JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. 1. Substantive vacancy occurring in an educational institution recognized under the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1921') which stands notified for recruitment to the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board, in a previous educational session, whether could be filled by the Committee of Management under Section 16-E(11) of the Act of 1921, and the State could be made liable to pay salary to such appointee is the question arising for consideration in this bunch of cases. The nature of vacancy as also the manner and conditions of recruitment to be made under Section 16-E(11) also falls for examination. 2. Facts of leading Writ Petition No.6716 of 2018 are taken up first. Amar Shahid Shri Kaushal Kumar Inter College, Naraingarh, Ballia is an educational institution recognized under the Act of 1971, imparting education upto intermediate level and the responsibility to pay salary is upon the State under the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1971'). State Government has recognized 21 post of Assistant Teacher in the institution vide Government Order dated 1.1.2016. Four substantive post of Assistant Teacher are stated to have fallen vacant, for which requisition was sent to the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Selection Board on 24.7.1998, under Section 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Commission Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1982') through the District Inspector of Schools, but no selected candidate is stated to have been recommended so far by the Board. The Committee of Management proceeded to advertise the post in daily newspaper 'Anant Varta' and evening newspaper 'Azad Patra' on 3rd December, 1999 and 1st December, 1999, respectively, inviting applications. It is asserted that applications were received till 16.12.1999, and interview was conducted on 20th December, 1999. Appointment letters are stated to have been issued to the petitioners but the same are not annexed. The Committee of Management claims to have forwarded papers for grant of financial approval to the District Inspector of Schools (hereinafter referred to as 'Inspector'), which was followed with various representations, but a decision is awaited. Appointment letters are stated to have been issued to the petitioners but the same are not annexed. The Committee of Management claims to have forwarded papers for grant of financial approval to the District Inspector of Schools (hereinafter referred to as 'Inspector'), which was followed with various representations, but a decision is awaited. It is stated that the determination of sanctioned post had not been made in terms of the direction issued by this Court in the case of Dhruv Narain Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, passed in Writ Petition No.26307 of 2010, and the claim of petitioners accordingly was kept pending. It is contended that this Court in Writ Petition No.48244 of 2017 (Sushil Kumar Yadav and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others), decided on 31.10.2017, since has recognized the right of Committee of Management to appoint teachers against posts already notified to the Board, under Section 16-E(11) of the Act of 1921, the authorities be directed to grant financial approval to petitioners' appointment. Reliance is also placed upon an order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2330 of 2018 (Ashok Kumar Rai and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others), decided on 18.1.2018. It is contended that in view of the law laid down in the aforesaid two judgments, petitioners' claim for grant of financial approval is liable to be considered. Prayer is, therefore, made to command the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia to grant financial approval to petitioners' appointment and to release regular salary alongwith arrears within a period to be specified by this Court. 3. Similarly in Writ Petition No.6718 of 2018, it is contended that post of Lecturer in Civics and Hindi had fallen vacant and were intimated to the Board, but no selected candidate has yet been recommended. It is stated that the posts were advertised in two widely circulated daily newspapers on 2.9.2008 and consequent to the same interviews were held on 24.9.2008. Thereafter, appointment letters were issued on 28.10.2008, pursuant to which petitioner nos.1 and 2 joined on 1.11.2008. Similarly two posts of Lecturer in History, and one post of Lecturer in English had also fallen vacant and were notified to the Board on 13.8.2002, against which petitioner nos.3, 4 and 5 were appointed after advertising the vacancies on 7.4.2004. Appointment letters were issued on 30th July, 2004. Similarly two posts of Lecturer in History, and one post of Lecturer in English had also fallen vacant and were notified to the Board on 13.8.2002, against which petitioner nos.3, 4 and 5 were appointed after advertising the vacancies on 7.4.2004. Appointment letters were issued on 30th July, 2004. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of this Court in Sushil Kumar Yadav (supra) for directing the Inspector to grant financial approval and pay salary. 4. In Writ Petition No.6720 of 2018, it is stated that substantive vacancy had come into being in Jawahar Lal Nehru Inter College, Anapur, Jaunpur, upon retirement of three teachers namely Ram Dular Pal, Sobhnath Yadav and Shabbir Hasan on 30.6.2012, 30.6.2014 and 31.3.2016, respectively. These vacancies had been notified to the Board under section 10 of the Act of 1982 but no selected candidate was recommended in the institution. Therefore, the Committee of Management of the institution proceeded to advertise the posts, against which petitioners were selected and papers were forwarded for grant of financial approval to the D.I.O.S. on 26.12.2016. Appointment letters have been issued to petitioners on 14.12.2016. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of this Court in Sushil Kumar Yadav (supra) for directing the Inspector to grant financial approval and pay salary. 5. Writ Petition No.7109 of 2018 has been filed with the allegation that Navli Inter College Navli, District Ghazipur, is a recognized Intermediate College, in which one post of Assistant Teacher had fallen vacant. The post was advertised on 12.9.2014. Interview was held on 5.10.2014 and thereafter the petitioner was appointed on 10.10.2014. It is stated that Management has forwarded petitioner's claim for grant of financial approval on 23.3.2015 to the Inspector but no action has been taken till date. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of this Court in Sushil Kumar Yadav (supra), as followed in other cases, to contend that the Inspector be directed to grant financial approval and release salary alongwith arrears. 6. All these petitions are opposed by learned Standing Counsel contending that power to appoint teachers under Section 16-E(11) is not available to the Committee of Management when the vacancy is substantive in nature and has already been notified to the Board under section 10. 6. All these petitions are opposed by learned Standing Counsel contending that power to appoint teachers under Section 16-E(11) is not available to the Committee of Management when the vacancy is substantive in nature and has already been notified to the Board under section 10. Submission is that temporary vacancy occurring during an educational session caused by grant of leave not exceeding six months or death, termination or otherwise alone could be filled in the manner provided under the regulation. It is also stated that the State Government has issued a Government Order dated 26th October, 2017, laying down the manner and conditions for making of appointments under Section 16-E(11). As the petitioners' appointment is not covered by it, financial approval cannot be granted. It is submitted that the provisions of Section 16-E(11) cannot be invoked in any of the present cases inasmuch as vacancies have not arisen during the academic session and is otherwise not an unforeseen vacancy which alone is covered under Section 16-E(11). 