JUDGMENT : Sudhir Agarwal, J. A Division Bench, noticing conflict in Division Bench judgments in Surendra Kumar Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and others, (2007) 1 ESC 118 (All.)(DB); Raj Kumar Verma and others vs. District Inspector of Schools, Saharanpur and others, (1999) 2 UPLBEC 1420 ; District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar and others vs. Diwakar Lal and others, (2000) 3 ESC 1670(All.); Smt. Shashi Saxena and others vs. Deputy Director of Education and others, (2000) 3 ESC 1990 (All.); Raghuvendra Babu Misra vs. District Inspector of Schools, Etah and others, (2002) 3 ESC 68 and also that the Full Bench in Smt. Pramila Mishra vs. Deputy Director of Education, Jhansi Division, Jhansi and others, (1997) 2 UPLBEC 1329 has not considered legislative intent reflected by insertion of Section 33-B in U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Boards Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1982"), vide order dated 11.09.2018, referred following questions to be answered by a Larger Bench: "(a) Whether an ad-hoc appointee, appointed against a short term vacancy, would automatically cease to be in employment upon conversion of the vacancy into a substantive vacancy? (b) Whether the ad-hoc appointee against a short term vacancy is entitled to continue to serve, even though the vacancy is converted into a substantive vacancy, until appointment of either an ad-hoc teacher in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 or till appointment of a regularly selected teacher recommended by the Commission/Board, whichever is earlier? (c) Whether the benefit of regularization as provided under Section 33-B of the UP Act No.5 of 1982 is available only where the short term vacancy gets converted into a substantive vacancy after the commencement of U.P. Act No.1 of 1993 i.e. 7.8.1993 and not before? (d) Whether the Full Bench decision in the case of Smt. Pramila Mishra (supra) lays down correct law as it fails to consider the legislative intent reflected by the insertion of Section 33-B in UP Act No.5 of 1982?" 2. Reference was made in Special Appeal No. 280 of 2013 (Jahaj Pal vs. District Inspector of Schools and Another) and subsequently, Special Appeals No. 28 of 2006; 34(D) of 2006, 252 of 2017; 717 of 2009; 858 of 2013 and Writ Petition No. 19243 of 1999, wherein, also similar questions were raised, have been connected with above appeal. 3. Reference was made in Special Appeal No. 280 of 2013 (Jahaj Pal vs. District Inspector of Schools and Another) and subsequently, Special Appeals No. 28 of 2006; 34(D) of 2006, 252 of 2017; 717 of 2009; 858 of 2013 and Writ Petition No. 19243 of 1999, wherein, also similar questions were raised, have been connected with above appeal. 3. We find it appropriate to refer a brief factual matrix of all the aforesaid appeals and writ petition so that questions referred to this Bench may be appreciated and answered effectively and accurately. Special Appeal No. 280 of 2013 4. Janta Inter College, Lisarh, District Muzaffarnagar (hereinafter referred to as 'College') is a Secondary Educational Institution imparting education up to Class-12. It is governed by the provisions of "U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921" (hereinafter referred to as "Act 1921"). Payment of salary to teaching and non-teaching staff is governed by the provision of "U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act 1971" (hereinafter referred to as "Act 1971"). Recruitment of teaching staff is governed by the provisions Act 1982. 5. One Krishna Pal Singh, a permanent Assistant Teacher (C.T. Grade), working in the college, proceeded on one year long leave with effect from 22.12.1987 resulting in a short term vacancy on the post of Assistant Teacher (C.T. Grade). Minimum qualifications prescribed for Assistant Teacher (C.T. Grade) applicable in 1987, were Intermediate with training qualification like C.T., B.T.C., J.T.C. or any other training qualification equivalent thereto. 6. Jahaj Pal possessed qualification of B.Sc. and B.Ed. An advertisement was published by Committee of Management of the College, inviting applications from eligible candidates for making ad-hoc appointment in aforesaid short term vacancy. Pursuant thereto, Jahaj Pal applied. Selection Committee, after holding selection, recommended selection of Jahaj Pal on the basis of best quality point marks. Committee of Management accepted recommendation of Selection Committee and resolved to appoint Jahaj Pal on ad-hoc basis. A letter of appointment was issued to Jahaj Pal on 7.7.1988 appointing him in the aforesaid short term vacancy of Assistant Teacher (C.T. Grade). Simultaneously documents of selection and resolution of Committee of Management for appointment of Jahaj Pal were forwarded for approval to District Inspector of Schools, Muzaffarnagar (hereinafter referred to as "D.I.O.S. Muzaffarnagar"). Jahaj Pal joined college as Assistant Teacher (C.T. Grade) on 8.7.1988 pursuant to letter of appointment dated 7.7.1988. Simultaneously documents of selection and resolution of Committee of Management for appointment of Jahaj Pal were forwarded for approval to District Inspector of Schools, Muzaffarnagar (hereinafter referred to as "D.I.O.S. Muzaffarnagar"). Jahaj Pal joined college as Assistant Teacher (C.T. Grade) on 8.7.1988 pursuant to letter of appointment dated 7.7.1988. Approval was granted by D.I.O.S. Muzaffarnagar vide letter dated 12.7.1988 for the period up to 20.12.1988 or till Krishna Pal Singh would return after availing leave, whichever is earlier. 7. Krishna Pal Singh sought extension of leave up to 30.6.1989 which was granted by Management, and vide letter dated 15.12.1988 Management sought fresh approval from D.I.O.S. Muzaffarnagar. The same was granted by D.I.O.S. Muzaffarnagar vide order dated 30.12.1988 approving adhoc appointment of Jahaj Pal till 30.4.1989. Krishna Pal Singh submitted resignation letter dated 25.5.1989. Jahaj Pal sought to join college in July 1989, on reopening after vacations, but he was told that D.I.O.S. Muzaffarnagar had accorded approval to his appointment only till 30.4.1989 hence he cannot be paid salary until D.I.O.S. Muzaffarnagar grants fresh approval or further approval. Jahaj Pal was also informed that till approval is granted, he may be paid salary from college fund. He accepted this offer, continuously worked and took classes from July 1989 and onward. Management paid him a consolidated salary of Rs. 750/- per month. He also submitted a representation to D.I.O.S. Muzaffarnagar on 28.8.1989 requesting for payment of salary from State Exchequer since vacancy was still continuing as Krishna Pal Singh had already resigned. Having received no response from D.I.O.S. Muzaffarnagar, Jahaj Pal sent reminders on 21.11.1989, 12.3.1990, 8.8.1990. 8. Thereafter, Jahaj Pal filed a Writ Petition No. 29320 of 1990 seeking a mandamus commanding respondents restraining from interfering in his functioning as ad-hoc Assistant Teacher (C.T. Grade) till a candidate, duly selected and recommended by U.P. Secondary and Higher Education Services Selection Commission/Board (hereinafter referred to as "Commission/Board"), joins the college or till his services are dispensed with in accordance with law and also to pay salary on the post of Assistant Teacher (C.T. Grade) with effect from May 1989 onwards. An interim order was passed on 9.11.1990 by a learned Single Judge directing that respondents will not interfere in functioning of Jahaj Pal as Assistant Teacher (C.T. Grade) and he would be paid entire salary due to him and would continue to be paid as and when it falls due. An interim order was passed on 9.11.1990 by a learned Single Judge directing that respondents will not interfere in functioning of Jahaj Pal as Assistant Teacher (C.T. Grade) and he would be paid entire salary due to him and would continue to be paid as and when it falls due. Under the aforesaid interim order, Jahaj Pal continued to serve in the College and paid salary. 9. When matter was pending, U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards (Amendment) Act, 1992 (U.P. Act No. 1 of 1993) (hereinafter referred to as "U.P. Amendment Act 1 of 1993") was enacted. By Section 24 of U.P. Amendment Act 1 of 1993, a new Section 33-B was inserted in the Act 1982, making provision for substantive appointment of teachers appointed on ad hoc basis against a short term vacancy if vacancy has converted into a substantive vacancy. 10. When writ petition no.29320 of 1990 came up for hearing before a Single Judge (Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.), benefit of substantive appointment under Section 33-B, as inserted by U.P. Amendment Act 1 of 1993, claimed by Jahaj Pal was negatived and writ petition was dismissed vide judgment dated 1.2.2013. Learned Single Judge non-suited Jahaj Pal, broadly, on the following grounds: (i) no relief of regularization was claimed in writ petition. The only prayer was not to interfere in functioning of Jahaj Pal as Assistant Teacher (C.T. Grade) till a candidate selected and recommended by the Commission/Board joins the College and to pay him salary; (ii) no approval was granted by D.I.O.S. Muzaffarnagar for a period subsequent to 30.4.1989; (iii) Krishna Pal Singh resigned on 25.5.1989, whereupon short term vacancy ceased and converted into a substantive vacancy. In view thereof petitioner's ad-hoc appointment against short term vacancy ceased; (iv) Continuance of Jahaj Pal was under interim order passed by this Court which will not confer any benefit upon him to claim regularization under a subsequently enacted provision; (v) Section 33-B is prospective, made effective from 7.8.1993 and would be applicable where short term vacancy is converted into substantive after commencement of U.P. Amendment Act 1 of 1993 i.e. after 7.8.1993 and not prior to that. Therefore, Section 33-B was not applicable to Jahaj Pal. 11. This judgment dated 01.02.2013 is subject matter of appeal and its correctness has been questioned by Jahaj Pal. Special Appeal No. 28 of 2006 12. Therefore, Section 33-B was not applicable to Jahaj Pal. 11. This judgment dated 01.02.2013 is subject matter of appeal and its correctness has been questioned by Jahaj Pal. Special Appeal No. 28 of 2006 12. It has arisen from judgment of a learned Single Judge (Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.) in Writ Petition No. 8938 of 2002. Here dispute relates to appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) in Puroshottam Das Narottam Das Inter College, Mirzapur (hereinafter referred to as "P.D.N.D. College") which is also governed by the provisions of Act 1921, Act 1971 and Act 1982. 13. One Suraj Prasad Yadav was appointed as Assistant Teacher (C.T. Grade) on 1.8.1953 and promoted as Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) in 1962. He was given ad-hoc promotion as "Lecturer" resulting in a short term vacancy on the post of Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade). A public notice on notice board was placed in order to make ad-hoc appointment on short term vacancy as per U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Second Order, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "Second Order 1981") notifying three short term vacancies of Assistant Teachers (L.T. Grade) in P.D.N.D. College. Kamlesh Kumar was recommended against short term vacancy caused due to ad-hoc promotion of Suraj Prasad Yadav as Lecturer by Selection Committee. Recommendation was accepted by Management vide resolution dated 6.7.1993. It resolved to appoint Kamlesh Kumar as Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) in the scale of 1400-2300. District Inspector of Schools, Mirzapur (hereinafter referred to as "D.I.O.S. Mirzapur") vide order dated 4.8.1993 approved aforesaid ad-hoc appointment till Suraj Prasad Yadav is made permanent on the post of lecturer or rejoins the post of Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade). It is also evident from record that appointment letter was issued to Kamlesh Kumar on 6.8.1993. 14. There was some Management dispute and, therefore, vide order dated 21.9.1999 ad-hoc appointment of Kamlesh Kumar along with others, was cancelled. Writ Petition No. 43578 of 1999 was filed by Kamlesh Kumar, challenging order dated 21.9.1999, wherein, an interim order was passed staying order dated 21.9.1999 and leaving it open to concerned authority to pass a fresh order after giving opportunity. Another order was passed by State Government on 04.02.2000 cancelling appointment of Kamlesh Kumar. In the meantime, since Suraj Prasad Yadav retired on 30.6.1997, hence with effect from 01.7.1997 short term vacancy of Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) became substantive. Another order was passed by State Government on 04.02.2000 cancelling appointment of Kamlesh Kumar. In the meantime, since Suraj Prasad Yadav retired on 30.6.1997, hence with effect from 01.7.1997 short term vacancy of Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) became substantive. Challenging State Government's order dated 04.02.2000 and also claiming benefit of substantive appointment under Section 33-F of Act 1982, Kamlesh Kumar filed Writ Petition No. 8938 of 2002 which has been dismissed by learned Single Judge broadly on the following grounds: (i) Section 33-F is applicable to appointments made on or after 14.5.1991 but not later than 06.8.1993 and incumbent must have continued till date of commencement of Act whereby Section 33-F was inserted i.e. 30.12.2000. Kamlesh Kumar's appointment was cancelled on 21.9.1999 and his continuance founded on interim order passed by this Court would not result in any benefit to him; (ii) Kamlesh Kumar could not have continued after short term vacancy stood converted into substantive vacancy after retirement of Suraj Prasad Yadav on 30.06.1997; (iii) Appointments made by the then Authorized Controller are dubious and State Government rightly cancelled the same. 15. It is this judgment dated 07.12.2005, which has been challenged in the appeal preferred by Kamlesh Kumar. Special Appeal (D) No. 34 of 2006 16. In this appeal, judgment dated 07.12.2005 of learned Single Judge is under challenge. This judgment is common deciding two writ petitions of Kamlesh Kumar, i.e. 8938 of 2002 and 43547 of 1999; hence has been filed separately challenging judgment in reference to Writ Petition No. 43547 of 1999. Since facts have already been detailed while referring to Kamlesh Kumar's Special Appeal No. 28 of 2006, hence are not being repeated. Special Appeal No. 717 of 2009 17. It relates to appointment on the post of Lecturer (Sanskrit) in Adarsh Inter College, Matigaon, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as "Adarsh College"). This college is also a secondary educational institution and governed by the provisions of Act 1921, 1971 and Act 1982. 18. One Kalika Prasad Tripathi, a permanent Lecturer (Sanskrit), proceeded on leave on medical ground from 14.10.1996 to 30.6.1997, causing a short term vacancy on the post of Lecturer (Sanskrit). Management vide resolution dated 13.10.1996 decided to fill up the said vacancy by making ad-hoc appointment by direct recruitment. Advertisement was published in daily news papers 'Jan Varta' on 18.10.1996 and 'San Marg' on 17.10.1996. Selection was held on 3.11.1996. Management vide resolution dated 13.10.1996 decided to fill up the said vacancy by making ad-hoc appointment by direct recruitment. Advertisement was published in daily news papers 'Jan Varta' on 18.10.1996 and 'San Marg' on 17.10.1996. Selection was held on 3.11.1996. Selection Committee recommended name of Ram Ji Tiwari for appointment as Lecturer (Sanskrit). Committee of Management, in its meeting dated 3.11.1996, accepted recommendation. Consequently, letter of appointment was issued to Ram Ji Tiwari on 7.11.1996. Pursuant thereto he joined on 13.11.1996. On 4.11.1996, documents were forwarded to District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as "D.I.O.S. Varanasi") seeking his approval, which was granted vide order dated 12.5.1997 for the period 14.10.1996 to 14.5.1997 or till return of Kalika Prasad Tripathi, whichever was earlier. Kalika Prasad Tripathi attained the age of superannuation and retired on 30.6.1997. Hence short term vacancy of Lecturer (Sanskrit) became substantive on 1.7.1997. Ram Ji Tiwari, filed Writ Petition no. 18290 of 1997 challenging D.I.O.S. Varanasi order dated 12.5.1997 insofar as approval was limited upto 14.5.1997. He also sought a writ of mandamus commanding respondents to allow him to continue to work as ad-hoc Lecturer (Sanskrit) till a regularly selected candidate was made available by Commission/Board. An interim order dated 30.5.1997 was passed by a learned Single Judge to the following effect: "Awaiting counter affidavit from the respondents, it is directed that unless any person duly joins in the meantime by the Commission or unless Shri Kalika Prasad Tripathi joins back his services prior to his retirement on 30.6.97, the petitioner shall be allowed to work till the next date subject to any further order that may be recorded." (emphasis added) 19. Pursuant to the said interim order, Ram Ji Tiwari continued. Thereafter, he filed another writ petition no. 10113 of 2002 praying for issue of a writ of mandamus commanding respondents to pay salary from 1997 and onwards and consider his representation dated 10.12.2001 and not to interfere in his functioning as Lecturer (Sanskrit) in Adarsh College. 20. Both these writ petitions i.e. 18290 of 1997 and 10113 of 2002 have been dismissed by a learned Single Judge (Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.) vide a common judgment dated 17.3.2009. Learned Single Judge has found that Kalika Prasad Tripathi, in fact, is none else but father of Ram Ji Tiwari. He was going to retire after attaining age of superannuation and completion of session on 30.6.1997. Learned Single Judge has found that Kalika Prasad Tripathi, in fact, is none else but father of Ram Ji Tiwari. He was going to retire after attaining age of superannuation and completion of session on 30.6.1997. He proceeded on leave on 12.10.1996 causing an artificial short term vacancy in which Ram Ji Tiwari was appointed on 12.11.1996, whose appointment was approved by D.I.O.S. Varanasi till 14.5.1997 or till Kalika Prasad Tripathi resumes duty after leave. He (Ramji Tiwari) had no right to continue on and after 1.7.1997 when vacancy became substantive in view of provisions of Second Order. Learned Single Judge relied on the Full Bench judgment in Smt. Pramila Mishra (supra) and a Division Bench judgment in Surendra Kumar Srivastava (supra). 21. It is this judgment dated 17.3.2009, which is subject matter of appeal filed by Ram Ji Tiwari. Special Appeal No. 252 of 2017 22. Here in this appeal dispute relates to appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) in Govind Ballabh Pant Girls Inter College, Baheri, District Bareilly (hereinafter referred to as "G.B.Pant College"). One Maya Devi, a permanent Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) proceeded on leave in 1996 causing a short term vacancy. Advertisement was published by Management of G.B. Pant College inviting applications for ad-hoc appointment by direct recruitment in the aforesaid short term vacancy. Suman Lata Chauhan was appointed vide letter of appointment dated 27.7.1996. The said appointment was approved by Regional Deputy Director of Education, Bareilly Region Bareilly (hereinafter referred to as "D.D.E. Bareilly") vide order dated 25.1.1997. The said approval was granted for the period up to 14.5.1997 or till Smt. Maya Devi rejoins her post, whichever is earlier. Admittedly, Suman Lata Chauhan, pursuant to letter of appointment dated 27.7.1996, joined on 1.8.1996 as Assistant Teacher (L.T.Grade) in G.B. Pant College. After expiry of period for which approval was granted, she was not paid salary for the period 15.5.1997 to 30.6.1997. Her representation was rejected by District Inspector of Schools, Bareilly (hereinafter referred to as "D.I.O.S. Bareilly") vide order dated 26.5.1999. Suman Lata Chauhan filed Writ Petition No. 27467 of 1999 seeking a writ of mandamus commanding payment of salary for the period on 15.5.1997 to 30.6.1997. (We are informed that this writ petition has been dismissed vide judgment dated 27.10.2017 by a Single Judge (One of us i.e. Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.). 23. Suman Lata Chauhan filed Writ Petition No. 27467 of 1999 seeking a writ of mandamus commanding payment of salary for the period on 15.5.1997 to 30.6.1997. (We are informed that this writ petition has been dismissed vide judgment dated 27.10.2017 by a Single Judge (One of us i.e. Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.). 23. When above writ petition was pending, Smt. Maya Devi subsequently submitted resignation resulting in conversion of short term vacancy in substantive vacancy. Management allowed Suman Lata Chauhan to continue till order dated 25.11.2010 was passed by Management cancelling/revoking her ad-hoc appointment with immediate effect following D.I.O.S., Bareilly's letter dated 4.10.2010, whereby, all Managements of different colleges were directed to ensure that after conversion of short term vacancy in substantive vacancy, no ad-hoc appointment made against short term vacancy should continue. Further ad-hoc appointment against substantive vacancy has to be made as per the procedure laid down in Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "First Order"). 24. Suman Lata Chauhan filed writ petition no. 57 of 2011 assailing order dated 25.11.2010. She also prayed for a mandamus directing respondents not to interfere in her functioning as Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) in the College and continue to pay her salary. Though no interim order was passed but petitioner Suman Lata Chauhan continued. When writ petition came up for consideration before a learned Single Judge (Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J.), on 10.4.2017, it appears that Suman Lata Chauhan also claimed regularization under U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board (Amendment) Act, 2016. Following Division Bench judgment in Surendra Kumar Srivastava (supra), learned Single Judge has dismissed writ petition vide judgment dated 10.04.2017, which is subject matter of this special appeal. Special Appeal No. 858 of 2013 25. Here dispute relates to appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) in Sri Shiv Inter College, Mirzapur (hereinafter referred to as "Sri Shiv College"). One Lal Pratap Singh, Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) was promoted as Lecturer on 01.7.1994, on ad-hoc basis, causing a short term vacancy, wherein, pursuant to Management's resolution dated 12.6.1994, Shyam Dhar Mishra was issued letter of appointment dated 01.7.1994 by Manager, Sri Shiv College. Shyam Dhar Mishra joined on 02.7.1994. Documents were forwarded to District Inspector of Schools, Mirzapur (hereinafter referred to as "D.I.O.S. Mirzapur") vide letter dated 07.02.1995 seeking approval for payment of salary of Shyam Dhar Mishra. Shyam Dhar Mishra joined on 02.7.1994. Documents were forwarded to District Inspector of Schools, Mirzapur (hereinafter referred to as "D.I.O.S. Mirzapur") vide letter dated 07.02.1995 seeking approval for payment of salary of Shyam Dhar Mishra. Vide letter dated 27.4.1995, D.I.O.S., Mirzapur informed Manager of Sri Shiv College that as per amendment of Act 1982, ad-hoc appointment could not have been made by Sri Shiv College hence approval cannot be granted. It is this order which was challenged in writ petition no. 13201 of 1995. Further a writ of mandamus was prayed directing D.I.O.S., Mirzapur to pay salary to Shyam Dhar Mishra from July 1994. He has also sought a declaration that U.P. Act No. 24 of 1992 is ultra vires. On 17.5.1995, an interim order to the following effect was passed by a learned Single Judge : "Until further order, no ad-hoc appointment will be made on the post on which petitioner is working." 26. Consequently, Management allowed Shyam Dhar Mishra to continue. On 13.8.1996 Deputy Director of Education-5th Region, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as "D.D.E., Varanasi") passed an order for payment of salary to Shyam Dhar Mishra, subject to the final outcome of his above writ petition no. 13201 of 1995. 27. On 03.01.2013 writ petition no. 13201 of 1995 was dismissed for want of prosecution. On an application for recall, a learned Single Judge (Hon'ble Rajes Kumar,J.) on 17.5.2013 recalled order dated 03.01.2013 but dismissed writ petition on merits holding that since short term vacancy has become substantive, hence, Shyam Dhar Mishra had no right to continue in view of Full Bench judgment in Smt. Pramila Misra (supra). 