JUDGMENT The appellant was appointed to the post of Lecturer on 26 February 2007 while the sixth respondent, who has filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge, was appointed earlier on 28 January 2003. Section 21G of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act 1982, as amended by U P Act 37 of 2006, provided for the absorption of subject experts. Admittedly, the appellant was a subject expert prior to the date of his absorption on 26 February 2007. Section 21G provides that the services rendered as a subject expert in private aided secondary schools, shall be added to the service after adjustment on a substantive vacancy to be filled by direct recruitment in a notional way (without any financial gain) for administrative interest. The services rendered by a subject expert on a contractual basis are not required to be reckoned as qualifying service for retirement benefits. 2. The Selection Board initially by a communication dated 26 May 2015 issued directions which would have the effect of requiring the seniority of teachers to be recomputed. This direction was annulled by the State Government on 24 June 2015. However, it appears that relying on the direction issued by the Selection Board, the Joint Director of Education by a communication dated 24 June 2015 took a decision by which the signatures of the appellant were to be approved for the purpose of acting as an officiating Principal. It is this communication of the Joint Director of Education dated 24 June 2015 which has been stayed by the interlocutory order of the learned Single Judge. 3. Prima facie, at this stage, it is evident that whereas the appellant entered into the cadre on 26 February 2007, the sixth respondent had entered upon the cadre on 28 January 2003. Hence, the view of the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted, particularly in an appeal against an interlocutory order. 4. The special appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.