7. These writ petitions apparently have been filed drawing strength from the observations of this Court made in the case of Sushil Kumar Yadav (supra). It would be appropriate to refer to the same, at the outset, and is accordingly reproduced herein below:- "Adarsh Inter College, Itaye, District Jaunpur, is a duly recognized intermediate institution under the grant-in-aid upto High-School. The provisions of Intermediate Education Act, 19211 and Uttar Pradesh High School and Intermediate College (Payment of Salaries of the Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 19712, are applicable on the institution. On the retirement of Sri Arat Nath Singh, Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade (Science) on 30 June 2011, and on the retirement of Srinath Singh, Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade (Social Science) on 30 June 2014, substantive vacancy occurred. The management sent requisition for both the posts on 1 July 2011 and 17 June 2015 respectively to the office of the third respondent-District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur3. The Selection Board did not recommend candidates, consequently, management advertised the vacancies of the aforesaid posts in daily news papers, Dainik Nispaksh Swatantra Rajvarta and Hindi Dainik Tejas on 25 June 2017. Pursuant thereof, petitioners applied. On the recommendation of Selection Committee, the Management passed resolution on 9 July 2017 issuing appointment letter to the petitioners on 10 July 2017. Petitioners, thereafter, joined their respective posts on 11 July 2017. Pursuant thereof, petitioners applied. On the recommendation of Selection Committee, the Management passed resolution on 9 July 2017 issuing appointment letter to the petitioners on 10 July 2017. Petitioners, thereafter, joined their respective posts on 11 July 2017. By the instant writ petition, petitioners seek the following reliefs: (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in suitable nature to District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur to take necessary decision to grant approval to the appointment of petitioners as Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade in Adarsh Inter College, Itaye, District Jaunpur. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to make regular payment of salary from the date of joining i.e. 11.07.2017 in favour of the petitioners. And further not to interfere in peaceful functioning of the petitioners as an Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) in the said institution. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that appointment of the petitioners have been made in terms of Section 16-E(11) of the Intermediate Act, therefore, petitioners are entitled to salary. Learned standing counsel would submit that there is no provision for adhoc appointment, therefore, appointment of the petitioners cannot be held to be valid under the Intermediate Act. The writ petition, on consent, is being decided at the admission stage without calling for counter affidavit as per Rules of the Court. The facts, inter se, parties is not in dispute. The question for determination, in the given facts, is as to whether the Management has a right to make adhoc appoint of a teacher other than Headmaster or Principal, in terms of sub-section (11) of Section 16-E of Intermediate Act; and whether the appointed teacher is entitled to salary under Act 1971. Under the Intermediate Act, as it was enacted, the power to make appointments of teachers of institutions was vested in the Committee of Management under sub-section (1) of Section 16-E. Sub-section (2) and the succeeding provisions of Section 16-E regulated the procedure for making of appointments by stipulating the intimation of vacancies to the Inspector, advertising of vacancies, the convening of a Selection Committee, the award of quality points by the Inspector and the preparation of the select list by the Selection Committee in order of preference. Sub-section (11) of Section 16-E specifically deals with appointments in the case of a temporary vacancy caused by the grant of leave to an incumbent not exceeding six months or in the case of death, termination or otherwise, of an incumbent occurring during an educational session. Under sub-section (11), it is stipulated that temporary vacancies of that nature would be filled up by direct recruitment or promotion without reference to the Selection Committee in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. Under the proviso to sub-section (11), it has been stipulated that no appointment which is made under this sub-section shall, in any case, continue beyond the end of the educational session during which the appointment was made. In other words, the end of the educational session is marked under sub-section (11) as the terminal date upon which an appointment which is made either by direct recruitment or by promotion against a temporary vacancy of the nature prescribed in sub-section (11) will cease to exist. The object of enacting the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 19824 was to deal with a situation where it was felt by the legislature that the selection of teachers under the provisions of the Intermediate Act, and its regulations had not been free and fair. The field of selection was restricted, which, in the view of the legislature, had adversely affected the availability of suitable teachers and the standards of education. Hence the Secondary Education Services Selection Board came to be constituted. Under the provisions of Section 16, it came to be stipulated that notwithstanding anything contained in the Intermediate Act, or the regulations made thereunder, every appointment of a teacher shall be made only on the recommendation of the Board by the management. The position that an appointment made otherwise than on the recommendation of the Board cannot be permissible is elucidated in sub-section (2) which provides that an appointment made in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be void. Prior to 1999, the matter relating to the selection and appointment of teachers on an ad hoc basis was provided for in various Removal of Difficulties Orders which were issued by the State Government. Prior to 1999, the matter relating to the selection and appointment of teachers on an ad hoc basis was provided for in various Removal of Difficulties Orders which were issued by the State Government. At that stage and particularly, in the absence of a detailed procedure for making ad hoc appointments under Section 18 of the Act of 1982, these Removal of Difficulties Orders governed the procedure for making ad hoc appointments against substantive vacancies or short term vacancies, as the case may be, respectively. In Radha Raizada Vs Committee of Management, Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter College and Ors.5, the Full Bench held that appointments which were made de hors the First and the Second Orders would be void ab initio and would not confer any right on the appointees to claim their salary. In Prabhat Kumar Sharma Vs State of Uttar Pradesh6, the Supreme Court upheld the view taken by the Full Bench of this Court in Radha Raizada (supra). Full Bench in Smt Pramila Mishra Vs Deputy Director of Education & Ors.7, held that it has been a well settled principle of law that a clear distinction has been maintained between a substantive vacancy and a short term vacancy on the post of a teacher, the Full Bench, while emphasizing this distinction, held that the procedure to be followed in making appointments and the considerations to be borne in mind in making such appointments in the two cases are distinct and different from each other. Finally, by U P Act 5 of 2001 with effect from 30 December 2000, adhoc appointment of teachers was done away with. The substituted provisions of Section 18, as they stand now, only provide for appointment of ad hoc Principals and Headmasters. In a recent decision of a Full Bench of txhis Court