28. It is this judgment dated 17.05.2013 of learned Single Judge, which is under challenge in this appeal filed by Shyam Dhar Misra. Writ Petition No. 19243 of 1999 29. This writ petition, which has been connected with aforesaid Special Appeal No. 280 of 2013 (insofar as Reference has been made to Larger Bench) relates to appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) in Sarvodaya Vidyapeeth Inter College, Meerganj, Jaunpur (hereinafter referred to as "Sarvodaya College"). Writ petition has been filed by four persons, namely, Ramakant Pandey, Surya Mani Upadhyay, Suresh Bahadur Singh and Brij Mohan Yadav. One Akshaibar Maurya, senior-most Lecturer in Sarvodaya College was promoted as ad hoc Principal. In the resultant short term vacancy of Lecturer, Ram Asrey Shukla was promoted. Writ petition has been filed by four persons, namely, Ramakant Pandey, Surya Mani Upadhyay, Suresh Bahadur Singh and Brij Mohan Yadav. One Akshaibar Maurya, senior-most Lecturer in Sarvodaya College was promoted as ad hoc Principal. In the resultant short term vacancy of Lecturer, Ram Asrey Shukla was promoted. His promotion was approved by District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur (hereinafter referred to as "D.I.O.S. Jaunpur") on 28.8.1997. Another post of Lecturer (English) fell substantively vacant due to death of Indra Sen Singh. Santosh Kumar Singh, Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade), was promoted as Lecturer (English) and his promotion was approved on 28.8.1998. One Paras Nath Pathak, Lecturer (Hindi), after attaining age of superannuation, retired on 30.6.1995 causing substantive vacancy of Lecturer (Hindi) in which Girija Shankar Singh was promoted on 30.8.1997. Ganga Prasad Singh became Principal causing substantive vacancy of Lecturer wherein Lal Saheb Singh was promoted and approved on 30.8.1997 by D.I.O.S., Jaunpuar. Ganag Narain, Lecturer (Sanskrit) died and in the said substantive vacancy, one Kul Bhushan Mishra was promoted as Lecturer (Sanskrit) and his appointment was approved by D.I.O.S., Jaunpur on 30.8.1997. Thus, there occurred five short term vacancies of Assistant Teachers (L.T. Grade) due to ad-hoc promotions. Management decided to fill in the said "short term vacancies" by direct recruitment. It advertised vacancies in daily newspaper "Tarun Mitra" and "Jamatay Islamiya" on 01.9.1997. Selection was held on 21.9.1997 in which four petitioners were selected and recommended for appointment. Consequently, Committee of Management vide resolution dated 21.9.1997, resolved to appoint aforesaid four petitioners as Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade), on ad-hoc basis, in short term vacancies of Assistant Teachers (L.T. Grade). Documents were forwarded to D.I.O.S. Jaunpur on 25.9.1997 and received in his office on the same day. Having received no communication from D.I.O.S., Jaunpur, Management considered "deemed approval" under Clause 2(3) of Second Order and issued appointment letters on 3.10.1997. The four petitioners joined on the same day i.e. 3.10.1997. However, since salary was not paid, these four petitioners and one more, filed Writ Petition No. 39061 of 1997, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 21.11.1997 directing D.I.O.S., Jaunpur to consider question of grant of financial approval to appointment of petitioners in accordance with law, within two months. The four petitioners joined on the same day i.e. 3.10.1997. However, since salary was not paid, these four petitioners and one more, filed Writ Petition No. 39061 of 1997, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 21.11.1997 directing D.I.O.S., Jaunpur to consider question of grant of financial approval to appointment of petitioners in accordance with law, within two months. Consequently, approval was granted by D.I.O.S., Jaunpur vide order dated 9.10.1998 till teachers promoted on ad-hoc basis as Lecturers are reverted or short term vacancies continued or candidates selected by Commission/Board are available. Salary was paid from July 1998 till November 1998. On the Salary bills presented before D.I.O.S., Jaunpur, he passed an order on 25.3.1999 to forward salary bill in respect of other staff except aforesaid four petitioners and one more, who were appointed on ad-hoc basis against short term vacancies as Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade). Thereafter salary was not paid. Hence representation was made on 1.4.1999. Challenging order dated 25.3.1999, Writ Petition No. 19243 of 1999 has been filed in which a writ of mandamus is prayed directing respondents to pay salary from December 1998 and onward as and when it fell due. Intervener Application 30. An intervener application under Chapter XXII Rule 5-A of Allahabad High Court Rules 1952 (hereinafter referred to as Rules 1952) read with Order 1 Rule 8-A of the Code of Civil Procedure has also been filed by Raj Kumar Gaur through Sri Prabhakar Tripathi, Advocate stating that he was also appointed in a short term vacancy on ad-hoc basis in 1998, which was subsequently converted into substantive in 2007. However, he lost his matter since Special Appeal No.1586 of 2012 was dismissed vide judgment dated 26.05.2015 confirming judgment dated 13.8.2012 of learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No. 24847 of 2011 (Raj Kumar Gaur vs. State of U.P. and others). We find that aforesaid Division Bench judgment has attained finality. Reference made in a pending case to a Larger Bench will not revive a matter which has already been decided and attained finality. Therefore, applicant seeking intervention, having already lost the matter before Division Bench, we do not find has any surviving and enforceable cause of action or interest in the present matter so as to be allowed intervention. The application is accordingly rejected. Submission made by Counsels 31. Therefore, applicant seeking intervention, having already lost the matter before Division Bench, we do not find has any surviving and enforceable cause of action or interest in the present matter so as to be allowed intervention. The application is accordingly rejected. Submission made by Counsels 31. Now resuming to questions referred to this Bench, we may also place on record that besides oral submissions, learned counsel for parties have also submitted their written submissions. In fact detailed oral arguments have been advanced by Sri Ashok Khare and Sri Radha Kant Ojha, Senior Advocates. Other learned counsels have adopted and followed their arguments while on behalf of respondents, Sri Neeraj Tripathi, Additional Advocate General has advanced submissions. 32. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate submitted that on the date when Section 33-B was inserted i.e. 07.8.1993, Jahaj Pal was continuing to work as ad-hoc Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) having been appointed in a short term vacancy which stood converted into a substantive vacancy on 25.5.1989, hence he was entitled to be considered for regularization under Section 33-B. He also pointed out that initially, provision for regularization was limited for appointments made upto 13.5.1989 as Assistant Teacher (C.T. Grade) and upto 14.5.1991 for Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) but subsequently covering different periods Sections 33-C, 33-E and 33-F have been inserted in Act, 1982 showing legislative intention of allowing right of consideration for regularization to the teachers appointed against short term vacancies if vacancies have converted into a substantive one and those teachers are continuously working and no candidate has been recommended by Commission/Board to fill up the such vacancy. That being so, once incumbent is entitled to be considered for such regularization, same could not have been denied by referring to Second Order, which provides that ad-hoc appointment against short term vacancy would cease when vacancy become substantive. He contended that provision of Second Order with regard to cessation of ad-hoc appointment against short term vacancy on conversion of such vacancy in substantive would subserve the provision made by Principal Legislation conferring right of regularization upon such appointee in the event of conversion of short term vacancy into substantive. 33. Respondents have also submitted written arguments and their basic stress is upon the fact that Removal of Difficulties Orders are also part of Principal Legislation and would have independent consequences. 33. Respondents have also submitted written arguments and their basic stress is upon the fact that Removal of Difficulties Orders are also part of Principal Legislation and would have independent consequences. It is submitted that most teachers were continuing either on account of collusion of Management or due to interim orders passed by Court. Such teachers cannot be allowed to claim any benefit on account of their continuance in breach of specific conditions provided in Second Order relating to cessation of ad-hoc appointment against short term vacancy when such vacancy becomes substantive. It is submitted that Full Bench in Smt. Pramila Mishra (supra) has rightly held that on conversion of short term vacancy into substantive, ad-hoc appointment would immediately cease and if a person had continued thereafter, in violation of statutory provision, no benefit can be allowed by taking recourse to Section 33-B or subsequently inserted provisions. A Retrospect of Relevant Legislation 34. We propose to deal with respective arguments at length while considering individual questions referred to us as well as issues formulated to argue the matter effectively, but before that, we find it appropriate to have a bird eye view of relevant statutory provisions as also legislative intention declared by means of Statement of Object and Reasons with respect to provisions relating to ad-hoc appointments under Act, 1982 and provisions for regularization or substantive appointments of ad hoc teachers, made thereunder. 35. Before enactment of Act, 1982, selection and appointment of Teachers in Secondary Educational Institutions was governed by the provisions contained in Act, 1921, i.e., Section 16-E and 16-F. Act, 1921 in itself, is a complete enactment to govern Secondary Educational Institutions and also recognition of examinations through a statutory body, namely, Board of High School and Intermediate, U.P., Allahabad. For the purpose of quality of education, requisite qualifications of Teachers etc. were provided in Act, 1921. However, broadly, power and authority enjoyed by private management of Secondary Educational Institutions in regard to appointment was left untouched. Prior to Act, 1921, Secondary Education in U.P. was under the domain of Allahabad University. Act, 1921, a pre-constitution enactment, was enacted to establish a Board to take the place of Allahabad University in regulating and supervising the system of High School and Intermediate Education in United Provinces, and to prescribe courses therefor. 36. Prior to Act, 1921, Secondary Education in U.P. was under the domain of Allahabad University. Act, 1921, a pre-constitution enactment, was enacted to establish a Board to take the place of Allahabad University in regulating and supervising the system of High School and Intermediate Education in United Provinces, and to prescribe courses therefor. 36. Initially Act, 1921 laid more stress on the 'Board' so as to give power of prescribing courses and regulating standard of Secondary Education. Later ambit of Act, 1921 was extended from time to time so as to regulate Management of Secondary Educational Institutions and also conditions of service of teaching and non-teaching staff so that there may not be any case of exploitation of such staff, etc. 37. In order to bring uniformity, impartiality and objectivity in the process of selection and recruitment of teachers in Secondary Educational Institutions governed by Act, 1921, State Government issued a Radiogram on 07.04.1981 stopping all fresh selections and appointments of Principals etc. in all non-government aided schools. Validity of this Radiogram was considered by Supreme Court in Dr. Ramji Dwivedi vs. State of U.P. and others, (1983) 3 SCC 52 . Court held that power to issue such Radiogram had its source in Section 9(4) of Act, 1921. Once such direction was issued, Management had no power to make selection and appointment. 38. The aforesaid Radiogram followed by enactment of U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Ordinance, 1981 (U.P. Ordinance No. 8 of 1981)(hereinafter referred to as "First Ordinance") published in U.P. Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 10.7.1981. It contemplated composition of a Commission, namely, U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission vide Section 3. It also provided for selection and recruitment of Teachers for Secondary Educational Institutions by the said Commission. The term 'Institution' was defined in Section 2(e) which comprised of all schools recognized under Act, 1921 including Institutions maintained by a local authority. It, however, excluded an 'Institution' maintained by State Government. Section 16 declares that any appointment made in violation of the provisions of First Ordinance would be void and reads as under:- "16. Appointments to be made only on recommendations of the Commission or the Board. It, however, excluded an 'Institution' maintained by State Government. Section 16 declares that any appointment made in violation of the provisions of First Ordinance would be void and reads as under:- "16. Appointments to be made only on recommendations of the Commission or the Board. - (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or the Regulations made thereunder - (a) every appointment of a teacher specified in the scheduled shall, after the date of promulgation of this Ordinance, be made by the management only on the recommendation of the Commission; (b) every appointment of a teacher (other than a teacher specified in the Schedule) shall, after the date of such promulgation, be made by the management only on the recommendation of the Board. (2) Every appointment of a teacher, in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1), shall be void." (emphasis added) 39. Section 3 contemplated establishment of a Commission while Section 12 contemplated establishment of Regional Selection Boards which may have jurisdiction over such local area as State Government may specify. It also permitted ad-hoc appointment of Teachers vide Section 18 where vacancy has been notified to Commission but no recommendation has been made within six months from the date of such notification. Sub-section (3) of Section 18, however, provided that every appointment of an ad-hoc Teacher under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 18 shall cease to have effect from the earliest of the following dates: (a) when the candidate recommended by Commission or the Board, as the case may be, joins the post; (b) when the period of one month referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 11 expires; (c) thirtieth day of June following the date of such ad-hoc appointment. 40. Section 32 provided that Act, 1921 and Regulations made thereunder, insofar as not consistent with First Ordinance or Rules or Regulations made thereunder, shall continue to be enforced for the purpose of selection, appointment, promotion, dismissal, removal, termination or reduction in rank of a Teacher. 41. Section 33 conferred power upon State Government to issue orders removing difficulties and read as under:- "33. Power to remove difficulties. 41. Section 33 conferred power upon State Government to issue orders removing difficulties and read as under:- "33. Power to remove difficulties. - (1) The State Government may, for the purposes of removing any difficulty, by a notified order, direct that the provisions of this Ordinance shall during such period as may be specified in the order, have effect subject to such adaptations, whether by modification, addition or omission, as it may deem to be necessary or expedient : Provided that no such order shall be made after two years from the date of promulgation of this Ordinance. (2) Every order made under sub-section (1) shall be laid before both the Houses of State Legislature. (3) No order under sub-section (1) shall be called in question in any Court on the ground that no difficulty as is referred to in sub-section (1) existed or required to be removed." (emphasis added) 42. After enactment of First Ordinance, for more than six month, neither Commission or Selection Board was constituted nor Ordinance came to be replaced by Act. Since delay in selection and appointment of Teachers was causing grave loss to educational institutions and in particular, students in their studies, State Government intervened and issued a Removal of Difficulties Order i.e. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 i.e. First Order, vide notification dated 31.07.1981. It clearly stated that there was likelihood to take some time in the establishment of Commission/Selection Boards and even functioning thereof would take further time. Further, it is said that a number of vacancies of Teachers were existing and continuing in Educational Institutions and delay in filling all such vacancies may create difficulties, hence First Order is being issued. 43. Para 2 of First Order conferred power upon Management to make ad-hoc appointments and reads as under:- "2. Vacancies in which ad-hoc appointment can be made. 43. Para 2 of First Order conferred power upon Management to make ad-hoc appointments and reads as under:- "2. Vacancies in which ad-hoc appointment can be made. - The management of an institution may appoint by promotion or by direct recruitment a teacher on purely ad-hoc basis in accordance with the provisions of this Order in the following cases, namely :- (a) in the case of a substantive vacancy existing on the date of commencement of this Order caused by death, retirement, resignation or otherwise; (b) in the case of a leave vacancy, where the whole or unexpired portion of the leave is for a period exceeding two months on the date of such commencement; (c) where a vacancy of the nature specified in clause (a) or clause (b) comes into existence within a period of two months subsequent to the date of such commencement." (emphasis added) 44. Para 3 talks of duration of ad-hoc appointments and reads as under: "3. Duration of ad hoc appointments. - Every appointment of an ad-hoc teacher under Paragraph 2 shall cease to have effect from the earliest of the dates, namely:- (a) when the candidate recommended by the Commission or the Board joins the post; or (b) when the period of six months from the date of such ad- hoc appointment expires." (emphasis added) 45. Paras 4 and 5 lay down the procedure for ad-hoc appointments by promotion and direct recruitment and Para 6 deals with eligibility for such appointments. Paras 4 and 5, relevant for our purposes, are reproduced as under : "4. Ad hoc appointment by promotion.-(1) Every vacancy in the post of the Head of an institution may be filled by promotion : (a) in the case of an Intermediate College, by the senior most teacher of the institution in the lecturer's grade; (b) in the case of a High School raised to the level of an Intermediate College, by the Headmaster of such High School; (c) in the case of a Junior High School raised to the level of a High School, by the Headmaster of such junior High School. (2) Every vacancy in the post of a teacher in Lecturer's grade may be filled by promotion by the senior most teacher of the Institution in the trained graduate (L.T.) grade. (2) Every vacancy in the post of a teacher in Lecturer's grade may be filled by promotion by the senior most teacher of the Institution in the trained graduate (L.T.) grade. (3) Every vacancy in the post of a teacher in the trained graduate (L.T.) grade shall be filled by promotion by the senior most teacher of the Institution in the trained undergraduate (C.T.) grade. (4) Every vacancy in the post of teacher in the trained undergraduate (C.T.) grade shall be filled by promotion by the senior most teacher of the Institution in the J.T.C. grade or B.T.C. Grade. Explanation.-For the purposes of clauses (1) to (4) of this paragraph 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." "5. Ad hoc appointment by direct recruitment. - (1) Where any vacancy cannot be filled by promotion under Paragraph 4, the same may be filled by direct recruitment in accordance with clauses (2) to (5). (2) The management shall, as soon as may be, inform the District Inspector of Schools about the details of the vacancy and such Inspector shall invite applications from the local Employment Exchange and also through public advertisement in at least two newspapers having adequate circulation in Uttar Pradesh. (3) Every application referred to in clause (2) shall be addressed to the District Inspector of Schools and shall be accompanied : (a) by a crossed postal order worth ten rupees payable to such Inspector; (b) by a self addressed envelope bearing postal stamp for purposes of registration. (4) The District Inspector of Schools shall cause the best candidates selected on the basis of quality points specified in Appendix. The compilation of quality points may be done on remunerative basis by the retired Gazetted Government servants under the personal supervision of such Inspector. (5) If more than one teacher of the same subject or category is to be recruited for more than one institution, the names of the selected teachers and the names of the institutions shall be arranged in Hindi alphabetical order. The candidate whose name appears on the top of the list shall be allotted to the institution the name whereof appears on the top of the list of the institution. The candidate whose name appears on the top of the list shall be allotted to the institution the name whereof appears on the top of the list of the institution. This process shall be repeated till both the lists are exhausted. Explanation.- In relation to an institution imparting instruction to women the expression "District Inspector of Schools" shall mean the "Regional Inspectors of Girls Schools". (emphasis added) 46. State Government issued another order i.e. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Second Order, 1981 i.e. Second Order, vide notification dated 11.9.1981. Second Order firstly substituted para 2 of First Order and deleted Sub-clauses (b) and (c), permitting ad-hoc appointment in leave vacancy. In fact, para 2 of First Order was substituted by virtue of para 5 of Second Order, as follows -: "5. Substitution of Paragraph 2 of the (First) Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981. - In the First Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981, for Paragraph 2, the following paragraph shall be substituted, namely - "2. The management of an institution may appoint by promotion or by direct recruitment, a teacher on purely ad-hoc basis in accordance with the provisions of this Order in case of a substantive vacancy caused by death, resignation or otherwise." (emphasis added) 47. Second Order separately deals with ad-hoc appointments to fill up short term vacancies. Para 2 of Second Order lays down procedure for filling up short term vacancies and reads as under: "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 his 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 along with 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 along with the particulars given in Appendix 'B' to this Order. The selection shall be made on the basis of quality point marks specified in the Appendix to the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981, issued with Notification No. Ma-4993/XV-7-1(79)-1981, dated July 31, 1981, 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." (emphasis added) 48. Para 3 of Second Order talks of duration of ad-hoc appointment made against short term vacancies and reads as under:- "3. Duration of ad-hoc appointment. - Every appointment of a teacher under Paragraph 2 of this Order shall cease from the earliest of the following dates, namely : (a) when the teacher, who was on leave or under suspension joins the post; or (b) when the period of six months from the date of such ad-hoc appointment expires; or (c) when the short-term vacancy otherwise ceases to exit." (emphasis added) 49. Para 4 of Second Order provides that in respect of appointment of a Teacher in Para 2 of Second Order, it shall be subject to conditions laid down in Para 6 of First Order, which talks of "eligibility for appointment". In other words, even for ad-hoc appointment in a short term vacancy, same eligibility conditions were made applicable to ad-hoc appointment to be made in a substantive vacancy under First Order. 50. The Appendix of First Order providing process of quality point marks was also amended but for the purpose of issue in the present case, we are not concerned with the same, hence, escaping it. 51. Then comes U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Third) Order, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "Third Order") vide notification dated 30.1.1982. This Order made amendments in para 3 and 4 of First Order and para 3 of Second Order by para 2 and 3 which read as under:- "2. Substitution of Paragraph 3 and amendment in Paragraph 4 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981. - In the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981, issued vide Notification No. Ma-4993/XV-7-1(79)-1981, Lucknow, dated July 31, 1981, - (i) for paragraph 3, the following paragraph shall be substituted namely : "3. Substitution of Paragraph 3 and amendment in Paragraph 4 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981. - In the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981, issued vide Notification No. Ma-4993/XV-7-1(79)-1981, Lucknow, dated July 31, 1981, - (i) for paragraph 3, the following paragraph shall be substituted namely : "3. Every appointment of an ad-hoc teacher under paragraph 2 shall cease to have effect when a candidate recommended by the Commission or the Board, as the case may be, joins the post." (ii) in paragraph 4, for sub-clause (a) of clause (1), the following sub-clause shall be substituted, namely : "(a) in the case of an Intermediate College, by the senior most teacher of the institution in the Lecturers' grade and in the case of a High School, by the senior most teacher of the institution in the Trained Graduate (L.T.) Grade;" 3. Amendment of Paragraph 3 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order, 1981. - In the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order, 1981, in paragraph 3, clause (b) shall be omitted." (emphasis added) 52. Next is U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Fourth) Order, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "Fourth Order") vide notification dated 14.4.1982. This Order made amendment of paras 5 and 7 of First Order and not relevant for the issues in question. However, Statement of Object and Reasons given in Fourth Order show that even till 14.4.1982, when Fourth Order was issued, Commission or Selection Boards were not established. 53. Then we move to U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Fifth) Order 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "Fifth Order"), issued vide notification dated 13.7.1983. The aforesaid Order dealt with the appointments of Teachers in Schools/Colleges maintained by Zila Parishad through a Selection Committee to be constituted by Appointing Authority. 54. Last in chain is U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Sixth) Order, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as "Sixth Order") vide notification dated 13.7.1983. It deals with the appointments in schools and colleges maintained by Nagar Maha Palika Parishad. 