JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J.—Heard Sri H.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Virendra Kumar Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner is challenging the order dated 12.5.2000 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia refusing to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner as an Assistant Lecturer in the College of Bansi Bazar Inter College, Nava Nagar, District Ballia. 3. The Bansi Bazar Inter College, Nava Nagar, District Ballia (hereinafter referred to as “College”) is a recognised institution and is in grant in aid and the provision of Uttar Pradesh Intermediate College (Payment of Salary of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 is applicable. The institution is being managed by the Committee of Management. On 4.7.1993, the Committee of Management passed a resolution promoting the then Assistant Teacher Sri Jai Ram Singh on ad hoc basis on the post of Lecturer (Hindi) in the College. Sri Jai Ram Singh joined the post of Lecturer (Hindi) on 5.7.1993. On account of promotion of Sri Jai Ram Singh, a short term vacancy has arisen and to fill up the said vacancy on 30.7.1993 a requisition was sent to the then District Inspector of Schools, Ballia. Consequently, the Committee of Management made an advertisement in a daily newspaper, namely, “Sanmarg”, on 18.12.1993 inviting applications and also notified the vacancy on the Notice Board of the College on 16.12.1993. In pursuance of the notification placed on the Notice Board and the advertisement in the newspaper “Sanmarg”, on 18.12.1993, the petitioner applied for the post alongwith other several candidates. A Selection Committee was constituted on 23.1.1994. The petitioner appeared in the interview. The interview was held and the petitioner was selected by the Selection Committee and a recommendation was made for the appointment as an Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade. After receiving the recommendation, the Manager of the Committee of Management has sent all the relevant papers to the District Inspector of Schools for approval under the provisions of Removal of Difficulties (Second) Order, 1981. When 7 days have expired and no communication has been received from the District Inspector of Schools, in terms of the provisions of Removal of Difficulties (Second) Order, 1981, the approval was deemed to have been granted and accordingly, the Committee of Management resolved on 6.2.1994 to appoint the petitioner on the said post. When 7 days have expired and no communication has been received from the District Inspector of Schools, in terms of the provisions of Removal of Difficulties (Second) Order, 1981, the approval was deemed to have been granted and accordingly, the Committee of Management resolved on 6.2.1994 to appoint the petitioner on the said post. In pursuance of the resolution dated 6.2.1994, the appointment letter dated 7.2.1994 has been issued. Pursuant to the appointment letter, the petitioner joined as an Assistant Teacher on 21.2.1994. It is the contention of the petitioner that since then he is continuously discharging the duty. The Committee of Management by the letter dated 7.2.1994 has also sent necessary papers for financial approval. It appears that when the financial approval has not been accorded by the District Inspector of Schools despite several representations being made, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 18847 of 1995 for payment of salary, which has been disposed of vide order dated 14.7.1995 directing the District Inspector of Schools to decide the representation within the specified period. In pursuance thereof, the impugned order has been passed declining to grant financial approval and the payment of salary. The District Inspector of Schools has refused to grant approval for payment of salary on the ground that as per the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Radha Raizada and others v. Committee of Management, Vidyawati Darbari Girl’s Inter College and others, 1994 (3) UPLBEC 1551 , the advertisement should have been made in two newspapers while in the present case advertisement has been made only in one newspaper, namely, “Sanmarg”, therefore, the appointment of the petitioner could not be approved. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appointment of the petitioner has been made against the short term vacancy in accordance to the provisions of Removal of Difficulties (Second) Order, 1981 as it existed at the time when the appointment was made. The Removal of Difficulties (Second) Order, 1981 only provides the notification of the vacancy on the Notice Board. There was no provision for making any advertisement in a newspaper. The Removal of Difficulties (Second) Order, 1981 only provides the notification of the vacancy on the Notice Board. There was no provision for making any advertisement in a newspaper. It is only when Removal of Difficulties (Second) Order, 1981 has been considered by the Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Radha Raizada and others v. Committee of Management, Vidyawati Darbari Girl’s Inter College and others (supra), it has been ruled that even for the appointment on the short term vacancy, under the provisions of Removal of Difficulties (Second) Order, 1981, the advertisement should be made in two newspapers. The said decision has been delivered in July, 1994 and, therefore, on the basis of the said decision, the appointments made prior to July, 1994 in accordance to the existing provisions cannot be said to be illegal. He submitted that the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Radha Raizada and others v. Committee of Management, Vidyawati Darbari Girl’s Inter College and others (supra), so far as it relates to the appointment against short term vacancy under the provisions of Removal of Difficulties (Second) Order, 1981 is concerned, it operates prospectively and not retrospectively. Reliance is placed on a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ashika Prasad Shukla v. District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad and another, (1998) 3 UPLBEC 1722 . He further submitted that if the advertisement has been made in one newspaper, the object of the provision is achieved. Non-publication of advertisement in two newspapers can only be, at the most, said to be technical procedural irregularity and on this ground the appointment of the petitioner cannot be held to be illegal. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of J.A. Inter College, Khurja v. State of U.P. and others, 1996 (3) ESC 151 (SC) which has been followed by this Court in the case of Chatur Singh and another v. Regional Deputy Director of Education, Agra and others, in Writ Petition No. 37497 of 1996, decided on 3.12.1996 and further in the case of Smt. Pratima Chauhan and another v. Regional Deputy Director of Education (Madhyamik), Agra and others, (1992) 2 UPLBEC 1621. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of Para 2 (iv) of Removal of Difficulties (Second) Order, 1981 on the failure of the communication of the decision within seven days of the receipt of papers by the District Inspector of Schools from the Manager, the management was vested with the power to appoint the selected candidate. Para 2 (iii) of the Removal of Difficulties (Second) Order, 1981 provides that the District Inspector of Schools shall communicate his decision within seven days of the date of receipt of particulars by him failing which the Inspector will be deemed to have given his approval. In the present case, no communication has been made by the District Inspector of Schools either granting or refusing the approval within seven days and, therefore, in view of Para 2 (iii) of the Removal of Difficulties (Second) Order, 1981, the approval is deemed to have been granted by the Inspector and, therefore, it was not open to the District Inspector of Schools to dispute the validity of the appointment and the District Inspector of Schools was bound to grant financial approval. 6. Learned Standing Counsel is not able to rebut the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. I have considered rival submissions. 8. The Removal of Difficulties (Second) Order, 1981 is reproduced herein below: “1. Short title and commencement.—(1) This Order may be called the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order, 1981. 2. 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 hi 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 alongwith 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). (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 alongwith the particulars given in Appendix ‘B’ of this Order. The selection shall be made on the basis of quality point marks specified in the Appendix to the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981, issued with Notification No. Ma-4993/XV-7-1 (79)-1981, dated July 31, 1982, 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 receipt 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. Explanation.—For the purpose of this paragraph- (i) the expression ‘senior most’ teacher means the teacher having longest continuous service in the institution in the Lecturer’s grade or the Trained graduate (L.T.) grade, or Trained undergraduate (C.T.) grade or J.T.C. or B.T.C. grade, as the case may be; (ii) in relation to institutions imparting instructions to women, the expression ‘District Inspector of Schools’ shall mean the ‘Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools’; (iii) ‘short term vacancy’ means a vacancy which is not substantive and is of a limited duration.” 9. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the Manager of the Committee of Management has sent necessary papers relating to the selection of the petitioner to the District Inspector of Schools in the year 1994. No communication has been sent by the District Inspector of Schools within seven days, therefore, in view of clause (iii) of Para 2 of Removal of Difficulties (Second) Order, 1981, the approval by the Inspector is deemed to have been granted and in view of clause (iv) of Para 2 of Removal of Difficulties (Second) Order, 1981, the Committee of Management was vested with the power to appoint the selected candidate. Therefore, the appointment of the petitioner by the Committee of Management was in accordance to the provisions of Removal of Difficulties (Second) Order, 1981. The Removal of Difficulties (Second) Order, 1981 provides the notification of the vacancy and inviting of applications by putting it on the Notice Board. When the vacancy was notified and the application was invited, the Removal of Difficulties (Second) Order, 1981 does not provide for advertisement in two newspapers. The Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Radha Raizada and others v. Committee of Management, Vidyawati Darbari Girl’s Inter College and others (supra) while interpreting the Removal of Difficulties (Second) Order, 1981 has ruled that in case of short term vacancy under the Removal of Difficulties (Second) Order, 1981 procedure provided for ad hoc appointment under the First Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 will also apply and the advertisement should be made in two newspapers. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashika Prasad Shukla v. District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad and another (supra) has held that the decision in the case of Radha Raizada and others v. Committee of Management, Vidyawati Darbari Girl’s Inter College and others (supra), so far as it relates to the appointment against the short term vacancy under the Removal of Difficulties (Second) Order, 1981 is concerned, will operate prospectively. In the case of Smt. Pratima Chauhan and another v. Regional Deputy Director of Education (Madhyamik), Agra and others (supra), the learned Single Judge of this Court relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Chatur Singh and another v. Regional Deputy Director of Education, Agra and others (supra) in which the decision of the Apex Court in the case of J.A. Inter College, Khurja v. State of U.P. and others (supra) has been relied upon wherein it has been held that being a technical irregularity in respect of short term appointment such appointment was allowed to be continued as a stop-gap arrangement subject to the conditions that such candidate would not claim any right for continuance on the post either in the form of regularisation or otherwise at any point of time and their continuance would come to an end as soon as the candidates regularly selected by the Commission is available for joining or the candidates selected according to the norms prescribed in the case of Radha Raizada (supra), read with the procedure laid down in Section 18 as re-enacted by 1995 (amendment) Act is available for joining such posts, whichever is earlier. 10. In view of the above discussions, I am of the view that the order of the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. 11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order of the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia dated 12.5.2000 is set aside. The appointment of the petitioner against short term vacancy as Assistant Lecturer is held to be valid. The continuity of the petitioner on the said post shall be till the post on which the petitioner has been appointed becomes substantive and short term vacancy ceases to exist. ——————