in Santosh Kumar Singh Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.8, it was held as follows: "19. Sub-section (11) of Section 16-E has thus made a specific provision in regard to appointments in the case of temporary vacancies caused by (i) the grant of leave to an incumbent for a period not exceeding six months; (ii) by death, termination or otherwise of an incumbent occurring during an educational session. Sub-section (11) of Section 16-E has thus made a specific provision in regard to appointments in the case of temporary vacancies caused by (i) the grant of leave to an incumbent for a period not exceeding six months; (ii) by death, termination or otherwise of an incumbent occurring during an educational session. The object of the provision is to ensure that where a temporary vacancy arises as a result of fortuitous circumstances, such as leave, death, termination or otherwise, the educational needs of students should not be disturbed. The purpose of making an arrangement in the case of a temporary vacancy is to protect the interest of education so that students are not left in the lurch by the absence of a teacher in the midst of an academic session. The proviso to sub-section (11), however, stipulates that an appointment which is made under the provisions of sub-section (11) shall, in no case, continue beyond the end of the educational session during which the appointment was made. .... .... ........ ...." While answering the reference, the Full Bench held that: "20. (c) Under Section 16-E of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the Committee of Management is empowered to make an appointment against a temporary vacancy caused by the grant of leave to an incumbent for a period not exceeding six months or in the case of death, termination or otherwise, of an incumbent occurring during an educational session. An appointment made under sub-section (11) of Section 16-E as provided in the proviso thereto shall, in any case, not continue beyond the end of educational session during which the appointment was made...." Now, it is in this background, that it would be necessary to elucidate the provisions of Act 1971. The expression 'teacher' in Section 2 (e) of the Act is defined to mean a Principal, Headmaster, or other teacher "in respect of whose employment" the maintenance grant is paid by the State Government to the institution. In other words, the definition of the expression 'teacher' is related to the person in respect of whose employment the maintenance grant is paid. The definition relates not to the post as much as the person in respect of whose employment the maintenance grant is paid. The issue before the Court in Abhishek Tripathi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh through Secy. The definition relates not to the post as much as the person in respect of whose employment the maintenance grant is paid. The issue before the Court in Abhishek Tripathi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh through Secy. Secondary Education, Lko, & Ors.9, was whether a writ of mandamus can, as a matter of first principle, be issued for directing the payment of salary by the State to a teacher appointed without complying with mandatory legal provisions. The Court held as follows: ".... .... .... The second important legislative development is Section 33- E as a result of which, the Removal of Difficulties Orders came to be rescinded. In consequence, and founded on the principle, it has been laid down by the Division Bench in Daya Shankar Mishra (supra) and by the Full Bench in Santosh Kumar Singh (supra), that any appointment to a temporary vacancy would have to meet the requirements as spelt out in Section 16-E (11) of the Intermediate Education Act 1921 and the regulations framed thereunder. There is no other source of power or provision that would enable the management to make an appointment where the field is completely regulated by the aforesaid statutory provisions." Learned standing counsel would submit that the decision rendered in Abhishek Tripathi (supra), has been stayed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the interim order would have no bearing insofar as it relates to the payment of salary of a teacher appointed by the Management in terms of sub-section 11 of Section 16-E. In Santosh Kumar Singh (supra), it has been held that in the event of the institution being deprived of teachers, the students shall suffer irreparable loss and injury, which would violate their fundamental right under Article 21-A of the Constitution of India and under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. Abhishek Tripathi (supra) does recognizes the right of the management to make temporary appointment under sub-section 11, which is the only source of power left with the Management to make adhoc appointment. Abhishek Tripathi (supra) does recognizes the right of the management to make temporary appointment under sub-section 11, which is the only source of power left with the Management to make adhoc appointment. Learned standing counsel, however, would not dispute that Management shall have right and authority to make appointment of teachers for eleven months in terms of Section 16-E(11) against substantive vacancies in an academic session or for the period of absence of a teacher against short term vacancy, which, in any event shall not exceed eleven months in an academic session. For such an appointment, teacher would be entitled to salary under the Act 1971. The Act of 1982 prohibits the Management from making appointment on substantive vacancy. 'Vacancy' and 'substantive appointment' has been defined under the various Rules10/11 framed thereunder. Section 16 begins with a non obstante clause, thereby, making all appointments in contravention of Act of 1982 void. Substantive appointment defined under the Rules framed under Act of 1982 does not include adhoc appointment. Section 32 provides that the provisions of Intermediate Act and Regulations framed thereunder, insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of Act of 1982 or Rules or Regulations framed thereunder shall continue to be inforce for the purpose of selection, appointment, promotion etc. of a teacher. On a plain reading of the provisions, it is clearly inferable that the Management continues to have power and authority to make appointment, temporary/adhoc under sub-section (11) of Section 16-E of Intermediate Act for a period not exceeding eleven months. The salary of such teachers insofar it pertains to the institutions under the grant-in-aid would necessarily have to be borne by the State under the Act 1971. In the circumstances, the third respondent-District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur, shall consider the representation of the petitioners for according approval as Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade, thereafter, shall pass appropriate orders with regard to their entitlement to salary. It is clarified that the third respondent while granting approval shall record in the order that the appointment is under Section 16-E(11) and would not exceed 11 months in the academic session. In the event of a regular teacher not being appointed, during the said period, in that event, the term of the teacher shall be renewed on the recommendation of the Management. With the aforesaid directions, writ petition is disposed of." 8. In the event of a regular teacher not being appointed, during the said period, in that event, the term of the teacher shall be renewed on the recommendation of the Management. With the aforesaid directions, writ petition is disposed of." 8. In Sushil Kumar Yadav (supra) this Court was dealing with a case where substantive vacancy had arisen during a previous educational session and was already notified to the Board for direct recruitment. After considering the law on the subject a direction has been issued by this Court to the Inspector to accord approval to the appointment made by the Committee of Management under section 16-E(11). Such appointment is to be for a maximum period of 11 months and shall be renewed, on the recommendation of Management if regular teacher is not appointed. According to the petitioners, they are similarly placed as the petitioner in in the case of Sushil KumarYadav (supra) and are therefore entitled to same benefit. 