55. The provisions of First Ordinance except Section 21 were given effect from 14.7.1981. Since First Ordinance could not be transformed in an Act, hence, another Ordinance i.e. U.P. Ordinance No. 23 of 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "Second Ordinance") was issued. It deals with the appointments in schools and colleges maintained by Nagar Maha Palika Parishad. 55. The provisions of First Ordinance except Section 21 were given effect from 14.7.1981. Since First Ordinance could not be transformed in an Act, hence, another Ordinance i.e. U.P. Ordinance No. 23 of 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "Second Ordinance") was issued. It was also given effect from 14.7.1981, except Section 21. The Second Ordinance also contained similar provisions as were in First Ordinance. Second Ordinance was published in U.P. Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 27.10.1981. 56. The Second Ordinance came to be replaced by Act, 1982 which received assent of President on 25.2.1982 published in U.P. Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 26.2.1982. It was given effect from 14.7.1981, except Section 21, which was left to be enforced on a date to be notified by State Government. 57. Section 16 of Act, 1982 provided that subject to the provisions of Section 18 and 33, every appointment of a Teacher, on or after 10.7.1981, shall be made on the recommendation of Commission/Board (as the case may be). Sub-section 2 of Section 16 declares appointment of a Teacher, made in contravention of Section 16(1), void. Section 18 permitted appointment of ad-hoc Teacher which is similar to Section 18 of First and Second Ordinance. Section 33 of Act, 1982 conferred power upon State Government to notify orders to remove difficulties for implementation of Act, 1982. Second Ordinance was repealed vide Section 36 of Act, 1982 but acts done or actions taken under both Ordinances, were preserved and it was declared that same shall be deemed to have been done or taken under Act, 1982. Relevant Sections 16, 18, 33, and 36 of Act, 1982 as initially existed are reproduced as under: "16. Second Ordinance was repealed vide Section 36 of Act, 1982 but acts done or actions taken under both Ordinances, were preserved and it was declared that same shall be deemed to have been done or taken under Act, 1982. Relevant Sections 16, 18, 33, and 36 of Act, 1982 as initially existed are reproduced as under: "16. Appointments to be made only on recommendations of the Commission or 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 18 and 33- (a) every appointment of a teacher specified in the Schedule shall, on or after July 10, 1981, be made by the management only on the recommendation of the Commission ; (b) every appointment of a teacher (other than a teacher specified in the Schedule) shall, on or after July 10, 1981, 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 apply with the modification that in sub-section (2) of the aforesaid section, for the words 'six months' the words 'two years' shall be deemed to have been substituted. (2) Every appointment of a teacher, in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1), shall be void." "18. Ad hoc Teachers.-(1) Where the management has notified a vacancy to the Commission in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and- (a) the Commission has failed to recommend the name of any suitable candidate for being appointed as a teacher specified in the Schedule within one year from the date of such notification; or (b) the post of such teacher has actually remained vacant for more than two months, then, the management may appoint, by direct recruitment or promotion, a teacher on purely ad hoc basis from amongst the persons possessing qualifications prescribed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or the regulations made thereunder. (2) The provision of sub-section (1) shall also apply to the appointment of a teacher (other than a teacher specified in the Schedule) on ad hoc basis with the substitution of the expression 'Board' for the expression "Commission". (2) The provision of sub-section (1) shall also apply to the appointment of a teacher (other than a teacher specified in the Schedule) on ad hoc basis with the substitution of the expression 'Board' for the expression "Commission". (3) Every appointment of an ad hoc teacher under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall cease to have effect from the earliest of the following dates, namely- (a) when the candidate recommended by the Commission or the Board, as the case may be, joins the post; (b) when the period of one month referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 11 expires; (c) thirtieth day of June following the date of such ad hoc appointment. "33. Power to remove difficulties.- (1) The State Government may, for the purposes of removing any difficulty, by a notified order, direct that the provisions of this Act shall, during such period as may be specified in the order, have effect subject to such adaptations, whether by way of modification, addition or omission, as it may deem to be necessary or expedient: Provided that no such order shall be made after two years from the date of commencement of this Act. (2) Every order made under sub-section (1) shall be laid before both the Houses of State Legislature. (3) No order under sub-section (1) shall be called in question in any court on the ground that no difficulty as is referred to in sub-section (1) existed or required to be removed." "36. Repeal and savings.-- (1) The Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards (Second) Ordinance, 1981 (U.P. Ordinance No. 23 of 1981, is hereby repealed. (2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken under the Ordinance referred to in sub-section (1) or the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Ordinance, 1981 (U.P. Ordinance No. 8 of 1981), shall be deemed to have been done or taken under this Act, as if this Act were in force at all material times." (emphasis added) 58. Section 18, a substantive provision permitting ad hoc appointments, in certain contingencies, also provided tenure of such ad hoc appointments. Section 18, a substantive provision permitting ad hoc appointments, in certain contingencies, also provided tenure of such ad hoc appointments. However, to some extent, the aforesaid tenure was not identical as that was provided in First and Second Order and difference in three may be summarized in the form of chart as under: Tenure under Section 18 Tenure under First Order Tenure under Second Order Upto 13.07.1992 (i) When candidate recommended by Commission/Board joins the post. (ii) One month period referred to in Section 11(4) expires. (iii) 30th June following the date of ad hoc appointment W.e.f. 14.07.1992 (i) When candidate recommended by Commission/Board joins. (A) From 31.07.1981 to 10.09.1981 (i) When candidate recommended by Commission/Board joins the post (ii) Six months period from the date of ad hoc appointment expires (B) From 11.09.1981 to 29.01.1982 (i) Above tenure was confined to ad hoc appointment against substantive vacancies. (C) From 30.01.1982 to 13.07.1992 (i) Candidate recommended by Commission/Board joins the post (A) From 11.09.1981 to 30.01.1982 (i) When the teacher on leave or under suspension joins the post. (ii) When six months period from the date of ad hoc appointment expires. (iii) When short term vacancy otherwise ceases to exist. (B) From 31.01.1982 to 24.01.1999 (i) When the teacher who was on leave or under suspension joins the post. (ii) When short term vacancy otherwise ceases to exist. 59. The tenure of ad hoc appointment as provided under Section 18 enacted in Act, 1982 initially remained shadowed by the tenure provided in First and Second Order by virtue of Section 33 read with Section 36 but when Section 18 itself was amended and substituted w.e.f. 14.07.1992 providing the contingencies of making substantive appointment the procedure for such appointment and tenure as also the otherwise provisions of Removal of Difficulties Orders ceased. Therefore, after Section 18 as amended and substituted w.e.f. 14.07.1992, virtually the provisions of First Order got substituted and thereafter ad hoc appointment against substantive vacancies had to be made as per Section 18 of Act, 1982. Somewhat similar condition continued after substitution of Section 18 w.e.f. 28.12.1994. However, in respect of short term vacancies, Second Order continued to remain in force till it was rescinded w.e.f. 25.01.1999. 60. These subsequent amendments, we shall be dealing hereinafter. Act, 1982 underwent a series of amendments. Somewhat similar condition continued after substitution of Section 18 w.e.f. 28.12.1994. However, in respect of short term vacancies, Second Order continued to remain in force till it was rescinded w.e.f. 25.01.1999. 60. These subsequent amendments, we shall be dealing hereinafter. Act, 1982 underwent a series of amendments. The first such amendment germane to the issues is U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards (Amendment) Ordinance 1985 (U.P. Ordinance No. 12 of 1985). It was published in U.P. Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 12.06.1985. It made amendments in Sections 16 and 21 of Act, 1982 and inserted Chapter IV-A containing Sections 21-A to 22-D. Besides, it also inserted Section 33-A which provided for substantive appointment of ad-hoc appointments made against substantive vacancies in accordance with Para 2 of First Order. This Ordinance was replaced by U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Amendment Act, 1985 (U.P. Act No. 19 of 1985) (hereinafter referred to as "U.P. Act 19 of 1985") published in U.P. Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 23.8.1985. It came into force from on 12.6.1985 i.e. the date when Ordinance was given effect to. Section 33-A inserted in Act, 1982 by Section 5 of U.P. Act 19 of 1985 reads as under: "33-A. Regularization of certain appointments.- (1) Every teacher directly appointed, before the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards (Amendment) Ordinance, 1985, on ad-hoc basis against a substantive vacancy in accordance with paragraph 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981, as amended from time to time, who possesses the qualifications prescribed under, or is exempted from such qualifications in accordance with, the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, shall, with effect from the date of such commencement, be deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity provided such teacher has been continuously serving the institution from the date of such appointment up to the date of such commencement. (2) Every teacher deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity under sub-section (1), shall be deemed to be on probation from the date of such commencement. (2) Every teacher deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity under sub-section (1), shall be deemed to be on probation from the date of such commencement. (3) Nothing in this section shall be construed to entitle any teacher to substantive appointment- (a) If on the date of such commencement, such post had already been filled or selection for such post had already been made in accordance with this Act, or (b) If such teacher was related to any member of the Committee of Management or the Principal, or Head Master of the institution concerned. Explanation- For the purposes of this sub-section a person shall be deemed to be related to another if- (i) they are members of a Hindu undivided family ; or (ii) they are husband and wife ; or (iii) the one is related to the other in the manner indicated in the Second Schedule to the Intermediate Education Act, 1921." (emphasis added) 61. Section 33-A talked of regularization of certain appointments. A reading thereof would show that ad-hoc appointments made before the commencement of Amendment Act, 1985 i.e. 12.6.1985 against substantive vacancies were declared as "deemed substantive appointments" provided conditions mentioned therein were satisfied. Therefore, all those who were appointed on ad hoc basis against substantive vacancies, till 11.06.1985, and fulfilled other conditions stated in Section 33-A, became substantive appointee as per declaration made vide Section 33-A except the cases covered by Section 33-A(3). 62. Then came U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1991 (U.P. Act No. 8 of 1991) (hereinafter referred to as "Amendment Act 8 of 1991") published in U.P. Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 19.3.1991. By Section 2 of amendment Act 8 of 1991, a 'Proviso' was inserted in Section 16 of Act, 1982 permitting appointment of a Teacher by transfer from one institution to another. It also validated appointments already made by transfer on or after 14.7.1981 but before commencement of Act No. 8 of 1991. 63. Another Amendment Act i.e. Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission Act Selection Boards (Amendment) Act, 1991 (U.P. Act No. 26 of 1991) (hereinafter referred to as "U.P. Act 26 of 1991") was published in U.P. Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 21.8.1991. Section 2 of U.P. Act 26 of 1991 was given effect from 6.4.1991 and remaining provisions at once i.e. from the date of publication in gazette i.e. 21.8.1991. Section 2 of U.P. Act 26 of 1991 was given effect from 6.4.1991 and remaining provisions at once i.e. from the date of publication in gazette i.e. 21.8.1991. Thereby Section 33-A, which was inserted by U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982, was amended by insertion of sub-sections 1-A, 1-B, 1-C; sub-section 2 was substituted and 3 was amended. 64. Section 33-A(1-A), (1-B), (1-C), (2) and (3) as stood amended vide Amendment Act No. 26 of 1991 with effect from 06.04.1991 reads as under: "33-A. Regularization of certain appointments.- ...... (1-A) Every teacher appointed by promotion, on ad hoc basis against a substantive vacancy in accordance with paragraph 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981, as amended from time to time, who possesses the qualifications prescribed under, or is exempted from such qualifications in accordance with the provisions of, the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 shall, with effect from the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards (Amendment) Act, 1991, be deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity provided such teacher has been continuously serving the institution from the date of such ad hoc appointment to the date of such commencement. (1-B) Every teacher directly appointed after June 12, 1985 and before May 13, 1989 on ad hoc basis against a substantive vacancy in the Certificate of Teaching grade, in accordance with paragraph 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981, as amended from time to time, who possesses the qualifications prescribed under, or is exempted from such qualifications in accordance with the provisions of, the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 shall, with effect from the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education and Services Commission and Selection Boards (Amendment) Act, 1991, be deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity provided such teacher has been continuously serving the institution from the date of such ad hoc appointment to the date of such commencement. (1-C) Every teacher appointed by promotion or by direct recruitment before July 31, 1988 on ad hoc basis against a substantive vacancy in accordance with Section 18, who possesses the qualifications prescribed under, or is exempted from such qualifications in accordance with the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 shall, with effect from the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards (Amendment) Act, 1991 be deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity provided such teacher has been continuously serving the institution from the date of such ad hoc appointment to the date of such commencement; (2) Every teacher deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity under sub-section (1) or (1-A) or (1-B) or (1-C), shall be deemed to be on probation from the date of commencement referred to in sub-section (1) or (1-A) or (1-B) or (1-C) as the case may be. (3) Nothing in this section shall be construed to entitle any teacher to substantive appointment- (a) If on the date of commencement referred to in sub-section (1) or (1-A) or (1-B) or (1-C), as the case may be, such post had already been filled or selection for such post had already been made in accordance with this Act, or (b) If such teacher was related to any member of the Committee of Management or the Principal, or Head Master of the institution concerned. Explanation- For the purposes of this sub-section a person shall be deemed to be related to another if- (i) they are members of a Hindu undivided family ; or (ii) they are husband and wife ; or (iii) the one is related to the other in the manner indicated in the Second Schedule to the Intermediate Education Act, 1921." (Inserted/Amended provision shown in bold letters) 65. Section 33-A as initially enacted and then amended w.e.f. 06.04.1991 by Amendment Act No. 26 of 1991 contemplated different kinds of ad hoc appointments made under different provisions and sought to convert such appointments in substantive. These may be summarized as under: (A) Sub-section (1) (i) Sub-section (1) was applicable to the appointments of teachers made directly on ad hoc basis in accordance with Para 2 of First Order till 11.06.1985. These may be summarized as under: (A) Sub-section (1) (i) Sub-section (1) was applicable to the appointments of teachers made directly on ad hoc basis in accordance with Para 2 of First Order till 11.06.1985. Such teachers who possessed requisite qualification at the time of ad hoc appointments or were exempted from such qualification, appointed in accordance with procedure prescribed in Para 2 of First Order, were declared as deemed to have been appointed in substantive capacity provided they were continuously serving institution from the date of ad hoc appointments till 12.06.1985. (ii) Exception for not attracting sub-section (1) of Section 33-A are: (a) where such vacancy on which ad hoc appointment was made, stood already filled by candidate recommended by Commission/Board till 12.06.1985 or selection for such post by Commission/Board was already made; and/or (b) if such teacher was related to any member of committee of management or teacher/headmaster. Sub-section (1-A) (i) It talks of teachers appointed by promotion on ad hoc basis against substantive vacancies in accordance with procedure prescribed in Para 2 of First Order. (ii) All such promotions made before 06.04.1991 were declared as deemed to be appointed in substantive capacity provided the teacher was continuously serving institution from the date of ad hoc appointment till 06.04.1991. (iii) The exceptions as mentioned in sub-para A(ii) above, applicable to sub-section (1) are also applicable to sub-section (1A). Sub-section (1-B) (i) It deals with ad hoc teachers appointed against substantive vacancies in CT Grade from 13.06.1985 to 12.05.1989. (ii) All such teachers who were appointed against substantive vacancies following the procedure prescribed in Para 2 of First Order, and possessed requisite qualification or exempted on the date of such ad hoc appointments, were declared as deemed appointed in substantive capacity w.e.f. 06.04.1991 provided such teachers were continuously serving from the date of ad hoc appointment till 06.04.1991. (iii) The exceptions as mentioned in sub-para A(ii) above, applicable to sub-section (1) are also applicable to sub-section (1B). Sub-section (1-C) (i) It deals with promotion or direct recruitment on ad hoc basis against substantive vacancies made till 30.07.1988 in accordance with Section 18. (ii) If such teacher possessed requisite qualification or exempted, he was also declared as "deemed substantive appointed" w.e.f. 06.04.1991, provided such teacher was continuously serving institution from the date of ad hoc appointment till 06.04.1991. Sub-section (1-C) (i) It deals with promotion or direct recruitment on ad hoc basis against substantive vacancies made till 30.07.1988 in accordance with Section 18. (ii) If such teacher possessed requisite qualification or exempted, he was also declared as "deemed substantive appointed" w.e.f. 06.04.1991, provided such teacher was continuously serving institution from the date of ad hoc appointment till 06.04.1991. (iii) The exceptions as mentioned in sub-para A(ii) above, applicable to sub-section (1) are also applicable to sub-section (1C). 66. By U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards (Second Amendment) Act, 1992 (U.P. Act No. 24 of 1992) (hereinafter referred to as "Amendment Act 24 of 1992") published in U.P. Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 29.11.1992 and enforced with effect from 14.7.1992, vide Section 2, Section 18 of Act, 1982 was amended by substitution and substituted Section 18 reads as under: "18. Ad-hoc teachers.- (1) Where the management has notified a vacancy to the Commission in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and the post of such teacher has actually remained vacant for more than two months, the management may appoint by direct recruitment or promotion a teacher, on purely ad-hoc basis, in the manner hereinafter provided in this section. (2) A teacher, other than a Principal or Headmaster, who is to be appointed by direct recruitment, may be appointed on the recommendation of the Selection Committee referred to in sub-section (9). (3) A teacher, other than a Principal or Headmaster, who is to be appointed by promotion, may in the manner prescribed be appointed by promoting the senior-most teacher possessing prescribed qualifications- (a) in the trained graduate's grade, as a lecturer, in the case of a vacancy in lecturer's grade; (b) in the Certificate of Teaching grade, as a teacher in the trained graduate's grade, in the case of vacancy in trained graduate's grade. (4) A vacancy in the post of a Principal may be filled by promoting the senior most teacher in the lecturer's grade. (5) A vacancy in the post of a Headmaster may be filled by promoting the senior most teacher in the trained graduate's grade. (4) A vacancy in the post of a Principal may be filled by promoting the senior most teacher in the lecturer's grade. (5) A vacancy in the post of a Headmaster may be filled by promoting the senior most teacher in the trained graduate's grade. (6) For the purposes of making appointments under sub-sections (2) and (3), the Management shall determine the number of vacancies, as also the number of vacancies to be reserved for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other categories of persons in accordance with the rules or orders issued by the State Government in this behalf. If in determining the vacancies it is found that persons belonging to such categories are not holding such number of posts as should have been held by them in accordance with such rules or orders, then the vacancies shall be so determined that first and every alternate vacancy shall be reserved for the persons of such categories until the required percentage of posts is held by them. (7) After determining the number of vacancies as provided in sub-section (6) the Management shall within fifteen days from the date of the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board (Second Amendment) Act, 1992 intimate the vacancies to be filled by direct recruitment to the District Inspector of Schools. If the Management fails to intimate such vacancies within the said period of fifteen days, the District Inspector of Schools may, after verification from such institution or from his own records, determine such vacancies himself. (8) The District Inspector of Schools shall, on receipt of intimation of vacancies or as the case may be, after determining the vacancies under sub-section (7), invite applications, from the persons possessing qualifications prescribed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or the regulations, made thereunder, for ad-hoc appointment to the post of teachers, other than Principal or Headmasters in such manner as may be prescribed. (9) (a) For each district, there shall be a Selection Committee for selection of candidates for ad-hoc appointment by direct recruitment comprising (i) District Inspector of Schools, who shall be the Chairman; (ii) Basic Shiksha Adhikari; (iii) District Inspectress of Girls' Schools, and where there is no such Inspectress, the Principal of the Government Girls' Intermediate College and where there are more than one such college, the senior most Principal of such Colleges and where there is no such College, the Principal of the Government Girls' Intermediate College as nominated by the State Government. (b) The Selection Committee constituted under clause (a) shall make selection of the candidates, prepare a list of the selected candidates, allocate them to the institutions and recommend their names to the Management for appointment under sub-section (2). (c) The criteria and procedure for selection of candidates and the manner of preparation of list of selected candidates and their allocation to the institutions shall be such as may be prescribed. (10) Every appointment of an ad-hoc teacher under sub-section (1) shall cease to have effect from the date when the candidate recommended by the Commission or the Board joins the post. (11) The provisions of Section 21-D shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to the teachers who are to be appointed under the provisions of this section." 67. By U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards (Amendment) Act, 1992 (U.P. Act No. 1 of 1993) (hereinafter referred to as "Amendment Act 1 of 1993") published in U.P. Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 6.1.1993, Section 3 to 11 of Act, 1982 were omitted; Section 16 was substituted; Section 18 was omitted vide Section 13 of Amendment Act 1 of 1993; and, vide Section 24 of Amendment Act 1 of 1993, Section 33-B was inserted. Thus for the first time, by inserting Section 33-B, a provision was made for regularization of ad hoc appointments made against short term vacancies, in accordance with para 2 of Second Order. However, this benefit was confined to teachers not Principal or Head Master. Thus for the first time, by inserting Section 33-B, a provision was made for regularization of ad hoc appointments made against short term vacancies, in accordance with para 2 of Second Order. However, this benefit was confined to teachers not Principal or Head Master. Section 33-B reads as under:- "33-B. Regularization of certain other appointments.