the facts on record, had advertised the post in question. In our opinion, therefore, it cannot be said that the procedure for appointment on temporary vacancy/short-term vacancy was without authority of law. 15. Accordingly, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 4.12.2009 in Writ Petition No. 39090 of 2007, insofar as it relates to the appellant, is set aside. Consequently, rule made absolute in the following terms : “The order dated 27.7.2007 is quashed insofar as the appellant herein, petitioner No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 39090 of 2007, is concerned. Accordingly, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 4.12.2009 in Writ Petition No. 39090 of 2007, insofar as it relates to the appellant, is set aside. Consequently, rule made absolute in the following terms : “The order dated 27.7.2007 is quashed insofar as the appellant herein, petitioner No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 39090 of 2007, is concerned. The State respondents are directed to pay the appellant the arrears of past salary and continue to pay him salary till the time he continues to occupy the post.” ————