9. In order to appreciate the controversy it would be necessary to refer to the relevant statutory provisions operating in the field. Section 16-E of the Act of 1921 provides for procedure for selection of Teachers and Head of the institutions. Sub-section (11) of section 16-E, which is the subject matter of scrutiny provides as under:- "16-E(11). Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing sub-sections, appointments in the case of a temporary vacancy caused by the grant of leave to an incumbent for a period not exceeding six months or by death, termination or otherwise of an incumbent occurring during an educational session, may be made by direct recruitment or promotion without reference to the Selection Committee in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed: Provided that no appointment made under this sub-section shall, in any case, continue beyond the end of the educational session during which such appointment was made." 10. Section 16-E(11) contemplates direct appointment or promotion without reference to the selection committee, on a specified nature of temporary vacancy, in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. Term prescribed has been defined under section 2(c) of the Act of 1921 in following words:- "2. Definitions.- .............. (c) "Prescribed" means prescribed by regulations;" 11. Section 16-E(11) contemplates direct appointment or promotion without reference to the selection committee, on a specified nature of temporary vacancy, in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. Term prescribed has been defined under section 2(c) of the Act of 1921 in following words:- "2. Definitions.- .............. (c) "Prescribed" means prescribed by regulations;" 11. Prior to the enactment of Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1982', or 1982 Act'), the procedure for selection of Teachers and Head of the institution was provided for by the Act of 1921 and the rules and regulations framed thereunder. The situation, however, changed with the advent of 1982 Act. Act of 1982 was promulgated to establish 'Secondary Education Service Selection Board' for the selection of Teachers (which term also includes the Head of Institution), in institutions recognized under the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Section 3 of 1982 Act provides for establishment of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Selection Board. Procedure for selection by direct recruitment was specified in Section 10 while procedure for selection by promotion got specified under Section 12. Section 16 provides for appointment to be made only on the recommendations of the Board. By virtue of Sub-section (2) thereof, any appointment made in contravention of Sub-section (1) of Section 16 was to be void. Section 16 of the 1982 Act is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- "16. Appointments to be made only on the recommendations of the Board. Section 16 provides for appointment to be made only on the recommendations of the Board. By virtue of Sub-section (2) thereof, any appointment made in contravention of Sub-section (1) of Section 16 was to be void. Section 16 of the 1982 Act is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- "16. Appointments to be made only on the recommendations of the Board. - (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or the regulations made thereunder but subject to the provisions of] [Sections 12, 18, 21-B, 21-C, 21-D, 21-E, 21-F, 33, 33-A, 33-B, 33-C, 33-D and 33-F], every appointment of a teacher shall on or after the date of the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board (Amendment) Act, 2001 be made by the Management only on the recommendation of the Board: Provided that in respect of retrenched employees, the provisions of Section 16-EE of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, shall mutatis mutandis apply: Provided further that the appointment of a teacher by transfer from one Institution to another may be made in accordance with the regulations made under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 16-G of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 : [Provided also that the dependent of a teacher or other employee of an Institution dying-in-harness who possess the qualifications prescribed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 may be appointed as teacher in Trained Graduate's Grade in accordance with the regulations made under sub-section (4) of Section 9 of the said Act. (2) Any appointment made in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be void." 12. Although power to appoint ad hoc teachers initially existed under Section 18 of the 1982 Act, but after its amendment vide Uttar Pradesh Act No.5 of 2001 w.e.f. 30.12.2000, such adhoc appointment got restricted to the post of Principal or Headmaster alone. Section 35 of the 1982 Act also confers power upon the State Government to make rules, by notification, for carrying out the purposes of the Act. Rules, therefore, have been framed from time to time. Presently the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Selection Board Rules, 1998 are in vogue. Prior to it the rules made in 1995 held the field. 'Substantive appointment' and 'vacancy' have been defined both under the Rules of 1995 and 1998 in similar terms. Rules, therefore, have been framed from time to time. Presently the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Selection Board Rules, 1998 are in vogue. Prior to it the rules made in 1995 held the field. 'Substantive appointment' and 'vacancy' have been defined both under the Rules of 1995 and 1998 in similar terms. Rule 2(d) & (e) of 1998 Rules define 'substantive appointment' and 'vacancy' and are reproduced hereinafter:- "2. Definitions.- ......... (d) "Substantive Appointment" means an appointment, not being an ad hoc appointment, on the post of a teacher made in accordance with the provisions in the Act and the rules thereunder and includes the appointments regularized under Section 33-A or 33-B or 33-C; (e) "Vacancy" means a vacancy arising out as a result of death, retirement, resignation, termination, dismissal or removal of a teacher or creation of new post or appointment or promotion of the incumbent to any higher post in a substantive capacity." 13. The Act of 1982 read with Rules of 1998 clearly provide for procedure for making direct recruitment only on the recommendation of the Board, in the manner prescribed, and any appointment made in contravention thereof shall be void. 14. The provisions contained under Section 16-E providing for selection to the post of teacher and head of institution seized to operate to the extent such field got occupied by the Act of 1982. This is particularly so, as the Act of 1982 is a subsequent legislation and expressly overrides the provisions of the Act of 1921 to the extent they are inconsistent with 1982 Act. Sub-section (11) of Section 16-E provides for procedure for selection of Teachers and Head of the institution in case where temporary vacancy is caused by the grant of leave to an incumbent, for a period not exceeding six months or by death, termination or otherwise, during an educational session. It is only in respect of a contingency not otherwise covered by the Act of 1982 and as specified in Sub-section (11) of section 16-E that power exists with the Committee of Management to make appointment. A harmonious construction of Section 16 of 1982 Act and Section 16-E of 1921 Act would arguably demonstrate that sub-section (11) of Section 16-E is in the nature of an exception to the Act of 1982. It only regulates a field not covered by the Act of 1982. 15. A harmonious construction of Section 16 of 1982 Act and Section 16-E of 1921 Act would arguably demonstrate that sub-section (11) of Section 16-E is in the nature of an exception to the Act of 1982. It only regulates a field not covered by the Act of 1982. 