-(1) Any teacher, other than the Principal or Headmaster, who- (a) (i) was appointed by promotion or by direct recruitment in the lecturer grade or Trained Graduate grade on or before May 14, 1991 or in the Certificate of Teaching grade on or before May 13, 1989 against a short term vacancy in accordance with Paragraph 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order, 1981 and such vacancy was subsequently converted into a substantive vacancy, or (ii) was appointed by direct recruitment on or after July 14, 1981 but not later than June 12, 1985 on ad-hoc basis against a substantive vacancy in the Certificate of Teaching grade through advertisement and such appointment was approved by the Inspector, or (iii) was appointed by promotion or by direct recruitment on or after July 31, 1988 but not later than May 14, 1991 on ad-hoc basis against a substantive vacancy in accordance with Section 18, as it stood before its omission by the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards (Amendment) Act, 1992; (b) possesses the qualifications prescribed under, or is exempted from such qualifications in accordance with, the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921; (c) has been continuously serving the Institution from the date of such appointment up to the date of the commencement of the Act referred to in sub-clause (iii) of clause (a) ; (d) is not related to any member of the Management or the Principal or Head Master of the Institution concerned in the manner specified in the explanation to sub-section (3) or Section 33-A ; (e) has been found suitable for appointment in a substantive capacity by a Selection Committee constituted under sub-section (2), shall be given substantive appointment by the Management. (2)(a) For each region, there shall be a Selection Committee comprising- (i) Regional Deputy Director of Education of that region, who shall be the Chairman, (ii) One officer holding a Group 'A' post (specified as such by the State Government from time to time) in any department other than Education Department, to be nominated by the State Government, (iii) Regional Inspectress of Girls School of that region: Provided that the Inspector of the district shall be co-opted as a member while considering the cases for regularization of that district. (b) The Selection Committee constituted under clause (a) shall consider the case of every such teacher and on being satisfied about his eligibility and suitability in view of the provisions of sub-section (1) shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3) recommend his name to the Management for appointment under sub-section (1) in a substantive vacancy. (3)(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. (4) 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. (5) A teacher who is not found suitable under sub-section (1) and a teacher who is not eligible to get a substantive appointment under that sub-section shall cease to hold the appointment on such date as the State Government may by order specify. (6) Nothing in this section shall be construed to entitle any teacher to substantive appointment, if on the date of commencement of the Act referred to in sub-clause (iii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1), such vacancy had already been filled or selection for such vacancy has already been made in accordance with this Act." (emphasis added) 68. Vide Section 1(2), date of enforcement of provisions of Amendment Act 1 of 1993 were to be notified by State Government. Consequently, in exercise of power under Section 1(2) of Amendment Act 1 of 1993, State Government, by notification dated 7.8.1993, enforced all the provisions of Amendment Act 1 of 1993 except Section 13, meaning thereby, all the provisions as amended by Amendment Act 1 of 1993 came into force on 07.08.1993, except omission of Section 18 which was not enforced. Consequently, in exercise of power under Section 1(2) of Amendment Act 1 of 1993, State Government, by notification dated 7.8.1993, enforced all the provisions of Amendment Act 1 of 1993 except Section 13, meaning thereby, all the provisions as amended by Amendment Act 1 of 1993 came into force on 07.08.1993, except omission of Section 18 which was not enforced. 69. Thus, Section 33-B came into force on 07.08.1993. It deals with regularization of ad hoc appointments but different category of teachers appointed in different manner against short term or substantive vacancies were covered. 70. Section 33-B(1)(a)(i) covered such ad hoc teachers who were appointed by promotion or direct recruitment in Lecturer Grade or Trained Graduate Grade till 14.05.1991 and in CT Grade till 13.05.1989, in accordance with procedure proscribed in Para 2 of Second Order and such short term vacancy was subsequently converted into a substantive vacancy. 71. Section 33-B(1)(a)(ii) covered those ad hoc Teachers who were appointed by direct recruitment on and after 14.07.1981 till 12.06.1985 against substantive vacancies in CT Grade through advertisement and such appointment was approved by DIOS. 72. Section 33-B(1)(a)(iii) brought within its ambit ad hoc teachers, whether appointed by promotion or direct recruitment from 31.07.1988 to 14.05.1991, against substantive vacancies in accordance with Section 18 as it stood before its omission by Amendment Act, 1992 (in fact this is Amendment Act 1 of 1993). 73. All the above three categories of teachers, if possessed requisite qualifications or exempted from such qualification, on the date of such ad hoc appointment, and served continuously the institution, from the date of such ad hoc appointment till 07.08.1993, and not related to Management/Principal/Headmaster of Institution concerned, were entitled to be considered by a Selection Committee to determine their suitability for appointment in a substantive capacity. Constitution of Selection Committee is provided in sub-section (2) of Section 33-B and ad hoc teachers who are recommended by Selection Committee, are to be given substantive appointment by Management in order of seniority. 74. Section 33-B(4) declares that all such teachers who are given substantive appointment under sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be on probation from the date of such substantive appointment. 75. 74. Section 33-B(4) declares that all such teachers who are given substantive appointment under sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be on probation from the date of such substantive appointment. 75. Sub-Section (5) of Section 33-B provides that teachers who are within the ambit of Section 33-B(1), if not found suitable for substantive appointment by Selection Committee, they shall cease to hold ad hoc appointment on such date as State Government, by order, specifies. 76. Here comes the change in tenure of ad hoc teachers who are within the ambit of sub-section (1) of Section 33-B. Even if they are not found suitable for substantive appointment, sub-section (5) confers a right upon them to continue till the date State Government by order specify for their cessation. 77. In our view, all such teachers who come within the ambit of Section 33-B(1), on and after 07.08.1991, got protection with regard to their right to hold ad hoc appointment till the eventuality contemplated in sub-section (5) happens and such teachers could not have been ceased to work on and after 07.08.1991, when Section 33-B came into force, by taking recourse to the tenure provided in Second Order or any other provision. 78. However, there was an exception vide sub-section (6) of Section 33-B carved out in respect of ad hoc teachers comes within the purview of Section 33-B(1) and it says that if on the date of commencement of Act, i.e., 07.08.1991, vacancy has already been filled in by a candidate recommended by Commission/Board or selection for vacancy has already been made, in such a case Section 33-B shall not be applicable. 79. Next is U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards (Amendment) Act, 1995 (U.P. Act No. 15 of 1995) (hereinafter referred to as "Amendment Act 15 of 1995") published in U.P. Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 8.8.1995 and came into force on 28.12.1994. Number of amendments were made but for our purposes suffice is to mention that vide Section 9, Section 18 was substituted, which reads as under: "18. Ad-hoc teachers.-(1) Where the Management has notified a vacancy to the Commission in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 10 and the post of a teacher actually remained vacant for more than two months, the Management may appoint by direct recruitment or promotion a teacher on purely ad-hoc basis, in the manner hereinafter provided in this section. Ad-hoc teachers.-(1) Where the Management has notified a vacancy to the Commission in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 10 and the post of a teacher actually remained vacant for more than two months, the Management may appoint by direct recruitment or promotion a teacher on purely ad-hoc basis, in the manner hereinafter provided in this section. (2) A teacher other than a Principal or Headmaster, who is to be appointed by direct recruitment may be appointed on the recommendation of the Selection Committee referred to in sub-section (8). (3) A teacher other than a Principal or Headmaster, who is to be appointed by promotion, may in the prescribed manner be appointed by promoting the seniormost teacher, possessing prescribed qualifications- (a) in the trained graduate's grade, as a lecturer, in the case of a vacancy in the lecturer's grade; (b) in the Certificate of Teaching grade, as teacher in the trained graduate's Grade, in the case of a vacancy in the Trained graduate's grade. (4) A vacancy in the post of a Principal may be filled by promoting the senior most teacher in the lecturer's grade. (5) A vacancy in the post of a Headmaster may be filled by promoting the senior most teacher in the trained graduate's grade. (6) For the purposes of making appointments under sub-sections (2) and (3), the Management shall determine the number of vacancies, as also the number of vacancies to be reserved for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes of citizen in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 and, as soon as may be thereafter, intimate the vacancies to be filled by direct recruitment to the District Inspector of Schools and if the Management fails to intimate the vacancies and the post of a teacher has actually remained vacant for more than three months, the District Inspector of Schools may, subject to such directions as may be issued by the Director and after verification from such institution or from his own record, determine such vacancies himself. (7) The District Inspector of Schools shall, on receipt of intimation of vacancies or as the case may be, after determining the vacancies under sub-section (6), forward the same to the Deputy Director of Education in charge of the Region, who shall invite applications from the persons possessing qualifications prescribed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or the regulations made thereunder, for ad-hoc appointment to the post of teachers other than Principal or Head Master in such manner as may be prescribed. (8)(a) For each region there shall be a Selection Committee for selection of candidates for ad-hoc appointment by direct recruitment comprising- (i) Regional Deputy Director of Education; (ii) Regional Deputy Director of Education (Second); (iii) Regional Assistant Director of Education (Basic). The Regional Deputy Director of Education who is senior shall be the Chairman. (b) The Selection Committee constituted under clause (a) shall make selection of the candidates, prepare a list of the selected candidates, allocate them to the Institutions and recommend their names to the Management for appointment under sub-section (2). (c) The criteria and procedure for selection of candidates and the manner of preparation of list of selected candidates and their allocation to the Institution shall be such as may be prescribed. (9) Every appointment of an ad-hoc teacher under sub-section (1) shall cease to have effect from the date when the candidate recommended by the Commission joins the post. (10) The provisions of Section 21-D shall mutatis mutandis apply to the teachers who are to be appointed under the provisions of this section." (emphasis added) 80. Earlier, Section 18 was substituted by this Section 18 w.e.f. 28.12.1994 vide Amendment Act No. 15 of 1995. It made provision for ad hoc appointment by direct recruitment and promotion and entire procedure was also provided therein. 81. An amendment was made in Section 33-B also vide Section 19 of Amendment Act 15 of 1995 which reads as under:- "Amendment of Section 33-B.- In Section 33-B of the principal Act, in sub-section (1) in clause (a), in sub-section (iii), for the words and figures "as it stood before its omission by the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards (Amendment) Act, 1992" the words and figures "as it stood before its substitution by the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards (Second Amendment) Act, 1992" shall be substituted." (emphasis added) 82. As we have already noticed, Section 18 which was sought to be omitted by Amendment Act No. 1 of 1993 was not given effect to and, therefore, Section 18 as it was at the time of Amendment Act No. 1 of 1993, continued to operate till it was substituted by Amendment Act No. 15 of 1995, w.e.f. 28.12.1994 and, therefore, a consequential amendment in Section 33-B(1)(a)(iii) was made by Section 19 of Amendment Act No. 15 of 1995. 83. Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Amendment) Act, 1998 (U.P. Act No. 25 of 1998) (hereinafter referred to as "Amendment Act 25 of 1998") was published in U.P. Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 27.7.1998 and came into force on 20.4.1998. Besides others, it made amendment in Section 18, and, inserted Sections 33-C and 33-D. The amended Section 18 (vide Section 9 of Amendment Act 25 of 1998) and Sections 33-C and 33-D, as inserted vide Section 10 thereof, read as under: "18. Ad-hoc teachers.-(1) Where the Management has notified a vacancy to the Board in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 10 and the post of a teacher actually remained vacant for more than two months, the Management may appoint by direct recruitment or promotion a teacher on purely ad-hoc basis, in the manner hereinafter provided in this section. (2) A teacher other than a Principal or Headmaster, who is to be appointed by direct recruitment may be appointed on the recommendation of the Selection Committee referred to in sub-section (8). (3) A teacher other than a Principal or Headmaster, who is to be appointed by promotion, may in the prescribed manner be appointed by promoting the seniormost teacher, possessing prescribed qualifications- (a) in the trained graduate's grade, as a lecturer, in the case of a vacancy in the lecturer's grade; (b) in the Certificate of Teaching grade, as teacher in the trained graduate's Grade, in the case of a vacancy in the Trained graduate's grade. (4) A vacancy in the post of a Principal may be filled by promoting the senior most teacher in the lecturer's grade. (5) A vacancy in the post of a Headmaster may be filled by promoting the senior most teacher in the trained graduate's grade. (4) A vacancy in the post of a Principal may be filled by promoting the senior most teacher in the lecturer's grade. (5) A vacancy in the post of a Headmaster may be filled by promoting the senior most teacher in the trained graduate's grade. (6) For the purposes of making appointments under sub-sections (2) and (3), the Management shall determine the number of vacancies, as also the number of vacancies to be reserved for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes of citizen in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 and, as soon as may be thereafter, intimate the vacancies to be filled by direct recruitment to the District Inspector of Schools and if the Management fails to intimate the vacancies and the post of a teacher has actually remained vacant for more than three months, the District Inspector of Schools may, subject to such directions as may be issued by the Director and after verification from such institution or from his own record, determine such vacancies himself. (7) The District Inspector of Schools shall, on receipt of intimation of vacancies or as the case may be, after determining the vacancies under sub-section (6), forward the same to the Deputy Director of Education in charge of the Region, who shall invite applications from the persons possessing qualifications prescribed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or the regulations made thereunder, for ad-hoc appointment to the post of teachers other than Principal or Head Master in such manner as may be prescribed. (8)(a) For each region there shall be a Selection Committee for selection of candidates for ad-hoc appointment by direct recruitment comprising- (i) Regional Joint Director of Education; (ii) Regional Deputy Director of Education (Secondary); (iii) Regional Assistant Director of Education (Basic). The Regional Joint Director of Education shall be the Chairman. (b) The Selection Committee constituted under clause (a) shall make selection of the candidates, prepare a list of the selected candidates, allocate them to the Institutions and recommend their names to the Management for appointment under sub-section (2). (c) The criteria and procedure for selection of candidates and the manner of preparation of list of selected candidates and their allocation to the Institution shall be such as may be prescribed. (c) The criteria and procedure for selection of candidates and the manner of preparation of list of selected candidates and their allocation to the Institution shall be such as may be prescribed. (9) Every appointment of an ad-hoc teacher under sub-section (1) shall cease to have effect from the date when the candidate recommended by the Board joins the post. (10) The provisions of Section 21-D shall mutatis mutandis apply to the teachers who are to be appointed under the provisions of this section." (Amended part are shown in Board letters) "10. Insertion of new Sections 33-C and 33-D.- After Section 33-B of the principal Act, the following section shall be inserted, namely :- 33-C. Regularization of certain more appointments.- (1) Any teacher who,- (a) (i) was appointed by promotion or by direct recruitment on or after May 14, 1991 but not later than August 6, 1993 on ad hoc basis against substantive vacancy in accordance with Section 18, in the Lecturer Grade or Trained Graduate Grade; (ii) was appointed by promotion on or after July 31, 1988 but not later than August 6, 1993 on ad hoc basis against a substantive vacancy in the post of a Principal or Headmaster in accordance with Section 18; (b) possesses the qualifications prescribed under, or is exempted from such qualifications in accordance with, the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921; (c) 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 Commission (Amendment) Act, 1998; (d) has been found suitable for appointment in a substantive capacity by a Selection Committee constituted under sub-section (2); shall be given substantive appointment by the Management. (2) (a) For each region, there shall be a Selection Committee comprising,- (i) Regional Joint Director of Education of that region, who shall be the Chairman; (ii) Regional Deputy Director of Education (Secondary) who shall be a member; (iii) Regional Assistant Director of Education (Basic) who shall be a member, In addition to above members the District Inspector of Schools of the concerned district shall be co-opted as member while considering the cases for regularization of that district. (b) The procedure of selection for substantive appointment under sub-section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed. (b) The procedure of selection for substantive appointment under sub-section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed. (3) (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. (4) 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. (5) A teacher who is not found suitable under sub-section (1) and a teacher who is not eligible to get a substantive appointment under that sub-section shall cease to hold the appointment on such date as the State Government may by order specify. (6) Nothing in this section shall be construed to entitle any teacher to substantive appointment, if on the date of commencement of the Ordinance referred to in clause (c) of sub-section (1) such vacancy had already been filled or selection for such vacancy has already been made in accordance with this Act. 33-D. Special provision for Certificate of Teaching Grade teachers.-Every teacher in the Certificate of Teaching Grade, who is a trained graduate and,- (a) has completed ten years' continuous satisfactory service in the said grade on or before January 1, 1986 shall, with effect from January 1, 1986; or (b) completes the said service of ten years after January 1, 1986 shall, with effect from the date of completion of the said service of ten years; be deemed to have been appointed in the Trained Graduate Grade." (emphasis added) 84. Section 33-C w.e.f. 20.04.1998 sought to regularize certain more ad hoc appointments. By virtue of sub-section (1)(a)(i) it brought within its ambit ad hoc teachers appointed in Lecturer or Trained Graduate Grades in accordance with Section 18, either by promotion or direct recruitment, within the period 14.05.1991 to 06.08.1993 in substantive vacancies. 85. Section 33-C(1)(a)(ii) talks of ad hoc Principals or Headmasters appointed against substantive vacancies in accordance with Section 18 by promotion from 31.07.1988 to 06.08.1993. 86. 85. Section 33-C(1)(a)(ii) talks of ad hoc Principals or Headmasters appointed against substantive vacancies in accordance with Section 18 by promotion from 31.07.1988 to 06.08.1993. 86. All these teachers including Principals and Headmasters, were to possess requisite qualifications prescribed or exempted and continuously serving the Institution from the date of ad hoc appointment till 20.04.1998, found suitable for appointment in substantive capacity by a Selection Committee, were to be given substantive appointments by Management. 87. In other respects Section 33-C is similar to Section 33-B sub-sections (3), (4), (5) and (6) and here also tenure of ad hoc teachers now has to be governed by sub-section (5). In other words, ad hoc teachers not found suitable for substantive appointments get a right to continue till State Government ceased such ad hoc appointment by issuing an order specifying such date. 88. Section 33-D(a) deals with CT Grade teachers, who had completed 10 years of continuous satisfactory service on or before 01.01.1986, they shall be deemed to have been appointed in Trained Graduate Grade w.e.f. 01.01.1986. 89. Section 33-D(b) deals with those CT Grade teachers who were appointed before 01.01.1986 but completed 10 years of service after 01.01.1986, and declares that with effect from the date of completion of 10 years of continuous satisfactory services such teachers shall be deemed to have been appointed in Trained Graduate Grade. 90. Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board (Second Amendment) Act, 1999 (U.P. Act, 31 of 1999) (hereinafter referred to as "Second Amendment Act 31 of 1999") was published in U.P. Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 29.7.1999 and came into force on 20.5.1999. It made amendment in respect of the constitution of Selection Boards. 91. Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board (Amendment) Act, 1999 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1999) (hereinafter referred to as "Amendment Act 13 of 1999") was published in U.P. Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 24.3.1999 and came into force on 25.1.1999. By Section 2 of this Amendment Act, Section 33-E was inserted which rescinded First, Second, Third and Fourth Orders issued under Section 33 of Act, 1982. However, as usual, anything done or action taken under the principal Act as amended were saved. By Section 2 of this Amendment Act, Section 33-E was inserted which rescinded First, Second, Third and Fourth Orders issued under Section 33 of Act, 1982. However, as usual, anything done or action taken under the principal Act as amended were saved. Section 33-E reads as under : "33-E. Rescission of orders.- The Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981, the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order, 1981, the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Third Order), 1982 and the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Fourth) Order, 1982 are hereby rescinded." (emphasis added) 92. Thus, by virtue of Section 33-E, since Removal of Difficulties Orders, i.e., First, Second, Third and Fourth, stood rescinded w.e.f. 25.01.1999, the effect is that ad hoc appointment of teachers, so far as governed by Removal of Difficulties Orders, ceased to have any application and now Removal of Difficulties Orders had no role in the matter of ad hoc appointments on and after 25.01.1999. However, those who were continuing would continue since anything done or action taken under Act, 1982 as amended from time to time were saved. 93. Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board (Amendment) Act, 2001 (U.P. Act No. 5 of 2001) (hereinafter referred to as "Amendment Act 5 of 2001") was published in U.P. Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 28.3.2001. It came into force on 30.12.2000. Section 16 was amended, Section 18 was substituted and Section 33-F for regularization of ad-hoc appointments, against short term vacancies, made on or after 14.5.1991 but not later than 6.8.1993, was inserted. Section 18 as it stood substituted and Section 33-F inserted by Amendment Act 5 of 2001 read as under: "18. Ad hoc Principals or Headmasters. - (1) Where the Management has notified a vacancy to the Board in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 10 and the post of the Principal or the Headmaster actually remained vacant for more than two months, the Management shall fill such vacancy on purely ad hoc basis by promoting the senior-most teacher,- (a) in the lecturer's grade in respect of a vacancy in the post of the Principal. (b) in the trained graduate's grade in respect of a vacancy in the post of the Headmaster. (b) in the trained graduate's grade in respect of a vacancy in the post of the Headmaster. (2) Where the Management fails to promote the senior-most teacher under sub-section (1) the Inspector shall himself issue the order of promotion of such teacher and the teacher concerned shall be entitled to get his salary as the Principal or the Headmaster, as the case may be, from the date he joins such post in pursuance of such order of promotion. (3) Where the teacher to whom the order of promotion is issued under sub-section (2) is unable to join the post of the Principal or the Headmaster, as the case may be, due to any act or omission on the part of the Management, such teacher may submit his joining report to the Inspector, and shall thereupon be entitled to get his salary as the Principal or the Headmaster, as the case may be, from the date he submits the said report. (4) Every appointment of an ad hoc Principal or Headmaster under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall cease to have effect from the date when the candidate recommended by the Board joins the post." "33-F. Regularization of appointments against short term vacancies.-(1) Any teacher who,- (a) was appointed by promotion or by direct recruitment in the lecturer's grade or trained graduates grade on or after May, 14, 1991 but not later than August 6, 1993 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) possesses the qualification prescribed under, or is exempted from such qualifications in accordance with, the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. (c) 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, 2001. (d) 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. (d) 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. (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 that 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 ordinance referred to in clause (c) of sub-section (1) such vacancy had already been filled or selection for such vacancy has already been made in accordance with this Act." (emphasis added) 94. Amendment Act No. 5 of 2001 stopped ad hoc appointments by direct recruitment and promotion on the post of teacher. It made provision only for ad hoc promotion on the post of Principal/Headmaster. Section 18 permitted ad hoc appointment only by promotion if the vacancy has been notified to Commission/Board in accordance with Section 10(1) and post actually remained vacant for more than two months. It also provides that if management fails to promote senior most teacher on the happening of eventuality provided in sub-section (1) of Section 18, then DIOS can issue such order of promotion. Tenure of such ad hoc Principal or Headmaster is till the candidate recommended by Commission/Board joins the post. 95. Section 33-F attempted to cover ad hoc appointments in Lecturer or Trained Graduate Grade, whether by promotion or direct recruitment from 14.05.1991 to 06.08.1993. Tenure of such ad hoc Principal or Headmaster is till the candidate recommended by Commission/Board joins the post. 95. Section 33-F attempted to cover ad hoc appointments in Lecturer or Trained Graduate Grade, whether by promotion or direct recruitment from 14.05.1991 to 06.08.1993. It provided that such appointments if made following procedure prescribed in Para 2 of Second Order and vacancy is subsequently converted into substantive one, the incumbent possessing requisite qualification or exempted from such qualification, and continuously serving the institution from the date of ad hoc appointment till 30.12.2000, if found suitable for appointment in substantive capacity by Selection Committee, shall be given substantive appointment by Management. Here also, w.e.f. 30.12.2000, ad hoc teachers appointed against substantive vacancies coming within the ambit of Section 33-F(1) got their tenure of ad hoc appointment governed by sub-section (4) which says that if not found suitable, ad hoc appointees would not to be immediately terminated but would cease to hold such ad hoc appointment on such date as State Government by order, specify. Sub-section (5) of Section 33-F provided usual exclusion as provided in earlier similar provisions that benefit under Section 33-F would not be applicable if on 30.12.2000, the vacancy had already been filled in on the recommendation made by Commission/Board or selection for such vacancy has already been made by Commission/Board. 96. Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board (Second Amendment) Act, 2001 (U.P. Act No. 14 of 2001) (hereinafter referred to as "Second Amendment Act 14 of 2001") was published in U.P. Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 30.4.2001. It came into force on 3.3.2001. Composition of Selection Board was altered. 97. Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board (Amendment) Act, 2006 (U.P. Act No. 37 of 2006) (hereinafter referred to as "Amendment Act 37 of 2006") was published in U.P. Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 11.12.2006. Vide Section 2, Section 16 was amended and vide Section 3 Sections 21-E and 21-F were inserted. Section 21-E and 21-F read as under : "21-E. Absorption of subject experts.- (1) There shall be a list of subject experts working in private aided secondary schools possessing prescribed educational and training qualification including the subject experts who have received honorarium and worked for a minimum period of two academic sessions and were working on September 30, 2006. The list shall be maintained by the Director in such manner as may be prescribed. The list shall be maintained by the Director in such manner as may be prescribed. (2) Where any substantive vacancy in the post of a teacher in an institution is to be filled by direct recruitment, such post shall, at the instance of the Inspector, be offered by the management to a subject expert whose name is included in the list referred to in sub-section (1). (3) Where any subject expert who is offered an appointment in accordance with the provision of sub-section (2) fails to join the post within the time allowed, which shall not be less than seven days, his name shall be removed from the list, referred to in sub-section (1). (4) No appointment of any teacher to an institution shall be made under Section 16 unless the list referred to in sub-section (1) is exhausted. (5) The subject experts included in the list referred to in sub-section (1) shall be absorbed in those institution where any substantive vacancy is to be filled by direct recruitment. No subject expert shall have claim for appointment to any particular post. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section.- (a) "Director" means the Director of Secondary Education, Uttar Pradesh and includes any other officer authorized by him in this behalf; (b) the words "Inspector", "Institution", "Management" and teacher shall have the meaning respectively assigned to them in the Uttar Pradesh High School and Intermediate College (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971, provided that "teacher" shall not include a Principal or a Headmaster. (c) ''subject experts" mean, persons working in aided Secondary Schools on a fixed honorarium appointed in the prescribed manner on a contractual basis. 21.F. Appointment of teachers on default by management.- (1) Where the management fails to offer any post to a subject expert in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 21-E within the time specified by the Inspector, the Inspector, may himself issue the letter of appointment to such subject expert and the subject expert concerned shall be entitled to get his salary as teacher from the date he joins the post in pursuance of such letter of appointment. (2) Where the subject expert to whom the letter of appointment is issued under sub-section (1), is unable to join the post due to any act or omission on the part of the Management such subject expert may submit his joining report to the Inspector, and shall thereupon be entitled to get his salary from the date he submits the said report." (emphasis added) 98. Section 21-E sought to give some relief to Subject Experts who were appointed under a Government order, in private, aided, secondary schools, and paid only honorarium for the period they were employed. Section 21-F says that a list of Subject Experts, who have worked for a minimum period of two academic sessions and working on 30.09.2006, shall be prepared and kept by Director of Secondary Education, in the manner as may be prescribed. Whenever any substantive vacancy on the post of teacher in an Institution is to be filled in by direct recruitment, such post, at the instance of DIOS, be offered by Management to a Subject Expert whose name is included in the list maintained by Director of Secondary Education. This benefit is applicable on and after the enforcement of Amendment Act No. 37 of 2006. In fact with insertion of Section 21-E, substantive appointments were stopped till the list referred to in Section 21-E(1) is exhausted. 99. Section 21-F is in continuation of Section 21-E and provides that if management fails to offer any post to Subject Expert in accordance with sub-section (3) of Section 21-E, within the time specified by DIOS, then DIOS himself would issue letter of appointment to such teachers. 100. Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board (Second Amendment) Act, 2006 (U.P. Act No. 40 of 2006), Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board (Second Amendment) Act, 2007 (U.P. Act No. 22 of 2007) and Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board (Third Amendment) Act, 2007 (U.P. Act No. 4 of 2008) all deal with Amendment of Section 5 of Act, 1982 relating to tenure of Boards/Chairman of the Selection Boards. 101. Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board (Amendment) Act, 2016 (U.P. Act No. 7 of 2016) was published in U.P. Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 22.3.2016. 101. Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board (Amendment) Act, 2016 (U.P. Act No. 7 of 2016) was published in U.P. Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 22.3.2016. Section 2 of U.P. Act 7 of 2016, amended Section 16 and vide Section 3 thereof, Section 33-G has been inserted which provided for regularization of ad hoc Teachers appointed in short term vacancies on or after 7.8.1993 but not later than 25.1.1999 i.e. when First and Second Orders were rescinded. Section 16, as it stands amended by U.P. Act No. 7 of 2016, and Section 33-G as inserted read as under: "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, 21-G, 33, 33-A, 33-B, 33-C, 33-D, 33-F and 33-G, 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." "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 adhoc 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 appointments 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. (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. (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 filled or selection for such vacancy has already been made in accordance with this Act. (6) The services of the adhoc 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 adhoc teachers and teachers who are appointed against short term vacancies. (8) Adhoc 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." (emphasis added) 102. Section 33-G in fact is a kind of residuary provision taking into consideration ad hoc appointees against short term vacancies or substantive vacancies which remained to be covered for substantive appointments under various provisions already made. Section 33-G(1)(a) says that ad hoc appointments made against short term vacancies, in accordance with procedure prescribed in Para 2 of Second Order, whether by promotion or by direct recruitment, in Lecturer or Trained Graduate Grade, and the vacancies were subsequently converted into substantive, would be considered for substantive appointment by a Selection Committee to be constituted under aforesaid provision. Section 33-G(1)(b) provided similar benefit to ad hoc appointments made against substantive vacancies in accordance with Section 18 in Lecturer or Trained Graduate Grade from 07.08.1993 to 30.12.2000. All other conditions were similar as provided in earlier similar provisions, which we have already discussed. 103. Section 33-G(1)(b) provided similar benefit to ad hoc appointments made against substantive vacancies in accordance with Section 18 in Lecturer or Trained Graduate Grade from 07.08.1993 to 30.12.2000. All other conditions were similar as provided in earlier similar provisions, which we have already discussed. 103. A complete retrospect of legislative enactments, discussed above, show a genuine attempt on the part of Legislature, firstly, to infuse a system of an independent Recruitment Body with uniform principles applicable to all secondary educational institutions, across the State, and also to apply provisions of social justice like reservation etc. Simultaneously it also shows a serious concern, of allowing no hindrance or obstruction in functioning of Educational Institutions due to delay, if any, in constitution or functioning of said independent Recruitment Body. Whenever required, Legislature intervened and made provisions permitting ad-hoc appointments to maintain continuity of education to students as also standard of education by adhering to appropriate eligibility conditions. Further, wherever such ad-hoc appointments had continued for quite sometime, Legislature has also taken care of such individuals appointed on ad-hoc basis, by protecting their right to earn livelihood by making provisions for their regularization/substantive appointments. 104. Selections and appointments machinery provided under Act, 1921 got a complete blockage when Radiogram dated 7.4.1981 was issued, whereby, State Government stopped all selections and appointments of Principals, Headmasters and Teachers including recruitments by promotion, in all Government aided Secondary Education Institutions (except minority institutions). We may take judicial notice of the fact that this Radiogram was challenged in a large number of writ petitions before this Court. In most cases, interim orders were passed but ultimately Radiogram was upheld by this Court vide judgment dated 01.03.1982 in Writ Petition No. 6933 of 1981 which was dismissed. Thereafter vide judgment dated 01.04.1982 writ petition in Dr. Ramji Dwivedi vs. State of U.P. (supra) was dismissed and this judgment in Dr. Ramji Dwivedi vs. State of U.P. (supra) was confirmed and upheld by Supreme Court vide judgment dated 26.04.1983. Supreme Court held that State Government has power under Section 9(4) of Act, 1921 to take immediate action and pass such order or take such other action consistent with provisions of Act as it deems necessary and may, by such order, modify or rescind or make any Regulation in respect of any matter and shall forthwith inform the Board accordingly. Supreme Court held that State Government has power under Section 9(4) of Act, 1921 to take immediate action and pass such order or take such other action consistent with provisions of Act as it deems necessary and may, by such order, modify or rescind or make any Regulation in respect of any matter and shall forthwith inform the Board accordingly. Court held that since power of appointment was given by Regulations and State Government has power under Section 9(4) to make, modify or rescind any Regulation, Radiogram dated 07.04.1981 would trace its authority to Section 9(4) of Act, 1921. The relevant observations of Supreme Court read as under: "The effect of order conveyed by the radiogram would be to rescind the regulation conferring power on the Committee of Management to make appointment and withdrawing and/or suspending power of appointment of Principal and teachers. ....... in our opinion sub-sec. (4) specifically confers power on the State Government without making any reference to the Board to make, modify or rescind any regulation as also make such other order consistent with the provisions of the Act. This power of vide amplitude will comprehend the power to stop all appointments for the time being. And the power appears to have been exercised as Government was contemplating taking away the power of private management of non-government aided schools to make appointment of teachers including Principals. In order to avoid forestalling of governmental action by private managements, the power to make appointments was suspended for the time being". (emphasis added) 105. Court in Dr. Ramji Dwivedi (supra) also held that order issued by State Government became effective, the moment it was issued. The effect of this order is that Selection Committees ceased to have any right to select and Management ceased power to make appointment. Thus, the first step whereby private Management's right of selection was taken away is Radiogram dated 7.4.1981 whereby all selections and appointments of teachers and Principals were stopped by State Government. 106. In a State like Uttar Pradesh where Secondary Institutions are thousands in number, it can be easily assumed that vacancies must have occurred regularly and also existed prior to 7.4.1981 when Radiogram was issued. However, it took more than 3 months to the legislature when First Ordinance was promulgated on 10th July 1981. 106. In a State like Uttar Pradesh where Secondary Institutions are thousands in number, it can be easily assumed that vacancies must have occurred regularly and also existed prior to 7.4.1981 when Radiogram was issued. However, it took more than 3 months to the legislature when First Ordinance was promulgated on 10th July 1981. This Ordinance contemplated constitution of a Commission/Board for the purpose of recruitment and selection of teachers and Principals in non-government Secondary Educational Institutions recognized under Act, 1921. Here also it is a matter of common knowledge that as soon as Ordinance was issued, Commission for selections and recruitments could not have been made available immediately since selection of Members and constitution of Commission necessarily had to take some time. This vacuum caused due to stopping of selection and appointment by Management on the one hand and non-availability of Independent Recruitment Body under First Ordinance necessarily had to reflect upon right of students to get education and also bound to create administrative problems in Secondary Educational Institutions where vacancies of Principals/Headmasters existed or occurred. 107. It did not take much time to Government to visualize this problem and it came forward with First Order vide notification dated 31.7.1981 permitting ad-hoc appointments by Management. However, First Order itself was issued with a gap of 3 months and 27 days since selections and appointments were stopped vide Radiogram dated 07.04.1981. 108. First Order permitted ad-hoc appointments in substantive vacancies existing on the date of commencement of First Order i.e. 31.7.1981 caused due to death, retirement, resignation or otherwise. It also allowed ad-hoc appointments in leave vacancies where whole or unexpired portion of leave was more than two months on the date of commencement of First Order i.e. 31.7.1981. It also provided that substantive vacancies or leave vacancies of the nature specified in para 2 Clause (a) and (b) which came into existence within a period of 2 months subsequent to 31.7.1981 i.e. date of commencement of First Order, even such vacancies could have been filled in by Management by making ad-hoc appointments. Ad-hoc appointments under First Order included ad-hoc appointment by promotion as also direct recruitment. Ad-hoc appointments under First Order included ad-hoc appointment by promotion as also direct recruitment. Para 3 of First Order, however, restricted tenure of ad-hoc appointments stating that such ad-hoc appointments shall cease from the earliest of (i) a candidate recommended by Commission/Selection Board joins the post; or (ii) on expiry of 6 months from the date of ad-hoc appointment. (emphasis added) 109. Intention of legislature was clear. An ad-hoc appointment should not have continued for a long period. It should not become practically a substantive or regular appointment without following rigorous tests/selection. Intention was that at the earliest ad-hoc appointee must be replaced by a candidate duly selected by Commission/Selection Board. Therefore, maximum period allowed to ad-hoc appointee to continue, vide First Order, as initially enacted, 6 months from the date of ad-hoc appointment, if earlier thereto a candidate selected by Commission/Selection Board has not joined. Period of ad-hoc appointment, therefore, even if not necessarily was required to be mentioned in the appointment letter, Statute itself fixed a tenure vide para 3 of First Order (as initially issued on 31.07.1981). This is a tenure provided by statute, and, therefore, ad-hoc appointees under First Order could not have claimed any right to continue beyond the said period since cessation of ad-hoc appointment was by operation of statuary provision. This limitation on tenure provided by statute had to be observed in words and spirit. There was no ambiguity in the language of First Order. While interpreting provision of a Statute, Court must read the provision as it is, without adding or subtracting anything therefrom unless consequences are so drastic that such consequences could not have been contemplated by competent Legislature. That is how we find no hesitation in holding that tenure in para 3 of First Order was mandatory. 110. In a less than one and a half month, State Government visualized that for ad-hoc appointment, nature of vacancies is a very relevant factor. It needs to treat vacancies differently and therefore sought to separate the procedure and conditions for ad-hoc appointment in substantive vacancies vis-a-vis short term vacancies. 111. With this intention, Second Order by notification dated 11.9.1981 came to be issued when First Ordinance was operating. It amended para 2 of First Order and restricted application of First Order to substantive vacancies caused by death, resignation or otherwise. 111. With this intention, Second Order by notification dated 11.9.1981 came to be issued when First Ordinance was operating. It amended para 2 of First Order and restricted application of First Order to substantive vacancies caused by death, resignation or otherwise. Leave vacancies and otherwise short term vacancies were taken away from the ambit of First Order and provision was made to govern the same under Second Order. 112. Para 3 of Second Order provided for duration of ad-hoc appointments against short term vacancies and said that every appointment under para 2 of Second Order shall cease from earliest of (a) When teacher, on account of whom short term vacancy has arisen, that is, who was on leave or under suspension, comes back and joins the post;(b) a period of 6 months from the date of ad-hoc appointment expires; and, (c) when short term vacancy otherwise ceases to exist. (emphasis added) 113. Para 3 of Second Order is also unambiguous, clear and speaks in mandatory language. It says that ad-hoc appointment under Para 2 of Second Order shall cease from the date, earliest of the dates provided in Clauses (a), (b) and (c). These three clauses govern different eventualities i.e. coming back of teacher concerned who has caused short term vacancy due to leave or suspension, or 6 months' period from ad-hoc appointment expires or short term vacancy otherwise ceases to exist. 114. Language of Para 3 of Second Order is clear, unambiguous and there is nothing in the entire order which, in any manner, may otherwise suggest a different tenure of ad-hoc appointment made under Para 2 of Second Order. In our view, legislative intent in Para 3 of Second Order is obligatory and operates by law to make cessation of appointment on happening of any of the condition therein. 115. Looking to the backdrop of objective with which these provisions were made, it would be an impediment and also illogical if we interpret or read aforesaid provision so as to dilute effect thereof, in any manner, we find no reason to do so. We have no hesitation or doubt in our mind to hold that Para 3 of Second Order, provided duration of ad-hoc appointment and there is no reason to add or omit anything therein so as to dilute otherwise clear legislative command. Thus it is mandatory and self operational on happening of any contingency stated therein. We have no hesitation or doubt in our mind to hold that Para 3 of Second Order, provided duration of ad-hoc appointment and there is no reason to add or omit anything therein so as to dilute otherwise clear legislative command. Thus it is mandatory and self operational on happening of any contingency stated therein. 116. Further, statutory provisions also make things clear. By Third Order, issued by notification dated 30.01.1982, third para of First Order was substituted. It allowed ad-hoc appointments, made against substantive vacancies under First Order, to continue till a candidate recommended by Commission/Selection Board joins the post; and second contingency of 6 months from the date of ad-hoc appointment in respect of substantive vacancies was done away. Meaning thereby, ad-hoc appointments made in accordance with procedure prescribed under First Order against substantive vacancies were allowed to continue till a candidate recommended by Commission/Selection Board joins the post and other restrictions on tenure of such ad-hoc appointments ceased to apply with effect from 30.1.1982. 