JUDGMENT [Per : Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.] This special appeal has been filed by the State Government challenging the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 9.12.2009 passed in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 826 of 2007 by which, inter alia, the State Government was directed to regularize the services of the petitioner within three months. Before we note down the contention of the State Government to the orders under challenge, it is necessary to first revert to the facts of the case and to the background of the matter in order that a proper perspective may emerge and the controversy be appreciated. The brief facts pertaining to the present case are as follows :- 2. The new State of Uttarakhand was carved out of the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh by an Act of Parliament known as the U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000. Appointed date on which this new State came into existence is 9th November, 2000. Most of the laws presently in force in the State of Uttarakhand are the same as were in force in the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh, prior to the appointed day, albeit with certain modifications in some cases. This is being said as the present controversy which is regarding the appointment of a Teacher (L.T. Grade) in a private, though Government aided school would necessarily involve an interpretation of laws which date prior to the appointed day. 3. The petitioner was initially appointed on 13.10.1987 as a C.T. Grade teacher in a short term vacancy due to the suspension of a regular incumbent, namely, Sri Kalicharan. The school in which this appointment was made was a grant in aid private school known as “Bhartiya Shaheed Sainik Vidhyalaya, Nainital”. When Sri Kalicharan resumed his duties, the services of the petitioner automatically came to an end on 30.9.1992. All the same, in the year 1992 another vacancy of an L.T. Grade teacher occurred in the same college by way of promotion of one Sri Govind Singh to the post of Lecturer (Economics). Sri Govind Singh in turn was promoted as a Lecturer on account of the fact that the regular incumbent to the post of Lecturer, namely, Sri Bahadur Singh was appointed, on deputation, as Principal to the “Jawahar Navodaya Vidhyalaya, Tarikhet, Almora. 4. As it turned out the petitioner continued on the said L.T. Grade post which was a short term vacancy. 4. As it turned out the petitioner continued on the said L.T. Grade post which was a short term vacancy. Her appointment was later approved by the District Education Officer on 6.1.1993. Meanwhile, as per the rules the post of Lecturer had become permanent and under the law it had to be notified for the Public Services Commission as the appointment had to be made through Public Services Commission. Consequently, Sri Govind Singh was reverted to the post of L.T. Grade on which he had a lien. By the same order, the services of the petitioner were also terminated as she was occupying the L.T. grade post of Sri Govind Singh. Sri Govind Singh, however, challenged the order of his reversion dated 1.1.1993 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and the High Court vide its order dated 12.1.1993 stayed the operation of the order dated 1.1.1993. The petitioner also challenged the order dated 1.1.1993 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad vide Writ Petition No. 1606/2003. In the said writ petition, the High Court directed the Education Authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner. The representation moved by the petitioner, was later rejected by the education authorities. Now, after a period of eight years the petitioner moved a Writ Petition No. 6974 (S/S) of 2001 before this Court which was decided by a learned Single Judge on 16.6.2006 whereby the Education Authorities were directed by the learned Single Judge to consider the regularization of the petitioner in accordance with Act No. 4 of 2005 which is [Uttaranchal Non-Government Education (Amendment & Repeal) Act, 2005]. The concerned authorities, namely the Director, School Education, Uttarakhand vide his order dated 16.6.2007 and following it the District Education Officer, Nainital vide his order dated 20.6.2007 rejected the representation of the petitioner and informed her that her case does not fall under the category of regularization as provided under the law and, therefore, her services cannot be regularized. The petitioner, therefore, filed a writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition (S/S) No. 826 of 2007 challenging the aforesaid two orders before this Court and also prayed that her services be regularized in accordance with law. 5. The State, on the other hand, contested the claim of the petitioner for regularization. The petitioner, therefore, filed a writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition (S/S) No. 826 of 2007 challenging the aforesaid two orders before this Court and also prayed that her services be regularized in accordance with law. 5. The State, on the other hand, contested the claim of the petitioner for regularization. The main contention of the State was that no approval had been granted to the petitioner on the post of L.T. grade teacher and she is continuing on that post with no authority of law. Her continuance in the institution being not valid, her services cannot be regularized under Act No. 4 of 2005. 