JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri P.N.Saxena, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri M.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Kakkar, learned counsel for respondent No. 4. 2. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant on the ground that the petitioner was appointed against a leave vacancy caused by leave granted to one Subhash Singh, who was substantively holding the post of Assistant Teacher, C.T. Grade. The petitioner could not have been appointed on L.T Grade against such vacancy. The Deputy Director of Education, Saharanpur has found that there was no vacancy in LT Grade.Thus there was reason to interfere with the order of the Deputy Director of Education impugned in the writ petition. 3. Earlier the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition No. 34769 of 1995, which was disposed of vide order dated 1.3.2000. The matter was remanded back to the Deputy Director of Education to examine the cause as legality of the appointment of the writ petitioner. The Deputy Director of Education conducted an enquiry and found that the petitioner was given appointment after a notice was put up on the notice board and that there was no vacancy in LT Grade, as Shri Subhash Singh, on whose leave vacancy appointment was claimed was only a CT Grade post. 4. Appeal : Following facts may be noticed for examining the merits of the Public High Secondary Education,Sanpla, Begumpur, Post Office Sarsawa, District Saharanpur is an added and recognized Intermediate College. The provision of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1921 and that of U.P. Secondary Education Selection Board Act,1982. (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1982) are fully applicable to the teachers of the said institution. 5. One Sri Subhash Singh who was working as C.T Grade teacher in the institution proceeded on long leave in the year 1992. Against the leave vacancy so created the Committee of Management is stated to have offered appointment to the petitioner on Ad-hoc basis as L.T. Grade teacher. This appointment of the petitioner in L.T. Grade teacher has been held to be illegal by the Deputy Director of Education, Saharanpur vide his order dated 30.6.2000. Against the leave vacancy so created the Committee of Management is stated to have offered appointment to the petitioner on Ad-hoc basis as L.T. Grade teacher. This appointment of the petitioner in L.T. Grade teacher has been held to be illegal by the Deputy Director of Education, Saharanpur vide his order dated 30.6.2000. It has been recorded that because of leave to a C.T. Grade Teacher no vacancy in L.T. Grade is created, therefore, the appointment of the petitioner offered on Ad-hoc basis in L.T. Grade was illegal. 6. The order of the Deputy Director of Education, Saharanpur was subjected to challenge by means of Writ Petition No. 37244 of 2000. The writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide his order dated 16.12.2013. It has been held that Subhash Singh was an Assistant Teacher, C.T. Grade but in 1990 when the C.T. Grade was declared dying cadre, he was allowed L.T. Grade pay scale.The Committee of Management in the background that Subhash Singh was entitled to salary in L.T. Grade appointed the petitioner in said post. The Court has found that grant of salary in L.T. post will not result in the L.C grad post being upgraded as L.T. Grad post. No infirmity in the order dated 30.6.2000 passed by the Deputy Director of Education. The writ petition has been dismissed. Hence this appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court, Rules. 7. Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended before us that Sri Subhash Singh was C.T. Grade Teacher but on the date he proceeded on leave, he had completed more than 10 years of service in C.T. Grade Teacher and, therefore, he was actually entitled to get salary in L.T. Grade and on this ground the management had advertised the vacancy of L.T. Grade for ad-hoc appointment and offered appointment to the appellant in L.T. Grade. He further contended that now there has been an amendment inthe Act of 1982 vide U.P. Act No. 7 of 2016 and Section 33-G has been added after Section 33F to the Act, 1982. 8. Sri P.N Saxena with reference to Section 33G stated that that appellant who had been appointed prior to 30.8.2000 is entitled to be regularized, once the vacancy is found to be converted into a substantive vacancy. 9. 8. Sri P.N Saxena with reference to Section 33G stated that that appellant who had been appointed prior to 30.8.2000 is entitled to be regularized, once the vacancy is found to be converted into a substantive vacancy. 9. Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate for the impleaded respondent namely Sobha Ram Dhiman explains that even assuming that Sri Subhash Singh was entitled to L.T. Grade Teacher on completing 10 years of service as C.T. Grade teacher but such grant of L.T. Grade Teacher to the incumbent upon completing ten years of service in C.T. Grade will not result in the post of C. T Grade being upgraded to L.T. Grade. The incumbent only becomes entitled for salary in the L.T. Grade Teacher while the post still continue to be that in C.T. Grade. Subsequent to the C.T. Grade cadre being declared a dying cadre the post in C.T. grade would stand converted into L.T. Grade only when it becomes substantively vacant. He further explains that the provision of the Act No. 7 of 2016 whereas Section 33-G has been added to the Act, 1982 will not effect the merits of the case of the appellant as he has continued under an interim order of Writ Court dated 30.6.2011, and thereafter under the interim order of this Court passed in this Special Appeal. Such interim orders will not confer any right for regularization as has been explained by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi (3) and others, (2006) 4 SCC. 10. Sri Saxena learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in rejoinder submits that in view of Section 33-D of Act,1982, a teacher after having completed 10 years of continuous service would be deemed to have been appointed in regular service from the date of appointment. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the present writ petition. We, at the out set, record that we are not examining the legality of the appointment of Sri Shobha Ram Dhiman as his writ petition is pending before this Court and the parties are at liberty to contest the matter therein. 12. From the perusal of the record of the writ petition, it is apparently clear that Sri Subhash Singh while proceeding on leave in 1990 was actually working in the C.T. Grade. 