117. This position has been continued even in subsequent enactments dealing with regularization/substantive appointments etc. and also Section 18, as amended from time to time, and it has been maintained that ad hoc appointments made against substantive vacancies after following procedure prescribed in First Order shall continue till the candidate recommended by Commission/Board joins the post. 118. Same thing was done in respect of ad-hoc appointments made in short term vacancies following procedure under Second Order. Here also Clause (b) of Para 3 of Second Order was deleted. Therefore, by notification dated 30.1.1982, restriction on tenure of ad-hoc appointment made against short term vacancies, which was earlier 6 months, was taken away. From 30.1.1982, such ad-hoc appointment could have continued till a candidate recommended by Commission/Selection Board joins the post or short term vacancy ceases to exist, whichever is earlier. 119. This amendment was consistent with scheme of things as also what has happened in the meantime. All selection and appointment of teachers were stopped on 7.4.1981 and for next 3 months and more, though provisions for independent Recruitment body were made but such body could not be constituted and this vacuum continued for more than 8 months, hence, by Third Order, published on 30.1.1982, 6 months' tenure of ad-hoc appointment, having been found detrimental to interest of educational institutions and those of students, was done away. All ad-hoc appointments, whether in substantive vacancies, or short term vacancies made under First Order or Second Order, as the case may be, were allowed to continue till duly recommended candidate from Commission/Selection Board joins the post. However, in respect of ad-hoc appointments made against short term vacancies, there continued one more point of cessation, which was allowed to continue for very obvious reasons and that is, if short term vacancies ceases to exist then there would be no justification to allow such ad hoc appointee to continue. 120. An argument was advanced that short-term vacancy if has converted into substantive vacancy but vacancy continued, and there being no teacher available in the Institution, no rational or usual purpose would be served by terminating ad hoc teacher appointed in accordance with procedure prescribed in Second Order and, therefore, cessation of such a teacher is illogical and arbitrary. At the first flush, argument attracts but on deeper scrutiny, we find no substance therein for the reason that procedure prescribed for ad hoc appointment in First Order, which was applicable to substantive vacancies was different than that provided in Second Order. Legislature contemplated a more summary procedure for making ad hoc appointment against short term vacancies but when ad hoc appointment was to be made against substantive vacancies, more detailed procedure was contemplated by First Order. In any case, the natural consequence of a provision cannot be altered, narrowed or whittled down by assuming that another method would have been more appropriate. 121. However, we are not touching on this aspect at this stage as it is not necessary but confine ourselves to simple interpretation of Para 3 of Second Order and to clear entire ambiguity, we hold that it is mandatory and had to be observed without any dilution. 122. Validity of Removal of Difficulties Orders issued under Section 33 was challenged and it came to be considered by a Full Bench of three Judges in Radha Raizada and others vs. Committee of Management, Vadyawati Darbari Girls Inter College and others, 1994 3 UPLBEC 1551 . The issue was raised in Writ Petition No. 18934 of 1991. A vacancy occurred on the post of Principal due to retirement of permanent Principal of the college. Management notified vacancy to Commission/Board which could not recommend a selected candidate for appointment to the post of Principal. The issue was raised in Writ Petition No. 18934 of 1991. A vacancy occurred on the post of Principal due to retirement of permanent Principal of the college. Management notified vacancy to Commission/Board which could not recommend a selected candidate for appointment to the post of Principal. Management made an ad-hoc appointment on the post of Principal which was challenged on the ground that such ad-hoc appointment on the post of Principal could have been made only from amongst the senior most teacher in Lecturer grade and not by direct recruitment. Facts in connected Writ Petition No. 23642 of 1991 were also same. The vacancy of Principal occurred and it was filled in by Management making ad-hoc appointment by direct recruitment. It was challenged on the ground that it could have been filled in by promotion of a senior most teacher. In another connected Writ Petition no. 23737 of 1991 a similar ad-hoc appointment by direct recruitment made by Management was not approved by D.I.O.S. and he directed to make promotion which was challenged. There was a special appeal also i.e. Special Appeal No. 31 of 1991 in which an appointment was made by letter dated 06.01.1989 up to 30.04.1989 without obtaining approval from D.I.O.S. Learned Single Judge dismissed writ petition, whereagainst intra-Court appeal was filed. The argument raised before Full Bench were, that for making ad-hoc appointment, it was not necessary to comply/observe provisions of First Order issued under Section 33 of Act, 1982. Since Removal of Difficulties Order was obstructing the way of persons appointed contrary to provisions thereof, hence, validity of Section 33 was also assailed. Full Bench formulated, following questions to be answered by it: "(a) Whether Section 33 of the U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 suffers from vice of excessive delegation of legislative power and as such it is void? (b) If the answer to question No. (a) is in negative, whether Removal of Difficulties Orders published on 31st July, 1981, Removal of Difficulties (Second) Order published on 11th September 1981 and Removal of Difficulties (Third) Order published on 30th January, 1982, issued by the Government tend to amend, scheme and essential features of the Act and as such are ultravires the provisions of Section 33 of the Act. (c) What would be the criteria and procedure for ad hoc appointment of a teacher or principal either under the Removal of Difficulties Order or under Section 18 of the U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982? (d) Whether any approval or prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools or Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, as the case may be, is necessary for making ad hoc appointment of a teacher or Principal either under the Removal of Difficulties Order or under Section 18 of the Act ?" 123. Answering question 1 regarding validity of Section 33, Court said that Section 33 enables Government, wherever it finds any difficulty in giving effect to the provisions of Act, to issue a notified order directing that the provisions of Act shall have effect subject to such adaptation whether by modification, addition or omission as it may deem necessary or expedient. The object is that essential purpose of Act may be given effect to and for that purpose and to that extent, by Removal of Difficulties Orders, modification etc. may be allowed but the same shall not affect object of Act or essential features or bring any essential change in the Act. Court held that existence of difficulty is the first condition precedent for exercising power under Section 33; and, Secondly, it will be exercised only when it is necessary and expedient. Consequently, Section 33 was upheld and question 1 was answered accordingly. 124. Then coming to question 2, whether, First, Second and Third Orders tend to amend scheme and essential features of Act, 1982 and as such are ultravires of Section 33, Court held that the said orders do not provide for substantive appointments. There already existed Section 18 of Act, 1982 making provision for ad-hoc appointment of teachers in an educational institution till availability of a selected candidate by Commission/Board. Removal of Difficulties Orders were issued firstly on account of delay in establishment of Commission and secondly further time to be consumed by Commission/Board in making recruitment/selection and recommendation of selected candidate to the concerned educational institutions. It was in the interest of institution, that basic purpose i.e. education to students, may not suffer. Said orders in effect are in addition or to supplement the power conferred by Section 18 and provide requisite mechanism to fill in a substantive or short term vacancy on ad-hoc basis, for the time being. It was in the interest of institution, that basic purpose i.e. education to students, may not suffer. Said orders in effect are in addition or to supplement the power conferred by Section 18 and provide requisite mechanism to fill in a substantive or short term vacancy on ad-hoc basis, for the time being. It was observed, had Removal of Difficulties Orders not been issued, teaching in the institutions would have paralyzed. Hence, looking to the entire aspects Court upheld First, Second and Third Orders and answered question 2 accordingly. 125. Then Court in Radha Raizada (supra) proceeded to answer questions 3 and 4 together which relate to criteria and procedure for ad-hoc appointments and whether approval or prior approval of District Inspector of Schools is necessary or not. Court noticed that up to 13.07.1992 procedure for ad-hoc appointment provided under First and Second Orders continued to be operated read with Section 18 but amendment of Section 18 with effect from 14.07.1992 replaced the procedure. Then by Amendment Act 1 of 1993 an interesting thing happened that in Section 16 words "subject to Section 18" were omitted but Section 18 which was sought to be omitted by Section 13 of Amendment Act 1 of 1993 was not brought in force, hence, appointments made under Section 18 become void by virtue of Section 16 and despite continuance of Section 18 no ad-hoc appointment could have been made. The situations covered by legislative changes was kept by Court in three stages: (i) from 31.07.1981 to 13.07.1992 (ii) from 14.07.1992 to 06.08.1993 (iii) from 07.08.1993 and onwards 126. In regard to first stage, Court held that Section 18 did not provide any procedure for ad-hoc appointment and this difficulty is taken care by Removal of Difficulties Orders i.e. First, Second and Third Orders. Section 18 and First, Second and Third Removal of Difficulties Orders were operating in same field and part of an integrated scheme, namely, appointment of ad-hoc teachers who are urgently required in the institutions when Commission/Board has failed to make recommendations despite requisition sent to it by Management. Section 18 and First, Second and Third Removal of Difficulties Orders were operating in same field and part of an integrated scheme, namely, appointment of ad-hoc teachers who are urgently required in the institutions when Commission/Board has failed to make recommendations despite requisition sent to it by Management. In respect of ad-hoc appointments made under provisions of First Order, Court observed that since selection is to be made therein by DIOS or any officer authorized by him in his personal supervision, hence, when ad-hoc appointment is made under Para 5 of First Order, there is no further requirement of prior approval of D.I.O.S.. So far as Second Order is concerned, neither Section 18 contemplated any ad-hoc appointment in short term vacancy nor First Order envisaged such an appointment, hence, this situation was taken care by Second Order. Court examined various provisions of Second Order and by judicial interpretation modified the procedure of notifying vacancies on the notice board of institution contained in Para 2(3) of Second Order by observing that such procedure is not fair and consistent with Article 16(1) of the Constitution, therefore, for the purpose of notifying short term vacancy same procedure must be followed as laid down in First Order. It held that for notifying vacancies, procedure prescribed in Para 5(2) of First Order shall be followed. Thereafter, procedure prescribed in Para 2(3) of Second Order shall be followed which included sending of record of Selection Committee to D.I.O.S. for its prior approval. D.I.O.S. is under an obligation to communicate its decision within seven days failing which his approval shall be deemed and thereafter, Management is empowered to make ad-hoc appointment. This ad-hoc appointment is neither an appointment made under Section 18 nor under First Order and once appointment has been made after communication of decision by D.I.O.S. or under deemed approval, then no further approval is required. With regard to ad-hoc promotion of senior most teacher, Court observed that it is a rule. Except cases where there are serious charges against senior most teachers which would render appointment of such teacher detrimental to the institution or such senior most teacher suffers such a serious physical disability, so as to render him incapable of functioning as Teacher said rule must be followed. 127. Except cases where there are serious charges against senior most teachers which would render appointment of such teacher detrimental to the institution or such senior most teacher suffers such a serious physical disability, so as to render him incapable of functioning as Teacher said rule must be followed. 127. In the second stage when Section 18 was amended and procedure for ad-hoc appointment was provided, Court found that there was a very little difference between the procedure prescribed in First Order and Section 18 amended with effect from 14.07.1992. Since under Section 18 now selection is to be made by a Committee constituting officials stated therein, and under supervision of D.I.O.S., no further approval was required after candidate is recommended by D.I.O.S. and is appointed by Management. 128. Coming to third stage, Court finds that though Section 16 did not contain words "subject to Section 18" but still it contains words "subject to Section 33", hence, Removal of Difficulties Orders continue to operate and ad-hoc appointments could have been made following the same procedure, as it was till July 1992. 129. Hon'ble G.P. Mathur,J. (as His Lordship then was) though agreed on questions 1 and 2 as answered by Hon'ble V.N. Khare,J. (as His Lordship then was) but on questions (c) and (d) took slightly different opinion. Hon'ble V.N. Khare,j. answered four questions as under: "My answer to the questions framed by us are these: Answer to Question No. (a): Answer to Question No. (a) so far as it relates to sub-sections (1) and (2) of the Act is in the negative. So far as sub-section (3) to Section 33 of the Act is concerned, it is in affirmative but not struck down for the reasons given above. Answer to Question No. (b): Answer to Question No. (b) is in negative. Answer to Question No. (c) to (d) First Stage : The substantive vacancy in the post of teacher is firstly required to be filled by promotion. If not available, then by direct recruitment in the manner laid down in paragraph 5 of the First Removal of Difficulties Order. Answer to Question No. (c) to (d) First Stage : The substantive vacancy in the post of teacher is firstly required to be filled by promotion. If not available, then by direct recruitment in the manner laid down in paragraph 5 of the First Removal of Difficulties Order. Short term appointments are to be made in accordance with the provisions of Second Removal of Difficulties Order only after advertising the vacancy on the manner laid down under sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 5 of the First Removal of Difficulties Order in addition to notifying the short term vacancy on the notice board of the institution. Ad-hoc appointment of head of institution is to be made by promotion on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of the unfit. SECOND STAGE : The method of ad-hoc appointment of teacher, Principal against the short term, vacancy remains the same as it was in the first stage. The direct recruitment of ad hoc teacher is required to be done in accordance with the procedure laid down in Section 18 of the Act. THIRD STAGE: Ad-hoc appointment of teacher Principal either by promotion or by direct recruitment is permissible under the First Removal of Difficulties Order and the procedure of such appointment remains the same as was during the first stage. Ad-hoc appointment against the short term vacancy remains the same as it was in the first stage. The ad hoc appointment of Principal is required to be done under paragraph 4 of the First Removal of Difficulties Order on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of the unfit." 130. Hon'ble G.P. Mathur,J. answered questions 3 and 4 as under: "By answer to questions (c) and (d) is as follows: Questions No. (c) First Stage.- (July 31, 1981 to July 13, 1992). Both substantive and short term vacancies have to be filled in by promotion. If it is possible to do so on account of non-availability of a teacher possessing requisite qualification the same can be filled by direct recruitment in accordance with the First Order in the case of substantive vacancy and in accordance with Second Order in the case of short term vacancy. Second Stage.- (July 14, 1992 to August 6, 1993). Post of Principal and Head Master has to be filled in by promotion only. Second Stage.- (July 14, 1992 to August 6, 1993). Post of Principal and Head Master has to be filled in by promotion only. Substantive vacancy on the post of teacher has to be filled in accordance with amended Section 18 and short term vacancy in the same as in first Stage. Third Stage.- (August 7, 1993 onwards). No ad hoc appointment on substantive vacancy can be made. Only short term vacancy can filled in the same manner as in First Stage. Question (d) If appointment is made strictly in the manner indicated in answer to question No. (c) no prior or subsequent approval of Education Authorities is required." 131. Since third Hon'ble Judge i.e. Hon'ble N.B. Asthana,J. concurred with Hon'ble V.N. Khare, J., therefore, on all the questions, Full Bench decision as per the judgment of Hon'ble V.N. Khare, J. came to be delivered. This judgment has examined the scheme of Section 18 vis-a-vis Removal of Difficulties Orders issued under Section 33 during period of commencement of Act, 1982 till the situation as arrived after enactment of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1993 but we find that for the purpose of issues before us it does not help the parties either way. 132. In the context of above judgment, however, we may clarify that requisition to Commission was only in respect of substantive vacancies and not for short term vacancies. Therefore, short term vacancies could be filled in, as per procedure under Second Order, as amended from time to time. Procedure included first option of promotion of teachers already available in educational institution and when suitable qualified teacher is not available for promotion, to make direct recruitment. 133. Issue of regularization of ad-hoc appointments under Removal of Difficulties Orders was addressed by Legislature initially by inserting Section 33-A by U.P. Act No. 19 of 1985 which came into force on 12.06.1985. Thereunder, only such ad-hoc teachers were entitled to be considered for regularization who were appointed on ad-hoc basis against substantive vacancies by direct recruitment before commencement of U.P. Ordinance No. 12 of 1985 i.e. 12.06.1985. Thus, the first stage of regularization commenced by regularizing ad-hoc teachers appointed from 31.07.1981 when First Order was issued, till 11.06.1985 against substantive vacancies only. Thereunder, only such ad-hoc teachers were entitled to be considered for regularization who were appointed on ad-hoc basis against substantive vacancies by direct recruitment before commencement of U.P. Ordinance No. 12 of 1985 i.e. 12.06.1985. Thus, the first stage of regularization commenced by regularizing ad-hoc teachers appointed from 31.07.1981 when First Order was issued, till 11.06.1985 against substantive vacancies only. In fact, Section 33-A did not contemplate any consideration for regularization by Committee but declares that all teachers directly appointed till 11.06.1985 (before commencement of U.P. Ordinance No. 12 of 1985 i.e. 12.06.1985) to be deemed appointed in substantive capacity provided they satisfy two conditions: (i) They possess qualification prescribed under Act, 1921 or exempted from such qualification in accordance with said Act; (ii) Such teacher was continuously serving the Institution from the date of ad-hoc appointment up to 12.06.1985 i.e. up to the date of commencement of U.P. Ordinance No. 12 of 1985. 134. This declaration of deemed appointment in substantive capacity, however, was not available to a limited category of teachers i.e. (i) Cases where substantive vacancy in which ad-hoc appointment was made, was already filled in or selection was already made in accordance with Act, 1982 on the date of commencement i.e. 12.06.1985; (ii) If such teachers was related to any Board or Committee of Management or Principal/Headmaster of the college concerned. 135. This is the first attempt on the part of Legislature whereby it came to rescue of ad-hoc teachers appointed in substantive vacancies as per First Order. In this spell, all ad-hoc teachers appointed against substantive vacancies till 11.06.1985 were declared to have been appointed substantively except those cases where two exclusionary conditions provided in sub-Section (3) of Section 33-A were attracted. 136. In the second spell, crucial date is 06.04.1991 when Amendment Act 26 of 1991 was promulgated. It made amendment in Section 33-A. By this amendment sub-sections (1-A), (1-B) and (1-C) were inserted. By sub-section (1-A), ad-hoc appointments by promotion against substantive vacancies under First Order were also declared to have been appointed in substantive capacity. This declaration however was with effect from 06.04.1991 i.e. the date of commencement of Amendment Act 26 of 1991, provided these teachers possessed requisite qualification or exempted in accordance with Act, 1921 and continued in Institution concerned from the date of ad-hoc appointment till date of commencement of Amendment Act 26 of 1991 i.e. 06.04.1991. 137. This declaration however was with effect from 06.04.1991 i.e. the date of commencement of Amendment Act 26 of 1991, provided these teachers possessed requisite qualification or exempted in accordance with Act, 1921 and continued in Institution concerned from the date of ad-hoc appointment till date of commencement of Amendment Act 26 of 1991 i.e. 06.04.1991. 137. Section 33-A sub-section (1-B) covered ad-hoc teachers appointed in C.T. Grade against substantive vacancies between 12.06.1985 to 12.05.1989 i.e. before 13.05.1989. They were also declared as deemed appointed in substantive capacity provided they possessed requisite qualifications under Act, 1921 or exempted thereunder and continued to serve the college concerned from the date of ad-hoc appointment till 06.04.1991. Sub-section (1-C) of Section 33-A extended benefit of "deemed substantive appointment" to all teachers appointed on ad-hoc basis by promotion or direct recruitment up to 30.07.1988 against substantive vacancies in accordance with Section 18 of Act, 1982. Remaining conditions were same, i.e. they must possess requisite qualification and continued to serve from the date of ad-hoc appointment till 06.04.1991. 138. Sub-Section (2) of Section 33-A was also amended by providing that all such teachers who are deemed appointed in substantive capacity shall be deemed to be on probation from the date of commencement of such deeming declaration i.e. 12.06.1985 in respect of cases covered by sub-Section (1) and 06.04.1991 in respect of cases covered by sub-sections (1-A), (1-B) and (1-C). 139. This deeming declaration of substantive appointments under sub-sections (1), (1-A), (1-B) and (1-C) of Section 33, however was not available to the cases covered by sub-section (3) i.e. (A) where vacancy on the date of commencement i.e. 12.06.1985 in respect of cases under sub-section (1); and 06.04.1991, in respect of cases under sub-sections (1-A), (1-B) and (1-C); were already filled in accordance with Act, 1982, i.e. by the candidates recommended by Commission/Board or selection was made/completed for such post by Commission/Board; (B) where such ad hoc teacher is related to Management or Principal, as the case may be. 140. Section 33-A(3), as inserted initially on 12.06.1985 and amended w.e.f. 12.06.1985, recognized principle emerging from Para 3 of First Order providing duration of ad hoc appointments made against substantive vacancies that when candidates recommended by Commission/Board joins the post, ad hoc appointment shall cease to have effect from that date. 141. The massage is very clear. 140. Section 33-A(3), as inserted initially on 12.06.1985 and amended w.e.f. 12.06.1985, recognized principle emerging from Para 3 of First Order providing duration of ad hoc appointments made against substantive vacancies that when candidates recommended by Commission/Board joins the post, ad hoc appointment shall cease to have effect from that date. 141. The massage is very clear. As soon as a person recommended by Commission/Board joins the post, ad hoc appointee against substantive vacancy, as provided in Para 3 of First Order, will cease to work, meaning thereby will stand terminated. That being so, if an ad hoc appointee thereafter somehow manages to continue for any reason whatsoever, that will not give any benefit to him since Legislature has very categorically provided that once candidate recommended by Commission/Board joins, ad hoc appointment against substantive vacancy shall cease from that date and any continuance thereof having no sanction of law will be of no legal consequence. Giving recognition to this principle, Section 33-A(3) also provided that benefit of declaration of substantive appointment under Section 33-A(1) or (1-A) or (1-B) or (1-C) would not be available to ad hoc appointee, if a candidate selected and recommended by Commission/Board joins the post. Legislature, in fact, has gone further by protecting even exercise of selection undergone by Commission/Board in accordance with provisions of Act, 1982 read with Rules and Regulations framed thereunder in making selection and has provided that where such selection exercise has completed, even in that case, benefit of Section 33-A(1) or (1-A) or (1-B) or (1-C) shall not be available. 