15. Being in the nature of exception, the stipulation in Sub-section (11) will have to be strictly construed. The temporary vacancy referred to in Sub-section (11) is hedged by the expression "occurring during an educational session". The appointment to be made against such vacancy necessarily would not last beyond six months in case of leave, and in any other case would not continue beyond the educational session, during which such appointment was made. The provision, therefore, regulates accrual of temporary vacancy and its filling up during the educational session alone. Thus the meaning of term 'educational session' which has been specifically defined acquires relevance. 16. In case substantive vacancy occurring in previous educational session is allowed to be filled up by the Committee of Management, by invoking powers under Section 16-E(11), then such appointment would apparently come in conflict with the Act of 1982 and incur the wrath of Section 16(2) of the 1982 Act. Although scheme of the Act of 1921 as well as the Act of 1982 have been noticed in Sushil Kumar Yadav (supra), but the limits of Section 16-E(11) have not been specifically addressed, particularly in areas covered by the Act of 1982. In Sushil Kumar Yadav (supra) also, the vacancies had occurred in 2011 and 2015 and had been notified to the Board under section 10 of 1982 Act. Such substantive vacancies apparently were covered by the Act of 1982. The question as to whether appointment by Committee of Management against such post would be hit by Section 16(2) of the 1982 Act or not, has not been dealt with. 17. The nature of vacancy which would be covered under section 16-E(11) has been specified in the provision itself. The issue has been lucidly explained in a bunch of writ petitions with leading case being Service Single No.6978 of 2015, Shailendra Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, decided on 8.2.2016. Petitioners therein had been appointed by the Committee of Management as teachers and were claiming approval under section 16-E(11) of the Act. The issue has been lucidly explained in a bunch of writ petitions with leading case being Service Single No.6978 of 2015, Shailendra Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, decided on 8.2.2016. Petitioners therein had been appointed by the Committee of Management as teachers and were claiming approval under section 16-E(11) of the Act. Reliance was placed upon the observations made in Rakesh Chandra Mishra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in 2004 (3) UPLBEC 2671 as upheld in Daya Shanker Mishra vs. DIOS and others reported in 2010 (28) LCD 1375. The observations in Shailendra Kumar (supra) are extracted hereinafter:- "In view of the above pronouncement, appointment against temporary vacancy in terms of Section 16-E (11) of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (For short 'the Intermediate Act, 1921') can be made only till the end of academic session meaning thereby such appointments can be made in the academic session in which the vacancy arises thereby creating a corresponding need for such appointment till the end of the academic session and not beyond that. Thus, appointment under Section 16-E (11) of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Act, 1921 can not be made in a subsequent academic session. Apart from an appointment against a temporary vacancy caused on account of leave of an incumbent for a period not exceeding six months, appointment in the case of a vacancy caused by 'death, termination or otherwise' of an incumbent during an educational session is also permissible under Section 16-E(11) of the Act 1921, with the rider that such appointments shall not in any case continue beyond another educational session during which such appointment was made. Purport of the word 'or otherwise' has not been considered in any of the pronouncements referred to hereinabove and no such pronouncement has been placed before the Court by either of the parties wherein it may have been considered. As in the present case, most of the vacancies have arisen on account of retirement or promotion of the incumbent, which is not specifically mentioned in Section 16-E(11) of the Act, therefore, it is necessary to consider the purport and meaning of the words 'or otherwise' so as to determine the applicability of Rules 16-F (11) as has been pressed by the petitioners. Etymologically, the word 'otherwise' as per Black's Law Dictionary means "in a different manner; in another way; or in other ways". Etymologically, the word 'otherwise' as per Black's Law Dictionary means "in a different manner; in another way; or in other ways". The word 'other' has been defined in the same dictionary to mean "different or distinct from that already mentioned; additional, or further, "following an enumeration of particular classes "other" must be read as "other such like" and includes only others of like kind and character." The use of words 'death or termination' is indicative of the fortuitous circumstances giving rise to the vacancy referred in the provision. In the pronouncements of this Court referred and quoted hereinabove it has already been said that the object of Section 16-E(11) is to ensure that where a temporary vacancy arises as a result of fortuitous circumstances, such as leave, death, termination or otherwise, the educational needs of students should not be disturbed, therefore, the aforesaid provision caters to the need created by fortuitous circumstances. The word 'Fortuitous' is defined in Black's Law Dictionary to mean "happening by chance or accident. Occurring unexpectedly, or without known cause, Accidental; undesigned; adventitious. Resulting from unavoidable physical causes". Vacancies on account of Death and Termination cannot be anticipated. They are based on fortuitous circumstances. The rule of Ejusdem generis is that words of a general nature following specific and particular words should be construed as limited to things which are of the same nature as those specified. This rule is not to be applied where the context manifests a contrary intention. In the present case the context is the provision contained in Section 16-E(11) of the Act providing for filling up of temporary vacancies and those of a fortuitous nature other than the vacancies which are to be filled up substantively under other provisions. Death and termination also creates a substantive vacancy but they are distinct from other substantive vacancies as they are fortuitous. They cannot be anticipated or known before hand nor pre-determined, therefore, they have been included under sub section 11 for being filled up temporarily in keeping with the object of the said provision. Applying the principle of Ejusdem generis the general word "otherwise" is to be understood by giving a restricted meaning limited to matters of the same class, category or genus as the specific words preceding it. Applying the principle of Ejusdem generis the general word "otherwise" is to be understood by giving a restricted meaning limited to matters of the same class, category or genus as the specific words preceding it. The principle underlying this approach to statutory is that the subsequent general words were only intended to guard against some accidental omission in the objects of the kind mentioned earlier and were not intended to extend to objects of a wholly different kind. The specific words preceding the general word "or otherwise" i.e. death and termination can be placed under a common category indicative of vacancies arising out of fortuitous circumstances, therefore, the general word "otherwise" following the specific words death and termination has to be read and understood as indicative of other vacancies which may also arise fortuitously such as resignation etc. If the word "otherwise" is given a wide meaning so as to include all other kinds of vacancies it will render the very provision of section 16-E (11) nugatory being contrary to its very object and the spirit underlying it. If this