12. From the perusal of the record of the writ petition, it is apparently clear that Sri Subhash Singh while proceeding on leave in 1990 was actually working in the C.T. Grade. The short term vacancy caused in the C.T. Grade after Sri Subhash Singh proceeded on leave, is not in dispute. The Committee of the Management of the Institution has presumed that if a teacher in the C.T. Grade entitled to salary in L.T. Grade proceeds on leave the vacancy would be in L.T Grade. 13. In our opinion the Committee of Management was not justified in presuming that a vacancy was caused in L.T. Grade and consequently no vacancy could be advertised in L.T. Grade. The learned Single Judge has rightly opined that a short term vacancy in C.T. Grade alone was caused in the institution due to leave granted to one Subhash Singh who proceeded on long leave. No appointed against such leave vacancy in C.T. Grade Teacher could be offered to the writ petitioner as L.T. Grade Teacher. The learned Single Judge has, rightly held that the appointment in L.T. Grade Teacher as offered to Sri Satya Pal Singh was against a existent post. 14. We may further clarify that the posts are created under Section 9 of U.P. High School Intermediate Education Act, 1971 in the institution grade wise. The Government Order and Section 33-D of the Act 1982 only provide for payment of salary to the teacher who completed the requisite number of years in service. 15. Section 33D only provides that such a teacher would be deemed to be a L.T. Grade Teacher on completing the requisite number of years. The provision does not suggest that the post of C.T. Grade stands converted into L.T. Grade. It may be recorded that grant of L.T. grade or the teacher being deemed to be L.T. Grade on completing 10 years in C.T. Grade is personal to the teacher concerned, who along on completing 10 years in C.t. Grade Teachers entitle to be granted salary admissible to L.T. Grade or for being treated as a teacher in L.T. Grade. 16. The conversation of C.T. Grade post into L.T. Grade post takes place only under the Government order dated 22.3. 2016 whereby the C.T. Grade has been declared to be dying cadre. 16. The conversation of C.T. Grade post into L.T. Grade post takes place only under the Government order dated 22.3. 2016 whereby the C.T. Grade has been declared to be dying cadre. It has been provided that when a substantive vacancy in C.T. Grade is caused it shall stand converted into L.T. Grade. More grant a salary to a appointed teacher in C.T. Grade on completing 10 years of service as per with L.T Grade would convert the C.T. Grade post to that a L.T. Grade. The post shall continue to be that of C.T. Grade. 17. We have also also examined Section 33-G of the 1982 while reads as follows. 33-G(1) Any teacher, other than the Principal or the Headmaster, who- a. was appointed by promotion or by direct recruitment in the lecturer’s grade or trained graduate grade on or after August 7, 1993, but not later than January 25, 1999 against a short term vacancy in accordance with paragraph 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order, 1981, as amended from time to time, and such vacancy was subsequently converted into a substantive vacancy; b. was appointed by promotion or by direct recruitment on or after August 7, 1993, but not later than December 30, 2000 on ad-hoc basis against substantive vacancy in accordance with Section 18, in the Lecturer grade or Trained Graduate grade; c. possesses the qualifications prescribed under, or is exempted from such qualification in accordance with the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921; d. has been continuously serving the institution from the date of such appointment up to the date of the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board (Amendment) Act, 2016; e. has been found suitable for appointment in a substantive capacity by the Selection Committee referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 33-C in accordance with the procedure prescribed under clause (b) of the said sub-section; Shall be given substantive appointment by the Management. (2) (a) The names of the 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. (2) (a) The names of the 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 substantive appointment. (4) A teacher who is not found suitable under sub-section (1) and a teacher who is not eligible to get a substantive appointment under the said 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 Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board (Amendment) Act, 2016 such vacancy had already been filed or selection for such vacancy has already been made in accordance with this Act. (6) The services of the ad-hoc teachers and the teachers who have been appointed against short term vacancies shall be regularized from the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Services Selection Board (Amendment) Act, 2016. (7) Reservation Rules shall be followed in regularization of ad-hoc teachers and teachers who are appointed against short term vacancies. (8) Ad-hoc teachers, who have not been appointed either in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 or in accordance with Section 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 and are otherwise getting salary only on the basis of Interim/Final orders of the Court shall not be entitled for regularization.” 18. From a simple reading of Section 33-G, it is apparent that an incumbent appointed against leave vacancy within the cut of date mentioned in Clause (a) and (b) become entitled to be approved regular appointment on satisfaction of two conditions (A) That he possess the prescribed maximum qualification (B) He has continued in service from the date of such appointment up to the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service selection Board (Amendment) Act, 2016. 19. In the facts of the present case the appointment of the appellant had been put to an end in the year 2000 itself. 19. In the facts of the present case the appointment of the appellant had been put to an end in the year 2000 itself. It is only because of the interim order of this Court, he has continued in service. The Apex Court in the case of Secretary State of Karnataka and others (Supra) has explained that any continuance under the interim order of this Court will not confer a right to claim continuance for the purpose of regularization. 20. For the aforesaid reason the claim set up with regard to Section 33G as added by Act,7 of 2016 must also fail. 21. We find no good ground to interfere with the order of learned Single Judge. 22. The Special Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.