142. One can question that candidate recommended by Commission/Board if has already joined and ad hoc appointment has come to an end, in such a case, there would not have been any occasion to apply sub-section (3) of Section 33-A. In our view, this provision is not only to make position clear but also to take care of those cases where despite recommendation by Commission/Board, the ad hoc appointee was still continuing. For example, if an ad hoc teacher has got a judicial interim order pursuant whereto he is continuing or with active collusion/connivance of Management or due to deliberate or indeliberate omission, he has been allowed to continue, and selected candidate has not joined or not allowed to join, such cases are also taken care by sub-section (3) of Section 33-A by making it clear that benefit of deemed substantive appointment shall not be available in such cases. 143. We have stressed upon this aspect to show that provision of tenure of ad hoc appointee made in First and Second Order is an exercise after due consideration of all pros and cons and while making subsequent amendments in Act, 1982, Legislature has taken due care of this aspect. This supports our inference that provisions relating to tenure of ad hoc appointee made under First and Second Order are mandatory and have to be observed in words and spirit. 144. At this stage, an incidental question regarding legal status of Removal of Difficulties Order would also become relevant and we intend to deal this aspect also so as not to leave any ambiguity on the subject. Under Act, 1982 orders have been issued under Section 33, whereby State Government is empowered to remove any difficulty by a notified order and provisions of Act, 1982, in the light of such notified order, would apply subject to adaptation whether by way of modification, addition or omission as provided in the notified order. Condition precedent to issue a notified order under Section 33 is, when difficulty arises in implementation of provisions of Act, 1982. As already said selections and appointments of teachers in Secondary Educational Institutions were stopped by Radiogram dated 07.04.1981. This resulted in continuance of existing and subsequent vacancies of Teachers in Secondary Educational Institutions though the new machinery for recruitment provided by Act, 1982 could not be made available on the date when selections and appointments were stopped or within a reasonable time thereafter. This was a serious difficulty justifying notified order to be issued by State Government under Section 33. Such an order when issued is clearly in the nature of statutory order since provisions of Act, 1982 are to be read subject to such modifications, additions or omissions provided in the notified order so long as these notified orders continue to operate. 145. In Straw Product Limited Vs. Such an order when issued is clearly in the nature of statutory order since provisions of Act, 1982 are to be read subject to such modifications, additions or omissions provided in the notified order so long as these notified orders continue to operate. 145. In Straw Product Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhopal and others, (1968) AIR SC 579, Court held that a difficulty existed is not a matter of subjective satisfaction of a Government but a condition precedent to exercise power of issue of a Removal of Difficulties Order. Though Removal of Difficulties Order is a piece of delegated legislation but its duration is transitional. The condition precedent being when a difficulty has arisen to implement a scheme under a new enactment hence, legislative weight of a Removal of Difficulties Order is sometimes greater than what we term as "subordinate legislation" like Rule Framing power. 146. In Madeva Upendra Sinai and others Vs. Union of India, (1975) 3 SCC 765 , a Constitution Bench had an occasion to examine the competence of Government to issue Removal of Difficulties Order having effect of supplying a deficiency or casus omissus. Court examined the idea, nature and purpose of a Removal of Difficulties clause and power conferred by such statutory provision upon Government. Court said that to keep pace with the rapidly increasing responsibilities of a Welfare democratic State, the legislature has to turn out a plethora of hurried legislation, the volume of which is often matched with its complexity. Under conditions of extreme pressure, with heavy demands on the time of legislature and the endurance and skill of draftsman, it is well nigh impossible to foresee all the circumstances to deal with, for which a statute is enacted, or to anticipate all the difficulties that might arise in its working due to peculiar local conditions or even a local law. This is more true when legislation seeks to infuse a new dimension to socioeconomic activities of the State etc. In order to obviate the necessity of approaching legislature for removal of every difficulty, howsoever trivial, encountered in the enforcement of a statute, by going through the time-consuming a mendatory process, legislature some-times thinks it expedient to invest Executive with a very limited power to make minor adaptations and peripheral adjustments in the statute, for making its implementation effective, without touching its substance. Court further said that once frowned upon and nick-named as "Henry VIII Clause" in scornful commemoration of the absolutist ways in which that English King got the difficulties" in enforcing his autocratic will, removed through the instrumentality of a servile Parliament, now it finds acceptance as a practical necessity, in several Indian statutes of post independence era, repeatedly. Court also said that in order to remove difficulties so that the statute may be implemented effectively, Government may issue a Removal of Difficulties Order. But this power can be exercised only to the extent it is necessary for applying or giving effect to the statute concerned and no further. It may slightly tinker with the Act to round off angularities and smoothen the joints or remove minor obscurities to make it workable, but it cannot change, disfigure or do violence to the basic structure and primary features of the statute. In no case, Removal of Difficulties Order can, under the guise of removing a difficulty, change the scheme and essential provisions of the Act. 147. Thus a validly issued Removal of Difficulties Order is an integral part and parcel of principal Statute and would have its own independent effect and consequences so long as it is not substituted by another provision or the difficulty ceased or that such order is required further in view of changed circumstances that is cessation of difficulty itself. 148. First Order was considered by Supreme Court in Prabhat Kumar Sharma and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, (1996) 10 SCC 62 and it was held that any appointment made in transgression thereof is illegal and void. Such an appointment would not confer any right upon the appointee. Therefore, whenever any act or omission contemplated under a Removal of Difficulties Order is to be considered, for example, an appointment made under the provisions of Removal of Difficulties Order, one has to meticulously examine whether all the requirements of Difficulties Order have been followed or not. In other words we can say that the provisions of Removal of Difficulties Order have to be applied mandatorily. 149. Under Act, 1982 no recruitment on the post of teacher was allowed except by Commission/Board but for the interregnum period ad-hoc appointments were allowed to be made by Section 18 and Removal of Difficulties Order. In other words we can say that the provisions of Removal of Difficulties Order have to be applied mandatorily. 149. Under Act, 1982 no recruitment on the post of teacher was allowed except by Commission/Board but for the interregnum period ad-hoc appointments were allowed to be made by Section 18 and Removal of Difficulties Order. In such case if a tenure is also provided whether such provision has to be applied as a mandatory provision. One cannot claim a right to continue on ad-hoc basis having been made under a Removal of Difficulties Order ignoring the period or tenure prescribed in such order. This period of ad-hoc appointment under First and Second Orders, though has undergone certain changes, but provision relating to period broadly has been maintained. Therefore, a Court, by judicial interpretation, is not expected to dilute the consequences of provisions of Removal of Difficulties Order in reference to tenure on the basis of certain assumption as that will amount to doing violence with otherwise clear, unambiguous provision of a statutory provision. The principles of interpretation in this regard are very clear. When a provision does not admit any doubt, it must be interpreted by a simple interpretation. Court should not make any attempt to find out a casus omissus and then to provide it. There has been consistent authorities on the subject that in interpretation of statute neither Court must admit any gap or casus omissus nor it should provide. There is no presumption that a casus omissus exists. Court should avoid creating a casus omissus where there is none. 150. It would be appropriate to recollect observations of Devlin, L.J. in Gladstone Vs. Bower, (1960) 3 AllER 353 (CA) which are as under: "The Court will always allow the intention of a statute to override the defects of working but the Court's ability to do so is limited by recognized canons of interpretation. The Court may, for example, prefer an alternative construction, which is less well fitted to the words but better fitted to the intention of the Act. But here, there is no alternative construction; it is simply a case of something being overlooked. We cannot legislate for casus omissus." 151. In Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa and others, (1978) 36 FLR 266, Court quoted with approval following observation of Lord Simonds in Magor & St. Mellons R.D.C. Vs. But here, there is no alternative construction; it is simply a case of something being overlooked. We cannot legislate for casus omissus." 151. In Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa and others, (1978) 36 FLR 266, Court quoted with approval following observation of Lord Simonds in Magor & St. Mellons R.D.C. Vs. Newport Corporation, (1951) 2 AllER 839 (841): "The duty of the Court is to interpret the words that the Legislature has used. Those words may be ambiguous, but, even if they are, the power and duty of the Court to travel outside them on a voyage of discovery are strictly limited." 152. It would be appropriate at this stage to remind another principle that though a Court cannot supply a real casus omissus, it is equally evident that it should not so interpret a statute as to create casus omissus when there is really none. 153. In Vemareddy Kumaraswamy Reddy and another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) 2 SCC 670 , Court reiterated that while interpreting a provision, Court only interprets the law and cannot legislate. If a provision of law is misused and subject to the abuse of process of law, it is for the legislature to amend, modify or repeal it if deemed necessary. The legislative casus omissus cannot be supplied by judicial interpretative process. 154. Now applying the above interpretation, we have no manner of doubt that so long as Removal of Difficulties Order continued to operate and there was no otherwise statutory provision weightier than the Removal of Difficulties Order so as to take its place, the tenure provided under Removal of Difficulties Order in respect to ad-hoc appointment has to be applied strictly and provision to this effect is mandatory. 155. The second stage of regularization of ad-hoc teachers, which was addressed by Legislature is in respect of those who were appointed against short-term vacancies under Second Order. Further, legislature noted that by insertion of sub-section (1-B) in Section 33-A it has omitted ad-hoc teachers appointed against substantive vacancies in C.T. Grade up to 12.06.1985 since sub-section (1-B) covered teachers in C.T. Grade appointed on ad-hoc basis from 13.06.1985 to 12.05.1989 (i.e. after 12.06.1985 and before 13.05.1989) and it took care of these teachers. It also addressed to the issue of regularization of teachers appointed on or after 31.07.1988 but not later than 14.05.1991. 156. It also addressed to the issue of regularization of teachers appointed on or after 31.07.1988 but not later than 14.05.1991. 156. These category of teachers sought to be provided benefit of regularization by insertion of Section 33-B by Amendment Act 1 of 1993, which came into force on 07.08.1993. 157. This time it was not a declaration of substantive appointment of ad-hoc teachers but a right to be considered for regularization was given to ad-hoc teachers who come within the ambit of Section 33-B. 158. Sub-Section (1)(a)(i) of Section 33-B applied to ad-hoc teachers appointed by promotion or direct recruitment in Lecturer's or Trained Graduate's Grade up to 14.05.1991 and C.T. Grade up to 13.05.1989 against short term vacancies in accordance with Para 2 of Second Order. Another condition which was necessary for consideration of regularization of such teachers provided in Section 33-B(1)(a)(i) is that such vacancy subsequently has converted into a substantive vacancy. 159. Section 33-B(1)(a)(ii) applied to ad-hoc teachers appointed by direct recruitment on or after 14.07.1981 till 12.06.1985 in C.T. Grade through advertisement and where such appointment was approved by D.I.O.S. 160. Third category is ad-hoc teachers appointed by promotion or direct recruitment from 31.07.1988 to 14.05.1991 in substantive vacancies as per Section 18 as stood before its omission by Act 1 of 1993 (later event show that this omission never came into effect since Section 13 of Amendment Act 1 of 1993 was never enforced). 161. The above categories of ad-hoc teachers were to be considered by a Selection Committee constituted under sub-section (2) of Section 33-B, provided they possess requisite qualifications as per Act, 1921 and continuously serving institution from the date of such ad-hoc appointment up to the date of commencement of Amendment Act 1 of 1993 i.e. 07.08.1993. The Selection Committee would look into suitability and only those who are recommended by such Selection Committee, could have been appointed substantively. 162. We may notice here a marked distinction between philosophy and intention of Legislature in enacting Section 33-A and 33-B in different manner though, broadly, purpose was to give benefit of substantive appointment to ad hoc teachers. The Selection Committee would look into suitability and only those who are recommended by such Selection Committee, could have been appointed substantively. 162. We may notice here a marked distinction between philosophy and intention of Legislature in enacting Section 33-A and 33-B in different manner though, broadly, purpose was to give benefit of substantive appointment to ad hoc teachers. Those ad hoc appointments, which were made following procedure under First Order, Legislature treated them as having already undergone a substantially wider procedure of selection and, therefore, found no necessity of reassessment of their suitability by any agency, therefore, declared such ad hoc teachers, who were appointed against substantive vacancies in accordance with Para 2 of First Order, as "deemed to be appointed substantively" and no further selection was required in their cases. However, Second Order deals with short-term vacancies wherein a short and summary method of selection for such short-term vacancies is provided and therefore, this summary selection was not given same status, as was given to cases covered by First Order. For ad hoc appointments under Second Order, Legislature has provided that these ad hoc teachers appointed against short-term vacancies will undergo a process of selection through a Selection Committee constituted under the provisions of Section 33-B and only those, who are recommended by it, would be given substantive appointment. This legislative recognition of distinction in process of appointment of First and Second Order cannot be overlooked. There is no reason to dilute the same particularly when such section has been followed in subsequent amendments in Act, 1982 with regard to substantive appointment of ad hoc teachers. 163. Here also sub-section (6) of Section 33-B denied benefit of consideration of suitability for substantive appointment by Selection Committee under sub-section (2) if on the date of commencement of Act 1 of 1993 i.e. 07.08.1993 vacancy was already filled in or selection for such vacancy was already made in accordance with Act, 1982. 164. Sub-Section (5) of Section 33-B makes provision in respect of such ad-hoc teachers who are not found suitable under sub-section (1) of Section 33-B. It is said that such teachers shall cease to hold appointment on such date as State Government may, by order, specify. 164. Sub-Section (5) of Section 33-B makes provision in respect of such ad-hoc teachers who are not found suitable under sub-section (1) of Section 33-B. It is said that such teachers shall cease to hold appointment on such date as State Government may, by order, specify. This sub-section (5) of Section 33-B, therefore, makes an inroad in the tenure provided in Para 3 of Second Order where an ad-hoc appointee would cease on joining of teacher who has caused short term vacancy; on expiry of 6 months from the date of ad-hoc appointment (this condition was applicable only till 29.01.1982); and when short term vacancy otherwise ceased to exist. 165. We have no hesitation in holding that as soon as Section 33-B came into force, sub-section (5), providing different tenure, will come into play, and would override the provision otherwise contained in Para 3 of Second Order and from that date onwards i.e. 06.08.1993, tenure of ad hoc teachers appointed against short-term vacancies, who are/were considered by Selection Committee constituted under Section 33-B(3) and not found suitable, will not cease to work but would continue till such date as State Government may by order, specify. In order to give effect to Section 33-B, even though it is not clearly said but we have no doubt that ad hoc teachers entitled for consideration for substantive appointment under Section 33-B, so long as Selection Committee has not considered them, they would also be entitled to continue, and on and after 07.8.1993, when Section 33-B came into force, such teachers cannot/shall not be terminated if any eventuality contemplated in Para 3 of Second Order arises or happen. 166. In respect of ad-hoc teachers, who do not get any right to be considered for substantive appointment under Section 33-B(1) by virtue of sub-section (6), their tenure of ad-hoc appointment under Para 3 of Second Order would continue to be governed by Para 3 of Second Order. They would cease when the candidate selected and recommended by Commission/Board joins or when short term vacancy ceases otherwise. They would cease when the candidate selected and recommended by Commission/Board joins or when short term vacancy ceases otherwise. In respect of other ad-hoc teachers, who were eligible and entitled to be considered for substantive appointment under Section 33-B but not found suitable by Selection Committee constituted under sub-section (2) of Section 33-B, such teachers will not cease on happening of a condition under Para 3 of Second Order but here sub-section (5) of Section 33-B will come into play and such teachers will cease to hold ad-hoc appointments on such date, as State Government may, by order, specify. Thus, here an order under sub-section 33-B(5) from State Government would be required for. 167. Learned Additional Advocate General sought to suggest that if no order has been issued by State Government, as contemplated under Section 33-B(5), period prescribed in Para 3 of Second Order may be read as substitute of such order but we do not find any reason to read Removal of Difficulties Order as a substitute of an order which is contemplated under Section 33-B(5) of Act, 1982. as amended by Amendment Act 1 of 1995. 168. When statute require something to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner and not otherwise. When sub-section (5) of Section 33-B requires an order from State Government to specify a date, from which ad hoc teachers appointed against short-term vacancy when considered by Selection Committee under Section 33-B and not found suitable for substantive appointment, would stand terminated, such an order has to be issued under relevant provision and by no stretch of imagination, one can read Para 3 of Second Order, as a substitute thereof. 169. 169. We also reiterate that after Section 33-B came into force, from that day and onwards, even those adhoc teachers who were appointed in short-term vacancies under Second Order and eligible to be considered for substantive appointment by Selection Committee under the said provision, if any contingency, as provided in Para 3 of Second Order, occurs, in the interregnum period when Selection Committee has still to consider such teachers, they will be entitled to continue by virtue of Section 33-B(5) read with sub-section (6) of Section 33-B. For example, on and after 07.08.1993, even an ad hoc teachers, is yet to be considered by Selection Committee for substantive appointment under Section 33-B if he fulfills all the requisite conditions making him eligible and entitled for such consideration, if certain vacancies ceased by becoming a substantive vacancy, such teacher will not cease to work by application of Para 3 of Second Order, but, would be entitled to continue till he is considered by Selection Committee. If found suitable, he will be appointed as such, and, if not found suitable, he will be governed by sub-section (5) of Section 33-B. The only exception is the cases where matter is governed by sub-section(6) of Section 33-B. 170. An argument was made by learned counsel for the petitioners that Section 33-B(1)(a)(i) irrespective of date of its enforcement will confer a right upon an ad-hoc appointed teacher on a short term vacancy between the period prescribed therein as soon as short term vacancy is converted into a substantive vacancy and therefore, even in cases where short term vacancy stood converted into a substantive vacancy before enforcement of Section 33-B, such ad-hoc appointees will have right to continue and could not have been deemed terminated/ceased to work by taking recourse to Para 3 of Second Order. We find this argument faulty and an attempt to make Section 33-B retrospective. It has not been brought to our notice that Section 33-B was enforced from any date prior to 07.08.1993. Amendment Act 1 of 1993 vide Section 1(2) left scope to Government to enforce said amendment from such date as notified by it. In exercise of such power, Amendment Act 1 of 1993, except Section 13, was enforced by Government vide notification dated 07.08.1993 and not from any earlier date. Therefore, Section 33-B came into existence only on 07.08.1993. Amendment Act 1 of 1993 vide Section 1(2) left scope to Government to enforce said amendment from such date as notified by it. In exercise of such power, Amendment Act 1 of 1993, except Section 13, was enforced by Government vide notification dated 07.08.1993 and not from any earlier date. Therefore, Section 33-B came into existence only on 07.08.1993. When principal provision itself came into existence on 07.08.1993, it could not have protected any ad-hoc teacher who was appointed on short term basis against short term vacancy in accordance with Second Order on an earlier date and also suffered the destiny of cessation of such appointment by application of Para 3 of Second Order when vacancy became substantive and ceased to be a short term vacancy, before 07.08.1983, which is one of the conditions provided in Para 3 for cessation of ad-hoc appointment. 171. For example, if ad-hoc teacher was appointed on ad-hoc basis against a short term vacancy in 1987 and short term vacancy stood converted into substantive vacancy on any date in 1988-89 but before 07.08.1991, as soon as short term vacancy is converted into a substantive vacancy, the result would be that such teacher would cease. Immediately it would attract Para 3 of Second Order which provided that ad-hoc appointment would cease as soon as short-term vacancy ceases to exist. Once this effect has come into existence by operation of law, question of protecting any alleged right of continuance of such teacher by taking recourse to Section 33-B cannot arise for the reason that till 06.08.1993 Section 33-B was not on statute book and no protection can be claimed thereunder on a non ext provision till 06.08.1993. The protection under Section 33-B is available only on and after 07.08.1993. 172. Another argument, at this stage, advanced is that in many cases short term appointees, who were liable to cease under Para 3 of Second Order, approached Court and got interim orders and thereon continued pursuant to such interim orders till 07.08.1993 and thereafter. In some cases, despite statutory declaration vide Para 3 of Second Order, ad-hoc appointees on account of some omission of responsible authorities or in collusion with such authorities, continued till 07.08.1993 and thereafter. In some cases, despite statutory declaration vide Para 3 of Second Order, ad-hoc appointees on account of some omission of responsible authorities or in collusion with such authorities, continued till 07.08.1993 and thereafter. The argument is that in such cases, irrespective of reason how such ad-hoc appointees have continued, if, as a matter of fact, they have continued till enforcement of Section 33-B, protection under Section 33-B must be extended to them and such continuance should not be ignored merely by referring to reason on account whereof these ad-hoc appointees have continued. 173. The argument in fact ask to ignore a blatant breach of law that the beneficiaries of such breach should be given benefit. The mere fact of continuing in service ignoring statuary provision is of no legal consequence. None can claim a benefit arising from an illegality which continued to be flouted by them. In the cases where continuance was on account of interim orders passed by Court, argument suggests that the principle of Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit should be ignored and an interim order of Court should be read as if it has conferred different right upon the beneficiary though ultimately his continuance was found erroneous and illegal and contrary to statuary provision contained in Para 3 of Second Order. We have no hesitation in rejecting this submission. 