6. All the same, the learned Single Judge primarily relying upon the earlier decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1606/2003, whereby directions were given to the concerned authorities to consider the claim of regularization of the petitioner, held that once such an order has been passed, the concerned authorities had no option but to regularize the services of the petitioner. Moreover, the learned Single Judge also noted that the earlier order has not been challenged by the State authorities and therefore it has attained a finality. In other words, the interpretation of the learned Single Judge to the earlier order dated 16.6.2006 was to the effect that it was not merely a direction to consider the regularization of the petitioner but it was a mandamus to the authorities to regularize the services of the petitioner and once such a mandamus was given, the concerned authorities could either challenge the said order in special appeal, which has not been done and, therefore, the order has attained finality and now there is no option for the State but to regularize the services of the petitioner. Therefore, the two orders dated 16.6.2007 and 20.6.2007 impugned in the writ petition were held to be illegal and have been set aside. Further directions have been given by the learned Single Judge to the Education Authorities to regularize the services of the petitioner, within three months. It is this order dated 9.12.2009, which is presently being challenged. 7. The first order dated 16.6.2007 has been passed by the Additional Director of Education, Kumaon Division, Nainital. In this the Additional Director of Education has stated that the matter of Dr. It is this order dated 9.12.2009, which is presently being challenged. 7. The first order dated 16.6.2007 has been passed by the Additional Director of Education, Kumaon Division, Nainital. In this the Additional Director of Education has stated that the matter of Dr. Pushplata was examined by the Divisional Committee and they have come to the conclusion that since 1993 the services of Dr. Pushplata has not been approved by the competent authority, therefore, her case does not come within the purview of regularization. The service record of Dr. Pushplata was, therefore, returned to the District Inspector of Schools. The second order which has been impugned in the Writ Petition is of District Inspector of Schools dated 20.6.2007 which is in consequence to the earlier order dated 16.6.2007 referred above. The District Inspector of Schools has only reiterated what has been started by the Additional Director of Education, Kumaon Division which is that since after 1993 the services of the petitioner has not been approved by the competent authority, her services cannot be regularized. 8. It is an admitted case that the post on which the petitioner was working was initially a short term vacancy and was converted into a substantive vacancy with effect from 7.8.1993. What has to be seen now is the status of the respondent/petitioner while working on the L.T. grade post since 7.8.1993 i.e. from the date when the said short term vacancy was converted into a substantive vacancy. The respondent/petitioner is relying upon the Uttaranchal Non-Government Education (Amendment and Repeal) Act, 2005. As per the said Act, an amendment was made in the Uttaranchal (The Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921) Adaptation and Modification Order, 2002 whereby, inter alia, after Section 16 GG, Section 16 GGG was added, which reads as follows :- “(16GGG) (A) Regularization of appointment against short term vacancies – (1) Substantive appointment shall be given to such a teacher by the Management, who – (a) was apponted by promotion or by direct recruitment in the lecturer’s grade or trained graduate on or after May 14, 1991 but not after August 6, 1993 against short term vacancy in accordance with paragraph 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Board (Removal of difficulties) (Second) Order, 1981, as amended from time to time, and such vacancy was subsequently converted into a substantive vacancy. (b) possesses the qualification prescribed under, or is exempted from such qualification in accordance with, the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921; (c) has been continuously serving the institution from the date of such appointment unto the date of the commencement of the Act; (d) has been found suitable for appointment in a substantive capacity by the Selection Committee under Sub-section (B) of Section (16 GGG). (2) (a) The names of the such teachers shall be recommended for substantive appointment in order of seniority as determined from the date of their appointment. (b) if two or more such teachers are appointed on the same date the teacher who is elder in age shall be recommended first. (3) Every teacher appointed in a substantive capacity under sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be on probation from the date of such appointment. (4) A teacher who is not found suitable under sub-section shall cease to hold the appointment on such date as the State Government may by order specify. (5) Nothing in this section shall be construed to entitle any teacher to substantive appointment, if on the date of the commencement of the Act referred to in clause (C) of sub-section (1) such vacancy had already been filed or selection for such vacancy has already been made in accordance with the Act. “(B) Selection Committee for Regularization – There shall be a Selection Committee in each Region constituted of – (i) Additional Director of Education of the Region – Chairman (ii) Senior most Joint Director of Education of the Region – Member. (iii) District Education Officer of the relevant District – Member. 9. What is important for our purposes is that according to the aforesaid amendment, the services of certain teachers working on a short term vacancy were liable to be regularized if they were appointed on or after May 14, 1991 but not after August 6, 1993 against a short term vacancy and secondly if they have been continuously serving in the institution from the date of such appointment until the commencement of the Act. Now the admitted fact is that the services of the respondent/petitioner came to an end vide order dated 1.1.1993. Now the admitted fact is that the services of the respondent/petitioner came to an end vide order dated 1.1.1993. Against her termination order dated 1.1.1993 the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition No. 1606 of 2003 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad which has been transferred to this High Court and re-numbered as Writ Petition No. 6974 (S/S) of 2001. This writ petition was disposed of with the direction to the Committee of Management to send the name of the petitioner for regularization and directions were given to the Regularisation Committee to consider the case of the petitioner for her regularization under the provisions of Act No. 4 of 2005. 