JUDGMENT Hon’ble Amitava Lala, J.—This special appeal is arising out of an order passed by learned Single Judge on 18.2.2010. The writ petition was dismissed due to lack of merit. Amendment application which has been made by the appellant-petitioner therein was also rejected. The writ petition was originally filed for the purpose of getting the salary. 2. During consideration of the cause, a question arose before the learned Single Judge whether the service of the petitioner can be regularised or not and the Court ultimately held that 10 teachers were appointed as against seven vacancies. Therefore, neither the service of the petitioner can be regularised nor she can get salary. It was argued before the learned Single Judge and also before us that by different orders several other teachers’ services were regularised excepting the petitioner who is the appellant herein. The learned Single Judge held that there cannot be any negative equality and no mandamus can be issued by the Court to that extent. 3. In view of the aforesaid facts, by preferring this appeal, Mr. Anil Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has contended before this Court that there is a committee called as Regularisation Committee constituted under Section 33-B of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982. Therefore, when there is a scope, the matter can be sent to such committee, which can resolve the issue either way. The provisions of Section 33-B was inserted in the Act w.e.f. 7th August, 1993. There is other provision being Section 33-C which speaks about the regularisation of certain more appointments which was inserted by an amendment of 1998 w.e.f. 20th April, 1998. 4. Mr. Rama Nand Pandey, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the State has contended that the appointment, if any, on ad hoc basis can be considered by the Regularisation Committee provided it has been done against the substantive vacancy and if the candidate is not appointed against the substantive vacancy but in excess, no regularisation can be made. Moreover, no such case has been made out before the learned Single Judge. 5. On the other hand Mr. Anil Bhushan has contended that the report of the Regularisation Committee dated 2.9.2004, at page 202 of the paper book, was the part and parcel of the amendment application which was rejected by the learned Single Judge alongwith the writ petition. Moreover, no such case has been made out before the learned Single Judge. 5. On the other hand Mr. Anil Bhushan has contended that the report of the Regularisation Committee dated 2.9.2004, at page 202 of the paper book, was the part and parcel of the amendment application which was rejected by the learned Single Judge alongwith the writ petition. It provides that nine persons were appointed in L.T. Grade and six persons were appointed against C.T. Grade and by the report it has been said that total 15 posts could be there when both the grades are merged with each other. Hence, according to him the appellant cannot be said to be “not appointed against the sanctioned post”. 6. He further said that she is the senior most amongst all and if the juniors are accommodated in the substantive vacancies, how the appellant can be eliminated by saying that she was not appointed against sanctioned post. 7. However, upon being heard Mr. Bhushan and Mr. Pandey we have gone through the relevant parts of both sections 33-B and 33-C and found that if some body is continuously serving in an institution from the date of such appointment upto the date of commencement of the Act as referred to in sub-clause (iii) of Clause A, then service can be regularised to which the submission of the respondent is that ad hoc appointment can be regularised only against substantive vacancy. But as per sub-section 3-A of Section 33-C the names of the teachers shall be recommended for substantive appointment in order to seniority as determined from the date of their appointments. Section 33-B says that if more than one teacher are appointed on the same day, the teacher who is elder shall be recommended first. Ultimately Mr. Pandey has submitted before this Court that if the appellant is dissatisfied with the order, the matter could be remanded back to the learned Single Judge for the purpose of passing an appropriate order. 8. We are of the view that there is a little difference between hearing of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge and the special appeal arising out of writ petition by the Division Bench so far as the procedure as per the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 is concerned. Restrictions made in the procedure are to maintain check and balance but not for any other reasons. Restrictions made in the procedure are to maintain check and balance but not for any other reasons. Some of the writ petitions are required to be heard by the learned Single Judge which will be ended there and from such order no special appeal lies before any Division Bench. Similarly, some of the writ petitions cannot be heard by the learned Single Judge but will be heard by the respective Division Benches. Therefore, such type of structures as made by the High Court are only for the purpose of administrative exigency. Against this background, there is no embargo for the Court of special appeal which is competent to hear out any appeal from an order of the learned Single Judge passed in writ jurisdiction and act as Court of first instance. In such circumstances, it is desirable that unless the situation prescribes, the matter is required to be disposed of by the Court of special appeal in the place of remanding matter to the learned Single Judge in a routine manner. On the other hand, it will affect the arrear disposal by the High Court. 9. Against this background, we dispose of the appeal by saying that the matter will be placed before the appropriate Regularisation Committee constituted under Section 33-B and 33-C of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 for the purpose of coming an appropriate conclusion as early as possible preferably within one month from the date of communication of this order. For the purpose of effective adjudication all the parties concerned will be given opportunity of hearing and the Committee will pass appropriate reasoned order upon hearing all the parties. Copy of the paper book of this special appeal can also be treated as part and parcel of the representation, if any, to be filed before the authority concerned as an additional papers. It is obvious that at the time of consideration the cause of the appellant-petitioner question of her initial appointment will also be adjudged. 10. No order is passed as to costs. Hon’ble Ashok Srivastava, J.—I agree. —————