was the intention then there was no necessity of using the words death or termination, therefore, it has to be understood as referring to other vacancies of similar nature i.e. fortuitous vacancies. This is in consonance with the object of the provision as explained by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Santosh Kumar (Supra). A vacancy created by retirement is a substantive vacancy which is not fortuitous in nature. It can be anticipated and in fact is pre-determinable, therefore, against such vacancies appointments can not be made under Section 16-E(11) of the Act but can only be made under Section 16 of the Act, 1982, afortori because of Regulations of 21 of the Regulations made under Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Act 1921 under which a teacher who attains the age of superannuation in the midst of an academic session is entitled to continue till the end of the session. Likewise a vacancy created by promotion can also not be said to be purely fortuitous, as, it can, in a given situation, very well be anticipated. Moreover it does not create absence of a teacher in the institution which is also one of the consequences of a vacancy arising out of death or termination. Likewise a vacancy created by promotion can also not be said to be purely fortuitous, as, it can, in a given situation, very well be anticipated. Moreover it does not create absence of a teacher in the institution which is also one of the consequences of a vacancy arising out of death or termination. On promotion the teacher is very much available in the institution and he can also teach the lower classes if the need arises, therefore, the said vacancy is not covered by the aforesaid provision of Section 16-E(11). The provision does not evince any contrary intention so as to allow substantive vacancies, which are not of a fortuitous nature, to be filled under the said provision. In the case of an appointment against temporary vacancy in terms of Section 16-E(11) of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Act, 1921 a teacher may be entitled for salary but only till the end of academic session and not beyond that, that too, only if the appointment is against a post sanctioned/created as per Section 9 of the Uttar Pradesh High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act 1971). After analyzing the scheme operating, the learned Single Judge negatived the plea of petitioners in the following words:- "In Writ Petition No. 7436(SS) of 2015 the vacancy on account of leave allegedly arose on 30.06.2012, however, the advertisement for filling up the same was issued on 26.09.2014 by the Committee of Management. Clearly the appointment has not been made as per the relevant statutory provisions referred above. As far as, application of Section 16-E(11) of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Act 1921 is concerned, the vacancy having arisen on 30.06.2012 appointment against the same could not have been made towards the end of 2014 for the reasons already mentioned herein above as also indicated in the Full Bench decision in Santosh Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in 2015 (33) LCD 2402 , therefore, the said appointment is also de-hors the statutory provisions and the rules made thereunder including Section 16-E(11), consequently, no direction for payment of salary from the State Exchequer can be issued. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in 2015 (33) LCD 2402 , therefore, the said appointment is also de-hors the statutory provisions and the rules made thereunder including Section 16-E(11), consequently, no direction for payment of salary from the State Exchequer can be issued. As far as the Writ Petition No. 7425(SS) of 2015 is concerned, the appointment has not been made by the Board in terms of statutory provisions nor is it against a sanctioned post as has been categorically mentioned in the order dated 17.12.2012 which is impugned in this writ petition, therefore, no direction for the payment of salary can be issued. In Writ Petition No. 6978(SS) of 2015 the vacancies are said to have arisen in the year in 2011, 2013 and lastly on 30.06.2014 on account of retirement against one of which the sole petitioner is said to have been appointed on 22.06.2015, in pursuance to which he submitted his joining on 01.07.2015 i.e. in the next academic session, therefore, clearly the appointment can not be sustained under the Statutory Provisions and rules made thereunder including Section 16-E (11) of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Act 1921, as, even under the latter provision such appointment could not be made against a substantive vacancy arising on account of retirement. Even if it could the appointment should have been given effect during the academic session in which the vacancy arose whereas the petitioner admittedly joined on 01.07.2015 i.e. after the end of academic session on 30.06.2015 as per the earlier definition of the academic session, consequently, no direction for payment of salary from the State Exchequer can be issued. In Writ petition No. 6979(SS) of 2015 a substantive vacancy is said to have arisen on 01.07.2013 on account of retirement of the incumbent against which the Managing Committee is said to have made the appointment as a short term measure on 27.08.2015. Clearly the appointment is de-hors the Statutory Provisions and Rules made thereunder, including Section 16-E (11) of the Intermediate Act, 1921, therefore, no direction for payment of salary from the State Exchequer can be issued. In Writ Petition No. 7302(SS) of 2015 a substantive vacancy is said to have arisen in June, 2015 on account of retirement. The appointment has been made by the Committee of Management on 28.10.2015, in pursuance to which the petitioner is said to have joined on 02.11.2015. In Writ Petition No. 7302(SS) of 2015 a substantive vacancy is said to have arisen in June, 2015 on account of retirement. The appointment has been made by the Committee of Management on 28.10.2015, in pursuance to which the petitioner is said to have joined on 02.11.2015. Clearly the appointment is de-hors the Statutory Provisions and Rules made thereunder, including Section 16-E (11) of the Intermediate Act, 1921, therefore, no direction for payment of salary from the State Exchequer can be issued." The judgment in Shailendra Kumar (supra) apparently has not been placed before the Court in Sushil Kumar Yadav (supra). 18. Any appointment made under section 16-E(11) partakes character of public employment inasmuch as salary to teachers are paid by the State Exchequer. The procedure for engagement, therefore, has to be fair and transparent so as to meet the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Any direct recruitment, even on temporary basis, must be made by advertising the post in at least two well known newspapers having wide circulation, by specifying the nature of vacancy. It must also be specified in the advertisement that such appointment would come to an end with the conclusion of academic session itself. This would be a legal necessity keeping in view the observations made by the Larger Bench of this Court in Radha Raizada and others Vs. Committee of Management, Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter College and others, reported in 1994 (3) UPLBEC 1551 , which lays down that even ad hoc appointment can be made only after the vacancies are advertised in two newspapers. 19. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to take note of the Larger Bench judgment of this Court in Santosh Kumar Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in 2015 (33) LCD 2402 , which has been relied upon in Sushil Kumar Yadav (supra). The reference to Larger Bench was necessitated on account of rescission of removal of difficulties order by section 33-E of the 1982 Act w.e.f. 25.1.1999. The question before the Larger Bench was as to whether the Committee of Management has lost all powers to make appointment against short term vacancy or the Committee of Management could make appointment with reference to Section 16-E(11), and if so, then for what period. The question before the Larger Bench was as to whether the Committee of Management has lost all powers to make appointment against short term vacancy or the Committee of Management could make appointment with reference to Section 16-E(11), and if so, then for what period. After noticing the provision contained in Sub-section (11) of Section 16-E, the Larger Bench in Santosh Kumar Singh (supra) observed as under:- "Sub-section (11) of Section 16-E has thus made a specific provision in regard to appointments in the case of temporary vacancies caused by (i) the grant of leave to an incumbent for a period not exceeding six months; or (ii) by death, termination or otherwise of an incumbent occurring during an educational session. The object of the provision is to ensure that where a temporary vacancy arises as a result of fortuitous circumstances, such as leave, death, termination or otherwise, the educational needs of students should not be disturbed. The purpose of making an arrangement in the case of a temporary vacancy is to protect the interest of education so that students are not left in the lurch by the absence of a teacher in the midst of an academic session. The proviso to sub-section (11), however, stipulates that an appointment which is made under the provisions of sub-section (11) shall, in no case, continue beyond the end of the educational session during which the appointment was made. The proviso is intended to ensure that the purpose of appointment against a temporary vacancy caused due to the absence of a teacher in the midst of an academic session is met by continuing the appointment during and until the end of the academic session but not further. This is a provision which has been made by the state legislature in its legislating wisdom. The statutory provision provides both for the circumstances in which a temporary vacancy can be filled up and the length of an appointment made against a temporary vacancy. The difficulty which arises is because the Board, which has been constituted under the Act, does not fulfill its mandate of promptly selecting teachers for regular appointment. The District Inspector of Schools is in possession of necessary factual data in regard to the dates of appointment and retirement of teachers of aided institutions. This can be summoned by the Board even if the management does not comply with its duty to intimate vacancies. The District Inspector of Schools is in possession of necessary factual data in regard to the dates of appointment and retirement of teachers of aided institutions. This can be summoned by the Board even if the management does not comply with its duty to intimate vacancies. There can be no justification for the Board not to discharge its duties with dispatch and expedition. This is liable to result in a situation where the educational needs of students are seriously disturbed due to the unavailability of duly selected teachers. Ad hoc appointments in temporary vacancies also cause a state of uncertainty for teachers and lay them open to grave exploitation at the hands of certain managements of educational institutions. Thus, considering the matter both from the perspective of the interest of education as well as the welfare of teachers, it is necessary that the Board must take due and proper steps well in advance of an anticipated vacancy to initiate the process of selection. Similarly, the State Government would do well to streamline the procedure for making appointments in respect of temporary vacancies consistent with the mandate of Section 16-E (11) so that, while the interest of students is protected, the teachers are not exposed to exploitation. We consequently answer the reference in the following terms: (a) Despite the rescission of the Removal of Difficulties Orders by Section 33-E of U P Act No 13 of 1999 with effect from 25 January 1999, the power of the Committee of Management to make appointments against short term vacancies, where the process of appointment had been initiated prior to 25 January 1999 by the publication of an advertisement, would continue to be preserved; (b) On the enforcement of the provisions of Section 33-E, the power of a Committee of Management to make ad hoc appointments against short term vacancies would not stand abrogated in a case where the process of selection had been initiated prior to 25 January 1999; (c) Under Section 16-E of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the Committee of Management is empowered to make an appointment against a temporary vacancy caused by the grant of leave to an incumbent for a period not exceeding six months or in the case of death, termination or otherwise, of an incumbent occurring during an educational session. An appointment made under sub-section (11) of Section 16-E as provided in the proviso thereto shall, in any case, not continue beyond the end of educational session during which the appointment was made; and (d) The judgment of the Division Bench in Subhash Chandra Tripathi (supra) is affirmed as laying down a correct interpretation of the judgment in A A Calton (supra). The reference to the Full Bench is answered in the aforesaid terms. The special appeal shall now be placed before the appropriate Bench for disposal in the light of this judgment." 20. It is also necessary to notice that appointment under Sub-section (11) has to be made in the manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. The expression "prescribed" is defined under Section 2(c) of the Act of 1921 to mean prescribed by regulations. Although Chapter II of the regulations contained regulations corresponding to section 16-E, but there is no specific contemplation providing for the manner and conditions for making appointment under section 16-E(11). The Larger Bench in Santosh Kumar Singh (supra) was conscious of the fact that procedure for making appointment in respect of temporary appointment under Section 16-E(11) had not been prescribed, and therefore, the State Government was directed to stream line the procedure so that the interest of students is protected and teachers are not exposed to exploitation. The Larger Bench in Santosh Kumar Singh (supra) was conscious of the fact that procedure for making appointment in respect of temporary appointment under Section 16-E(11) had not been prescribed, and therefore, the State Government was directed to stream line the procedure so that the interest of students is protected and teachers are not exposed to exploitation. It appears that taking note of such observation, the State Government has issued a Government Order dated 26.10.2017 regulating the procedure for such appointment, which is reproduced hereunder:- ^^la[;k&1887@15&12&2017&1600¼342½@2017 izs"kd] lat; vxzoky vij eq[; lfpo] mRrj izns'k 'kklu lsok esa] f'k{kk funs'kd] ek/;fed m0iz0 y[kuÅA y[kuÅ fnukad&26 vDVwcj 2017 fo"k; %& m0iz0 ek/;fed f'k{kk lsok p;u cksMZ ls p;fur vH;FkhZ ds vkus vFkok 01 tqykbZ ls 20 ebZ rd dh lekfIr tks Hkh igys ?kfVr gks] rd ds fy, v'kkldh; lgk;rk izkIr ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa esa fjDr lgk;d v/;kid ,oa izoDrk ds inksa ij lsokfuo`Rr lgk;d v/;kidksa ,oa izoDrkvksa ls] tks okf"kZd 'kSf{kd l= 01 tqykbZ ls ebZ esa xzh"ekodk'k ?kksf"kr gksus rd dh vof/k esa 70 o"kZ dh vk;q iw.kZ u dj jgs gks] dks ekuns; ij f'k{k.k dk;Z fy;s tkus ds lEcU/k esaA egksn;] 1& mi;qZDr fo"k;d d`i;k vius i=kad f'kfoj@14832@2017&18 fnukad 25 flrEcj 2017 dk lanHkZ xzg.k dj tks v'kkldh; lgk;rk izkIr ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa esa fjDr lgk;d v/;kid ,oa izoDrk ds inksa ij lsokfuo`Rr lgk;d v/;kidksa ,oa izoDrkvksa ls tks okf"kZd 'kSf{kd l= 31 tqykbZ ls ebZ esa xzh"ekodk'k ?kksf"kr gksus rd dh vof/k esa 70 o"kZ dh vk;q iw.kZ u dj jg gks dks ekuns; ij f'k{k.k dk;Z fy;s tkus ds laca/k esa gSA 2& bl laca/k esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funsZ'k gqvk gS fd lE;d fopkjksijkUr Nk=@Nk=kvksa ds izHkkfor v/;;u ds n`f"Vxr mRrj izns'k ek/;fed f'k{kk vf/kfu;e 1921 ¼;Fkkla'kksf/kr½ dh /kkjk bZ&11 esa fd;s x;s izko/kku ds vkyksd esa lgk;d v/;kid@izoDrk ds vkdfLed