10. Now, since it is an admitted case that the services of the petitioner were terminated on 1.1.1993 and since then she has not been working on L.T. grade post nor has there been any approval on her appointment by any of the authorities, therefore, the authorities rejected the claim of the petitioner for regularization. It is this action of the education authorities which has to be examined and further the Court has to see whether the petitioner was liable to be regularized as an L.T. grade teacher in the institute. However, the fact of the matter is that against these two orders another writ petition being No. 826 of 2007 was filed by the petitioner which was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 9.12.2009 by giving directions to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner within a period of three months. It is this order which has presently been challenged by the State. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants i.e. the State as well as the learned counsel for the respondent, which was the petitioner before the learned Single Judge (and, therefore, is being referred to in the present case as the petitioner), at great length. 12. Since the controversy at hand is not as simple as it appears, it is necessary to give a short background, of the law applicable to the controversy at hand. 13. The law governing appointment of teachers in Government aided private institutions was earlier governed by the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and the rules and regulations passed therein read with the U.P. Secondary Education Act and the Removal of Difficulty Orders passed therein. 13. The law governing appointment of teachers in Government aided private institutions was earlier governed by the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and the rules and regulations passed therein read with the U.P. Secondary Education Act and the Removal of Difficulty Orders passed therein. In a seminal judgment of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Kumari Radha Raizada and others, 1994 (2) ESC 345 (FB) certain parameters were laid down as to under what circumstances Ad-hoc appointment under Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Act be made and how the procedure must be followed in giving appointment to short term vacancy and ad-hoc appointments, etc. In the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh there was a lot of confusion as to what would be a valid ad-hoc appointment and under what circumstances it is liable to be regularized, etc. There was an utter confusion as the law on the subject did not define or lay down any clearly set parameters. To a large extent, this issue was settled by the decision of the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court referred above. The problem before the Full Bench was immense as it is reflected in the judgment itself : “In the absence of complete legislation in respect of method of appointment of ad hoc teaches the management of the institutions resorted to make ad hoc appointment in the manner which suited them best and this gave rise to enormous litigations which have brought burden on the Court as well as on public exchequer and further affected the standard of the education in this State. Despite illustrious judgments rendered by this Court the Controversy in respect of ad hoc appointment of teachers/principal in the institutions continued to be debated in this Court.” 14. It was in this background that the matter was referred to the Full Bench and the Full Bench framed the following questions :- “(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? It was in this background that the matter was referred to the Full Bench and the Full Bench framed the following questions :- “(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 Sec. 18 of the U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982? (d) Whether any approval or 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? 15. It will be worthwhile here to examine Section 33 of the U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982. Section 33 of the U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 reads as follows :- “33. Power to remove difficulties – (1) The State Government may, for the purpose of removing any difficulty, by a notified order, direct that the provisions of this Act shall, during such period as may be specified in the order, have effect subject to such adaptations, whether by way of modification, addition or omission, as it may deem to be necessary or expedient : Provided that no such order shall be made after two years from the date of commencement of this Act. (2) Every order made under sub-section (1) shall be laid before the House of State Legislature. (3) No order under sub-section (1) shall be called in question in any court on the ground that no difficulty as is referred to in sub-section (1) existed or required to be removed.” 16. (2) Every order made under sub-section (1) shall be laid before the House of State Legislature. (3) No order under sub-section (1) shall be called in question in any court on the ground that no difficulty as is referred to in sub-section (1) existed or required to be removed.” 