JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 to 4. 2. The petitioner contends that the institution in question is an Intermediate College under the grant-in-aid list. One post of Assistant Teacher fall vacant due to the promotion of one Sri Ram Murat Singh and presently two posts of Lecturers and three posts of L.T. Grade are vacant in the institution. The total strength of the teaching staff is thirteen. 3. The intimation of the vacancies has already been sent to the respondents. No selection or appointment has been made as against the said vacancies for a fairly long time. The petitioner Committee of Management proceeded to fill up the posts on ad-hoc basis. The petitioner claims to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade against a short term vacancy which had fallen vacant. The petitioner has come up before this Court for a direction that an approval be granted to the said appointment of the petitioner and for release of salary. 4. Sri Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent contends that such appointments are not contemplated and the rules do not permit any short term appointment or even against substantive vacancies after the promulgation of the amended provisions of the 1982 Act. He further submits that the removal of difficulties order that existed came to be rescinded way back in March, 1989 whereafter such appointments are unacceptable. Any appointment contrary thereto is void. 5. Sri Yadav further contends that the issue of appointment against a post where a short time vacancy has been converted into a substantive vacancy has already been dealt with by the Full bench in the case of Smt. Pramila Mishra v. Deputy Director of Education Jhansi, Division, Jhansi and others, 1997 (2) ESC 1284. It has been held that once the vacancy has been converted into a substantive vacancy then the management looses all its power to make any ad-hoc arrangement or appointment against such posts. He therefore submits that this contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted either way. No provision survives as on date to authorise the management to make any such appointment. 6. He therefore submits that this contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted either way. No provision survives as on date to authorise the management to make any such appointment. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgments of this Court to contend that the power of the management to make appointments against a short term vacancy has been acknowledged by the division bench in the case of Daya Shankar Mishra v. District Inspector of Schools and others, 2011 (1) ESC 221 (All)(DB). 7. It is therefore submitted by the petitioner that this claim can be acknowledged and even otherwise the decision in the case of Pramila Mishra (Supra) has been explained in the case of Ashok Prasad Shukla v. District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad and others, 1998 (3) UPLBEC 1722 . With the aid of these judgments, it is urged that appointment at least against a short term vacancy should be permitted as it is the students who are suffering at large and the institution is being put to a loss. As an example in the present case out of thirteen posts five posts are already lying vacant and the management is facing enormous difficulty. 8. It is also urged that the same logic extends in relation to permanent vacancies against sanctioned posts for which grant-in-aid is available. The shortage of teachers is increasingly widening the gap of student teacher ratio and the students are suffering at large. 9. Sri Ashok Kumar Yadav raising his submissions contends that the Committee of Management is not helpless and that keeping in view the fact that the provisions of Section 7AA were introduced in the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 to enable the management to cope up with such difficulties, the argument of the petitioner deserves to be rejected. He further contends that apart from this the view that appointments cannot be made against short term vacancies has been reiterated by another division bench in the case of Kailash Prasad v. State of U.P., 2007 (10) ADJ 406 . He therefore submits that once there is no legal provision available for allowing such engagements, the management cannot be permitted to make any such appointment and the appointment of the petitioner in the present case de-hors the rules, the salary as claimed by him cannot be paid. 10. He therefore submits that once there is no legal provision available for allowing such engagements, the management cannot be permitted to make any such appointment and the appointment of the petitioner in the present case de-hors the rules, the salary as claimed by him cannot be paid. 10. I have examined the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 as well as the provisions of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Boards Act, 1982. Apart from this, the judgments which have been relied upon have already been perused by me and this Court finds that there is another view expressed in the case of Daya Shanker Mishra (supra) which indicates the real difficulty being faced by institutions. Apart from this, the argument of the State that appointments can be made by the Management under Section 7AA cannot be countenanced keeping in view the fact that the posts which are lying vacant are substantive vacancies. In such cases, the provision of Section 7AA is not at all attracted. The said provision can be invoked only if there is an additional burden in the institution and not on the existing strength of the institutions where permanent posts are already created and are existing. 11. The vacuum which has been created by not allowing the managements to make any appointment against substantive vacancies or short term vacancies till regular selections by the Board are held, therefore has raised a situation which can be suitably described as a legal anomaly, which vacuum deserves to be filled up by an appropriate removal of difficulty order or any direction which in this nature may improve the condition of the institution in respect of ad-hoc arrangements pending permanent appointments against substantive vacancies. This is necessary as substantive vacancies are not being filled up for many years as the Board is unable to complete its selection and recommend the candidates inspite of its best efforts coupled with impediments on account of repeated litigation and orders being passed from time to time. 12. In view of the aforesaid background the State Government therefore may serious delve into this issue and take appropriate steps for making a provision so long as these substantive vacancies are not filled up for regular selections. This is in the larger interest of the institutions as well as in the direct interest of the students who are being put to loss. 13. This is in the larger interest of the institutions as well as in the direct interest of the students who are being put to loss. 13. It is to be noted that selections cannot be made in a day. The vacancy has to be notified in the year of recruitment and the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998 itself prescribe a time limit for carrying out such selections. It has been experienced by this Court as well as by the institutions themselves that this selection process, even if bona-fidely undertaken, do take some time except where there is a deliberate default. For this the State Government can come up with an appropriate legislation so as to fill up the lacuna in order to avoid any unnecessary delay but the same cannot be a ground to keep posts lying vacant inspite of they being available and the students suffering at large. In the opinion of the Court, the State Government should therefore undertake this responsibility of coming up with some removal of difficulty order or alteration in the rules necessary for the purpose of making appointments on ad-hoc basis till the substantive vacancies are filled up by the Board or the short term vacancies cease to exist and accordingly either issue necessary Government Orders or amend the rules as expeditiously as possible. This exercise is necessary keeping in view the difficulty already expressed by the division bench in the case of Daya Shanker Mishra (supra). 14. The Court has been apprised of the view taken in this desperate situation on account of the inaction of the State Government as explained by a learned Single Judge of the Lucknow Bench in the case of Sanjay Singh v. State of U.P., Writ Petition No. 3348 (S/S) of 2012 decided on 14.2.2013. In the event the State Government fails to respond, this Court may also proceed to pass suitable orders accordingly as the occasion may demand. 15. Let the learned Chief Standing Counsel obtain a copy of this order which shall be provided to him free of charges within three days and be sent to the Principal Secretary, Secondary Education for calling an emergent meeting to consider this aspect by the State Government to take appropriate steps in the matter as expeditiously as possible and inform the Court by 19th of April, 2013. 16. List on 19.4.2013. ——————