fu/ku] lsokP;qr fd;s tkus ;k lsokfuo`fRr ds QyLo:i in fjDr gksus dh fLFkfr esa vYidkfyd O;oLFkk ds varxZr m0iz0 ek/;fed f'k{kk lsok p;u cksMZ ls p;fur vH;FkhZ vkus vFkok 01 tqykbZ ls xzh"dkodk'k gksus dh vof/k rd tks Hkh igys ?kfVr gks rd ds fy, v'kkldh; lgk;rk izkIr ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa esa fjDr lgk;d v/;kid ,oa izoDrk ds inksa ij lsokfuo`Rr lgk;d v/;kidksa ,oa izoDrkvksa ls tks 70 o"kZ dh vk;q iw.kZ u dj jgk gks] ls vkosnu izkIr dj lsokfuo`Rr izoDrkvksa dks :i;s 20 gtkj izfrekg ,oa lgk;d v/;kidksa dks :i;s 15 gtkj izfrekg ds ekuns; ij oSdfYid O;oLFkk vUrxZr muls f'k{k.k dk;Z fy;s tkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSA 3& lsokfuo`Rr lgk;d@v/;kid@izoDrkvksa ds ewy xBu gsrq ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd }kjk lsokfuo`Rr lgk;d v/;kid@izoDrkvksa ls izR;sd o"kZ 01 vizSy ls 20 viSzy rd vkosnu i= vkeaf=r dj iwy dk xBu fd;k tk;sxkA orZeku 'kSf{kd l= 2017&18 pWwfd izkjEHk gks pqdk gS vr% bl gsrq p;u rRdky izHkko ls izkjEHk fd;k tk;sxkA tuin Lrj ij lsokfuo`Rr lgk;d v/;kid@izoDrkvksa iwy dks ek/;fed f'k{kk ifj"kn] m0iz0 dh osclkbV ij Hkh iznf'kZr fd;k tk;sxk rFkk tuin esa fdlh Hkh fo|ky; esa lgk;d v/;kid@izoDrk dh vYidkfyd :i ls tc dHkh vko';d gksxh izcU/kd@izcU/k lfefr dh ekax ij ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd }kjk ewy ls f'k{k.k dk;Z gsrq lsokfuo`Rr lgk;d v/;kid@izoDrk miyC/k djk;k tk;sxk vkSj bu f'k{kdksa dh fu;qfDr dk vuqeksnu lacaf/kr ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd }kjk fd;k tk;sxkA ,sls lsokfuo`fRr lgk;d v/;kid@izoDrk 'kSf{kd l= ds chp esa laLFkk esa dk;Z ij yxk;s tkus ds i'pkr xzh"ekodk'k izkjEHk gksus rd dk;Z djsaxs rFkk 'kklu }kjk vuqeU; ekuns; dk Hkqxrku ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd }kjk fd;k tk;sxkA vr% d`i;k mijksDrkuqlkj dk;Zokgh lqfuf'pr djus dk d"V djsaA Hkonh; g-vLi"V ¼lat; vxzoky½ vij eq[; lfpoA^^ 21. The aforesaid Government Order apparently is referable to Section 9(4) of the Act of 1921. Section 9 of the Act of 1921 confers power upon the State Government which includes power to make regulation under sub-section (4). Section 9(4) of 1921 Act is extracted hereunder:- "9(4) Whenever, in the opinion of the State Government, it is necessary or expedient to take immediate action, it may, without making any reference to the Board under the foregoing provisions, pass such order or take such other action consistent with the provisions of this Act as it deems necessary, and in particular, may by such order modify or rescind or make any regulation in respect of any matter and shall forthwith inform the Board accordingly." 22. Power to make regulation is specifically conferred upon the State Government and once appointment under Section 16-E(11) is to be made in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, the State Government would be justified in specifying the manner and conditions for making appointments under Section 16-E(11). There is otherwise no challenge to the Government Order dated 26th October, 2017. In view of the Government Order dated 26th October, 2017, the Committee of Management can make appointment from the pool of retired teachers and not by way of direct recruitment. It appears that attention of the Court was not drawn to Government Order dated 26th October, 2017 in Sushil Kumar Yadav (supra). 23. Having examined the scheme of two Acts i.e. Act of 1921 and Act of 1982, I am of the opinion that a substantive vacancy, already notified to the Commission in a previous educational session cannot be filled by the Committee of Management exercising powers under Section 16-E(11) of the Act of 1921. With utmost respect, I have not been able to persuade myself to follow the view taken by the Learned Single Judge in Sushil Kumar Yadav (supra), which otherwise according to me is in conflict with the judgment delivered in Shailendra Kumar (supra). With utmost respect, I have not been able to persuade myself to follow the view taken by the Learned Single Judge in Sushil Kumar Yadav (supra), which otherwise according to me is in conflict with the judgment delivered in Shailendra Kumar (supra). As large number of appointments by way of direct recruitment are being made by the Committee of Management exercising powers under Section 16-E(11), and writ petitions are being filed for direction to the State to pay salary to such petitioners, it would be appropriate that the issue be examined by a Larger Bench to be constituted by the Hon'ble Chief Justice to answer the following questions:- (i) Whether substantive vacancy occurring in an educational institution recognized under the Act of 1921, particularly in a previous academic session, which has already been notified to the Board under section 10 of the Act of 1982 could be filled by the Committee of Management by resorting to section 16-E(11) of the Act of 1921? (ii) Whether the Government Order dated 26th October, 2017 is to be treated as a regulation referable to section 9(4) of the Act of 1921, requiring appointments under section 16-E(11) to be made in the manner and subject to the conditions specified therein? (iii) Whether the direction issued by the learned Single Judge in Sushil Kumar Yadav (supra) is in conflict with the view taken by another Single Judge in Shailendra Kumar (supra)? 24. Having referred the questions for its authoritative pronouncement by a Larger Bench, I am persuaded to make the following observations with the intent to aid the Larger Bench on a subject of vital significance. Although the State Government had enacted the Act of 1982 and Board has been established, but it is a matter of common knowledge that direct recruitment by the Board is stalled for the last many years. Directions in Sushil Kumar Yadav (supra) apparently were issued realizing the ground reality that Board has not been able to perform and the cause of education is suffering. Directions in Sushil Kumar Yadav (supra) apparently were issued realizing the ground reality that Board has not been able to perform and the cause of education is suffering. A Division Bench of this Court in Abhishek Tripathi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh decided on 17.12.2015 had also taken note of the concern in this regard and observed as under:- "This Court in repeated judgments has drawn the attention of the State to the need to streamline the procedures in a line of precedent from this Court culminating in the judgment of the Full Bench in Santosh Kumar Singh (supra). The observations of this Court shall be taken up by the State with a sense of the highest priority and with all seriousness to ensure that a situation does not emerge where vacancies of a substantive nature are left unfilled over a long period of time to the detriment of education. The State Government must take up the matter with necessary alacrity and immediacy." 25. It is a matter of concern that State has not responded in the manner as was expected of it resulting in adverse consequences for the cause of education and public interest itself. The Court is informed that even the quorum of Board is not complete for the last many months, on account of which regular recruitment is not taking place. It is high time that the State must take note of it and address the situation. This Court shall be failing in its duty, if adequate directions are not issued to the State Government, forthwith, to constitute the Board and to take immediate steps to fill up vacancies already notified to it, within the shortest possible time. The Chief Standing Counsel is, therefore, directed to apprise the concern of the Court to the Chief Secretary, State of U.P., as well as Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Secondary Education so as to take immediate action in that regard. The Chief Secretary of the State shall accord priority to the issue raised hereinabove and shall file his personal affidavit within four weeks enumerating the manner in which the State proposes to make the Board functional and carry out the obligations imposed by the Act of 1982. Such affidavit shall be filed before this Court when the matter is listed next.