16. The questions framed by the Division Bench were answered as follows :- Answer to Question No. (a) : Answer to Question No. (a) so far it relates to sub-section (1) and (2) of the Act is in negative. So far as sub-section (3) to Section 33 of the Act is concerned, it is in affirmative but not struck down for the reasons given above. Answer to Question No. (b) : Answer to Question No. (b) is in the negative. Answer to Question No. (c) & (d) : FIRST STAGE : The substantive vacancy in the post of teacher is firstly required to be filled by promotion. If not available, then by direct recruitment in the manner laid down in paragraph 5 of the First Removal of Difficulties Order. Short term appointments are to be made in accordance with the provisions of Second Removal of Difficulties Order only after advertising the vacancy in the manner laid down under sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 5 of the First Removal of Difficulties Order in addition to notifying the short term vacancy on the notice board of the institution. Ad hoc appointment of head of institution is to be made by promotion on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of the unfit. SECOND STAGE : The method of ad hoc appointment of teacher, Principal against the short term vacancy remains the same as it was in the first stage. The direct recruitment of ad hoc teacher is required to be done in accordance with the procedure laid down in section 18 of the Act. THIRD STAGE : Ad hoc appointment of teacher/Principal either by promotion or by direct recruitment is permissible under the First Removal of Difficulties Order and the procedure of such appointment remains the same as was during the first stage. Ad hoc appointment against the short term vacancy remains the same as it was in the first stage. The ad hoc appointment of Principal is required to be done under paragraph 4 of the First Removal of Difficulties Order on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of the unfit. 17. Ad hoc appointment against the short term vacancy remains the same as it was in the first stage. The ad hoc appointment of Principal is required to be done under paragraph 4 of the First Removal of Difficulties Order on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of the unfit. 17. Inspite of the above decision by the Full Bench, confusion remained as to whether a teacher appointed on ad-hoc basis in a short term vacancy is entitled as of right to continue on the said post even after the short term vacancy has been converted into a permanent vacancy. Since there was no unanimity on this aspect the matter had to be settled by another Full Bench which ultimately gave its decision in Smt. Pramila Mishra vs. Deputy Director of Education, 1997 (2) ESC 1284 (All) (FB). The Full Bench came to the conclusion that a teacher who is appointed by the management of an institution on ad hoc basis in a short term vacancy which is subsequently converted into a substantive vacancy cannot claim as a matter of right to continue on the post since the post has now become permanent post. Though the incumbent has a right to be considered along with other eligible candidates for ad hoc appointment in the substantive vacancy if he possesses the requisite qualifications. The Full Bench categorically stated that any view which was contrary to this which was taken earlier by the Court is no longer a good law. 18. Nevertheless, in a few decisions of the Allahabad High Court a view has been taken which in nutshell states that if a person has been appointed on a short term vacancy and later this vacancy is converted into a permanent one, such a person would have a right to continue on the post till a regular incumbent chosen by the Commission is selected and appointed to that post. However, finally a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court, namely, Surendra Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Others [2007 (1) ESC 118 (All) (DB)] has set this issue finally at rest. However, finally a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court, namely, Surendra Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Others [2007 (1) ESC 118 (All) (DB)] has set this issue finally at rest. Tracing the entire history of such controversies and litigations, the Division Bench came to a conclusion that once a temporary vacancy is converted into a permanent vacancy the incumbent has no further right to continue on the post and in fact the ad hoc appointee against a short term vacancy would seize on cessation of short term vacancy for any reason whatsoever, including when this vacancy is converted into a substantive vacancy. What was stated by the Division Bench in Surendra Kumar Srivastava case (supra) is as follows :- “34. …Therefore, in view of the binding pronouncements of law by the Full Bench in Pramila Mishra (supra) are clear and unambiguous provisions contained in para-3 of the Second Order we are of the considered opinion that an ad hoc appointee against the short-term vacancy would seize on cessation of short-term vacancy for any reason whatsoever including where vacancy is converted into a substantive one. In such a case, the appointment, therefore, whether ad hoc or regular has to be made, in accordance with the provisions contained in 1982 Act read with the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder … 19. The ratio which has been laid down by the Full Bench in Pramila Mishra case (supra) as well as in Surendra Kumar Srivastava case (supra) are squarely applicable in this case. It is an undisputed fact that the services of the petitioner/respondent came to an end vide an order dated 1.1.1993. Thereafter there is no order of any authority granting any kind of approval to the services of the petitioner. Moreover, even if it is presumed for the sake of argument that the petitioner continued to work on the short term vacancy it is again an undisputed fact that this short term vacancy became permanent on 7.8.1993. Therefore, as per the ratio laid down by the above referred cases, the appointment of the petitioner would automatically come to an end the moment the said vacancy had converted into a permanent vacancy. Therefore, the education authorities were correct in rejecting the claim of the petitioner/respondent for regularization of her services. 20. Therefore, as per the ratio laid down by the above referred cases, the appointment of the petitioner would automatically come to an end the moment the said vacancy had converted into a permanent vacancy. Therefore, the education authorities were correct in rejecting the claim of the petitioner/respondent for regularization of her services. 20. In view of the above, we are satisfied that the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 9.12.2009 directing the appellants/respondents to regularize the services of the respondent/petitioner is not sustainable. The present Special Appeal deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 9.12.2009 is accordingly hereby set aside. 21. No order as to costs.