174. We find that term "continuously serving the Institution from the date of such appointment up to the date of commencement" in Section 33-B(1)(c) cannot be read as an illegal continuance or continuance pursuant to a judicial order which subsequently merges with final order where termination from the initial date when it was stayed, is found to be valid. In fact, we find answer to this aspect in Supreme Court decision in Committee of Management, Arya Nagar Inter College, Arya Nagar, Kanpur through its Manager and another Vs. Sree Kumar Tiwary and another, (1997) 4 SCC 388 . Therein, in a short-term vacancy, Sree Kumar Tiwary was appointed as ad hoc teacher on 01.07.1986. Short-term vacancy caused due to promotion of incumbent concerned on ad hoc basis to the next higher post. The said teacher, who was promoted on ad hoc basis, retired on 30.06.1988, therefore, in view of Para 3 of Second Order, Sree Kumar Tiwari, who was appointed on ad hoc basis in a short term vacancy, ceased, and came to be terminated. The said teacher, who was promoted on ad hoc basis, retired on 30.06.1988, therefore, in view of Para 3 of Second Order, Sree Kumar Tiwari, who was appointed on ad hoc basis in a short term vacancy, ceased, and came to be terminated. He challenged termination in writ petition before this Court wherein an interim order was passed. Subsequently, writ petition was dismissed but, in the meantime, giving benefit of Section 33-B(1)(a)(i) of Act, 1982, Sree Kumar Tiwari, who was continuing on the basis of interim order, was regularized. The question arose before Apex Court whether, as contemplated in Section 33-B(1)(a)(i)(c), allowing condition that incumbent must have continued to serve the Institution from the date of ad hoc appointment till the date Section 33-B came into force i.e. 07.08.1998. Supreme Court held that Sree Kumar Tiwari had continued by virtue of stay order and not by virtue of his own right under an order of appointment. Court held that continuation on the basis of interim order will not help Sree Kumar Tiwari and in view of Para 3 of Second Order, since he stood terminated on 30.06.1988 when short-term vacancy was converted into substantive vacancy, he was not entitled to claim benefit of Section 33-B, which was not in existence on that day, but, came to be enforced on 07.08.1993. The above decision makes it clear that requirement of "continuously serving the Institution on the date of commencement of Section 33-B" does not refer to illegal continuance or founded on some judicial order but must be by virtue of own right of incumbent concerned and a valid continuation. 175. Even otherwise, no interpretation of statutory provision can be made, which may encourage blatant breach of statute. When a person is bound to cease to continue as ad-hoc appointee, if any condition under Para 3 of Second Order is attracted, he could not have validly continued thereafter, at all. His legal termination comes into effect by operation of law. A declaration has been made in statutory provision about cessation and that has to be given effect to if rule of law has to prevail. 176. Sometimes, in a litigation initiated by a person who faces cessation of ad-hoc appointment under such statuary provision, an interim order is passed, the test would be whether date on which the incumbent ceased, was valid or not. 176. Sometimes, in a litigation initiated by a person who faces cessation of ad-hoc appointment under such statuary provision, an interim order is passed, the test would be whether date on which the incumbent ceased, was valid or not. If cessation was valid and final relief of declaring such cessation to be illegal cannot be granted, then the mere fact that such incumbent has continued on the basis of interim order will not amount to a new cause of action to such a person and such continuance cannot be read in order to give benefit under Section 33-B of Act, 1982. 177. The question, whether an interim order can confer a new right, which is not otherwise ultimately found in favour of such beneficiary and the case found liable for dismissal, has been considered time and again and issue has been answered against such beneficiaries. We do not propose to burden this judgment with all such authorities and we refer to a judgment of Apex Court dealing with this issue directly. In Raghvendra Rao etc. Vs. State of Karnataka and others, (2009) 2 JT 520 (SC) Court has observed: "It is now a well-settled principle of law that merely because an employee had continued under cover of an order of Court, he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service. ............." 178. The inter relationship of tenure of ad hoc appointments against short-term vacancies provided in Para 3 of Second Order and Section 33-B(5) can be succinctly said as under : (i) Cessation of ad-hoc appointment on happening of any of the conditions provided in Para 3 of Second Order is mandatory and by operation of law. Since in respect of short term vacancies, there was no otherwise provision in Act, 1982 till 07.08.1993 therefore, wherever such contingencies have arisen till 06.08.1993, as contemplated in Para 3 of Second Order, consequences provided therein shall take place and cannot be avoided. (ii) On and after 07.08.1993 Para 3 of Second Order will have to make way to Section 33-B, as inserted by Amendment Act 1 of 1993 in Act, 1982 and sub-sections (5) and (6) will cover the respective cases, as discussed above by us. 179. Now, we proceed to consider various judgments which have dealt with above issues and referred for our consideration: 180. 179. Now, we proceed to consider various judgments which have dealt with above issues and referred for our consideration: 180. In District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar vs. Diwakar Lal (supra), there was no such issue in consideration and no law has been laid down by Division Bench. Issue was different and the judgment is not an authority on the question "whether an ad-hoc appointee in short term vacancy is entitled to continue after a short term vacancy becomes substantive". Therein four posts of Lecturers in P.N.N. Inter College Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as "P.N.N. College") fell vacant substantively. Substantive vacancies were notified to Commission but no recommendation was made for more than two months. Management proceeded to make four ad-hoc appointments by promotion of four L.T. Grade teachers on the post of Lecturers. In resultant short term vacancies of four posts of Assistant Teachers L.T. Grade, Management made ad-hoc appointments by direct recruitment by appointing Diwakar Lal, Deepak Kumar Shukla, Surendra Mohan Srivastava and Lal Bahadur. These persons joined College and started functioning. Thereafter documents were forwarded to D.I.O.S. for approval, who declined to grant financial approval. The representation made by ad-hoc appointees was rejected by D.I.O.S. vide order dated 09.02.1994 on the ground that resultant vacancies could not have been filled in under Removal of Difficulties Orders 1981. These four ad-hoc appointees against short term vacancies filed Writ Petition No. 9767 of 1994, wherein an interim order was passed directing respondents to pay salary to those petitioners w.e.f. 02.07.1993 in accordance with law or show cause. One of the defence taken by D.I.O.S. in counter affidavit is that vacancies were not properly advertised. It was not accepted by Single Judge on the ground that appointments were made before 13.01.1994 when Full Bench decided that for short term vacancies shall also need be advertised in two newspapers hence, appointments made prior to that judgment would not be invalid. It is evident from record that ad-hoc appointments on short term vacancies were made by appointment order dated 01.07.1993. This view of learned Single Judge was approved by Division Bench in intra-Court appeal in District Inspector of Schools vs. Diwakar Lal (supra) and we do not find any infirmity therein. It is evident from record that ad-hoc appointments on short term vacancies were made by appointment order dated 01.07.1993. This view of learned Single Judge was approved by Division Bench in intra-Court appeal in District Inspector of Schools vs. Diwakar Lal (supra) and we do not find any infirmity therein. Though in para 10 of judgment there is some observation that for short term vacancies, if no wide publicity is made, that per se would not be bad, but these observations, in our view, were not necessary to be made since this issue was already decided by a Full Bench of three Judges in Radha Raizada and others vs. C/M Vidyawati Darbari Girls College and others (supra), wherein Court held that even for ad-hoc appointments against short term vacancies, procedure of advertisement as provided in First Order shall be followed. Now coming to another aspect, whether ad-hoc appointment would automatically come to an end when short term vacancy becomes substantive, we find that in para 12 of judgment in District Inspector of Schools vs. Diwakar Lal (supra), Court has noticed such a contention raised by learned Standing Counsel but in para 13 of judgment it was noticed that there was no such pleading and details of vacancies and period etc. has also not come on record. Hence, in absence of relevant details, Court said that submission advanced by learned Standing Counsel on behalf of appellant cannot properly be appreciated. Having refused to adjudicate on this aspect, in para 15, we find that Court has recorded its opinion that incumbent working on ad-hoc basis against short term vacancy should not be automatically thrown out of service in view of decision in Smt. Pramila Mishra (supra) when short term vacancy becomes substantive and instead ad-hoc appointee should normally be allowed to continue till a regular ad-hoc appointment is made. These observations are: ".... we are of the opinion that the Incumbents working on ad hoc basis against short term vacancies should not be automatically thrown out of service-in view of the decision in the case of Pramila Mishra (supra), when 'short term' vacancy became 'substantive vacancy'. In such a situation, an ad hoc appointee should normally be allowed to continue (if there is no complaint about his working), till a regular ad hoc appointment is made against substantive vacancy as contemplated under Removal of Difficulties Orders. " 181. In such a situation, an ad hoc appointee should normally be allowed to continue (if there is no complaint about his working), till a regular ad hoc appointment is made against substantive vacancy as contemplated under Removal of Difficulties Orders. " 181. In our view, above observation/direction by Division Bench without referring to provisions of Second Order, as also Section 33-B, cannot be said to be correct. The mere fact that a short term appointee has continued to work satisfactorily, was not sufficient or relevant to Court to direct for his continuance till a candidate selected by Commission/Board is available since this direction was directly in the teeth of Para 3 of Second Order which clearly provides that short term vacancy when ceases to exist, appointment of teachers made under Para 2 of Second Order shall cease. We may add at this stage that the application of Para 3 of Second Order after enactment of Section 33-B has to be read in the light of said provision as discussed above. 182. With great respect to the learned Division Bench, we are of the view that such sweeping direction in the teeth of specific statutory provision was neither warranted nor otherwise legally valid. The above observations made in para 15 of the judgment of Division Bench in District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar vs. Diwakar Lal (supra) are neither correct nor in accordance with law hence we overrule the same. 183. In Raj Kumar Verma and others (supra), the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 15.10.1997 was up for consideration before a Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 955 of 1997 which was decided on 09.07.1999. Therein, Raj Kumar Verma and others were appointed as Assistant Teachers (C.T. Grade) on 17.08.1987. DIOS granted approval by order dated 11.11.1988. Their salary was denied on the ground that approval granted by DIOS was only for the period of 17.08.1987 to 31.12.1987 and that appointments were to be made from Reserve Pool Teachers. Ground of approval for specified period was not accepted by learned Single Judge on the ground that an ad-hoc appointment on a short term vacancy could have continued till short term vacancy existed and since no such situation was shown to exist, therefore, salary could not have been denied. Ground of approval for specified period was not accepted by learned Single Judge on the ground that an ad-hoc appointment on a short term vacancy could have continued till short term vacancy existed and since no such situation was shown to exist, therefore, salary could not have been denied. However, learned Single Judge directed D.I.O.S. to consider, whether teachers who were promoted and in whose resultant short term vacancies Raj Kumar Verma and others were given ad-hoc appointments, were confirmed or not and whether substantive vacancies have arrived or not and, thereafter, take a decision as to the rights of Raj Kumar Verma and others regarding continuance as ad-hoc teachers on short term vacancies. This direction of learned Single Judge was challenged by petitioners themselves in appeal on the ground that Raj Kumar Verma and others were entitled for regularization by virtue of Section 33-B, therefore, learned Single Judge was not justified in issuing such direction to D.I.O.S. The question up for consideration before Court was not whether Raj Kumar Verma and others were entitled to continue as of right even after vacancy is converted into a substantive vacancy but it was "whether Raj Kumar Verma and others were entitled to be considered to be given substantive appointment by virtue of Section 33-B". This is evident from Para 10 of judgment, wherein, Division Bench has said as under: "10. The question herein is not whether a teacher appointed in a short-term vacancy is entitled to continue as of right even after the vacancy is converted into a substantive vacancy. The question involved in the instant case is whether the appellants are entitled to be considered for being given substantive appointment." (emphasis added) 184. Division Bench also said as under: "In our opinion, therefore, the Judgment of the learned single Judge needs to be modified accordingly for nothing in Pramila Mishra's case, inhibits substantive appointment being given to a teacher appointed against a short-term vacancy prior to the dates specified in Section 33B of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 if the conditions stipulated therein are satisfied and such teacher is found by the Selection Committee 'suitable' and 'eligible' for being given substantive appointment." 185. The claim of Raj Kumar Verma and others was founded on Section 33-B(1)(a)(i) which applied to all C.T. Grade teachers appointed till 13.05.1989 on ad-hoc basis against short term vacancies. The claim of Raj Kumar Verma and others was founded on Section 33-B(1)(a)(i) which applied to all C.T. Grade teachers appointed till 13.05.1989 on ad-hoc basis against short term vacancies. Such teachers were entitled to be considered for appointment in substantive capacity provided they were also continuing in Institution concerned on 07.08.1993 when Section 33-B was enforced. From entire judgment, we do not find any reference to a date which would have resulted in cessation of ad-hoc appointment of Raj Kumar Verma and others by application of Para 3 of Second Order, before 07.08.1993 when Section 33-B came to be enforced. It does not appear from the aforesaid judgment that parties at all argued that Raj Kumar Verma and others had already ceased to work on ad-hoc basis due to satisfaction of any of the conditions of Para 3 of Second Order on any day before 07.08.1993 when Section 33-B came into force. In absence of such a case, once Section 33-B came to be enacted, there cannot be any doubt that incumbents continuing against short term vacancies were entitled to be considered for substantive appointment under Section 33-B and thereafter right to continue was to be governed by sub-section (5) or sub-section (6), as the case may be, in the light of what we have already discussed above. 186. After enforcement of Section 33-B, Removal of Difficulties Orders have to be read harmoniously and wherever there is any inconsistency, it is principal legislation Section 33-B, which will prevail having been made by legislature subsequent to issue of Removal of Difficulties Orders. Therefore, judgment in Raj Kumar Verma and others (supra) is not an authority on the issue which we are considering. 187. It is argued that aforesaid decision has referred to an issue not considered by Full Bench in Smt. Pramila Mishra (supra) i.e. interaction of Section 33-B with Removal of Difficulties Order. To some extent this objection is not unfounded but that does not itself answer the question whether law laid down in Smt. Pramila Mishra (supra) is correct or not. It is argued that aforesaid decision has referred to an issue not considered by Full Bench in Smt. Pramila Mishra (supra) i.e. interaction of Section 33-B with Removal of Difficulties Order. To some extent this objection is not unfounded but that does not itself answer the question whether law laid down in Smt. Pramila Mishra (supra) is correct or not. Moreso, in para 10 of judgment in Raj Kumar Verma and others (supra) after referring to Smt. Pramila Mishra's judgment (supra), learned Division Bench has further said as under: "In our opinion, the right of a teacher appointed in a short-term vacancy on or before the date specified in Section 33-B (1) accrues only upon the short-term vacancy being converted into a substantive vacancy and a teacher, appointed in short-term vacancy on or before the specified dates, who is not found 'suitable' and 'eligible' for substantive appointment shall cease to hold the appointment on such date as the State Government may by order specify and not on the date the short-term vacancy came to be converted into substantive vacancy. The question, in our considered opinion, needs to be examined by the duly constituted Selection Committee comprehended by sub-section (3) of Section 33-B as the appellants were concededly appointed in Certificate of Teaching Grade before the specified date namely, May 13, 1989. Whether they fulfil other conditions of being given substantive appointment is a question which is to be decided by the Selection Committee." 188. The above observation has ignored that right of a teacher appointed in a short term vacancy, on or before the date specified in Section 33-B(1), may accrue upon conversion of short term vacancy into substantive vacancy but such right with reference to Section 33-B(1) will be enforceable in a Court of law only when such incumbent has also continued to serve the Institution validly on the date of commencement of Act 1 of 1993 i.e. 07.08.1993. Learned Division Bench while considering right of ad-hoc appointee to be considered for substantive appointment unfortunately has misread crucial aspect that, if such a situation of conversion of short term vacancy into substantive vacancy had accrued before 07.08.1993, Section 33-B itself was not in existence and Para 3 of Second Order would have attracted hence, question of ad-hoc appointee to continue would not have arisen. Therefore, blanket observation ignoring the effect of Para 3 of Second Order if the short term vacancy converted into substantive before 07.08.1993 and also the effect of Section 33-B(1)(c), cannot be said to be correct and to this extent above judgment does not lay down correct law and has to be overruled. 189. In Smt. Shashi Saxena and others (supra), one Shashi Kant Sharma, Assistant Teacher (C.T. Grade) was promoted on ad-hoc basis as Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) w.e.f. 24.09.1985. In the resultant short term vacancy on the post of Assistant Teacher (C.T. Grade), Smt. Kusum Singh was given ad-hoc appointment by direct recruitment on 03.10.1985. It was also approved by D.I.O.S. Another teacher, namely, Smt. Rama Dixit, Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) was given ad-hoc promotion against a short term vacancy on the post of Lecturer (Hindi) vide Management's resolution dated 24.03.1990. In the resultant short term vacancy of Assistant Teacher (L.T. grade) caused by Smt. Rama Dixit, Management proposed to make direct recruitment since Kusum Singh, Assistant Teacher, (C.T. Grade) working on ad-hoc basis was not eligible for second ad-hoc promotion on the post of Assistant Teacher (L.T. grade). Management, vide resolution dated 16.07.1993 recommended name of Smt. Shashi Saxena for ad-hoc appointment by direct recruitment on short term vacancy of Assistant Teacher (L.T. grade) and this was approved by D.I.O.S. by letter dated 28.08.1993. Smt. Kusum Singh made a representation dated 01.10.1993 against her non-promotion to the post of Assistant Teacher (L.T. grade) and receiving no response filed Writ Petition No. 3054 of 1994. When the matter was pending Shashi Kant Sharma, Assistant Teacher (L.T. grade) who was earlier promoted in the said capacity on ad-hoc basis was regularized by Deputy Director of Education vide order dated 23.01.1996 under Section 33-B of Act, 1982. Smt. Kusum Singh was also regularized as Assistant Teacher (C.T. grade) by Deputy Director of Education vide order dated 29.01.1996 with effect from 07.08.1993. The claim of Kusum Singh over Smt. Shashi Saxena was not found tenable and her writ petition and special appeal were rejected. Smt. Shashi Saxena's Writ Petition No. 20349 of 1996 was also taken up in which she claimed that she was working on ad-hoc basis on short term vacancy caused by Smt. Rama Dixit but she retired on 30.06.1996 causing a substantive vacancy w.e.f. 01.07.1996, therefore, she is entitled to continue on the post of Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade). Smt. Shashi Saxena's Writ Petition No. 20349 of 1996 was also taken up in which she claimed that she was working on ad-hoc basis on short term vacancy caused by Smt. Rama Dixit but she retired on 30.06.1996 causing a substantive vacancy w.e.f. 01.07.1996, therefore, she is entitled to continue on the post of Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade). She was granted an order of status quo by learned Single Judge. Before learned Single Judge Smt. Shashi Saxena did not succeed ultimately but Division Bench, following decision in Raj Kumar Verma and others (supra), and in particular observations made in Para 10 of the judgment in Raj Kumar Verma and others (supra), held that Smt. Shashi Saxena was entitled to continue and would not automatically cease on conversion of short term vacancy into substantive on retirement of Smt. Rama Dixit. Division Bench thus issued mandamus commanding respondents to allow Smt. Shashi Saxena to continue on the post of Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) even after short term vacancy held by her was converted to substantive and continue to pay salary until she is finally regularized and a duly selected candidate by Commission joins. In this case Smt. Shashi Saxena was appointed on a short term vacancy of Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) caused due to ad-hoc promotion of Rama Dixit as Lecturer (Hindi) vide Management's resolution dated 16.07.1993 and granted approval by D.I.O.S. on 28.08.1993. Smt. Rama Dixit retired on 30.06.1996 and aforesaid substantive vacancy occurred on 01.07.1996. Section 33-B, in our view, has no application in this case since appointment was made after cut off date provided in the said provision. So far as claim of Smt. Shashi Saxena is concerned, in her case, resolution of Management is dated 16.07.1993 and approval was granted by D.I.O.S. On 28.08.1993. Both these dates are beyond cut off date provided in Section 33-B. She was thus appointed apparently on ad-hoc basis with reference to Second Order, Para 2, against short-term vacancy which was converted into substantive vacancy on 01.07.1996. On that date there was no provision which could have saved Smt. Shashi Saxena from cessation of her ad-hoc appointment by application of Para 3 of Second Order, inasmuch as, for regularization of ad-hoc appointment against short-term vacancy of the period between 14.05.1991 to 06.08.1993, Section 33-F came to be inserted with effect from 30.12.2000. On that date there was no provision which could have saved Smt. Shashi Saxena from cessation of her ad-hoc appointment by application of Para 3 of Second Order, inasmuch as, for regularization of ad-hoc appointment against short-term vacancy of the period between 14.05.1991 to 06.08.1993, Section 33-F came to be inserted with effect from 30.12.2000. In the circumstances, Smt. Shashi Saxena could not have continued after short term vacancy became substantive on 01.07.1996. This direction given by Division Bench, following observations made in para 10 in Raj Kumar Verma and others (supra) is not correct. We, therefore, hold that aforesaid judgment did not lay down a correct law by giving the above direction in respect of continuance of service of Smt. Shashi Saxena. 190. In Raghuvendra Babu Misra (supra), he was appointed on ad-hoc basis as Lecturer (Physics) in Gandhi Vidya Mandir Inter College, Fatehpur-Etah (hereinafter referred to as "College") on 15.07.1989 against a short term vacancy caused by existing Lecturer Rama Nand Mishra proceeding on leave. The said ad-hoc appointment was approved by D.I.O.S. vide order dated 16.09.1989. On 17.01.1994, Manager of College informed Sri Raghuvendra Babu Misra that leave granted to Rama Nand Mishra would come to an end on 31.01.1994 and he shall be relieved from that date. Raghvendra Babu Misra filed writ petition claiming his right of regularization under Section 33-B on the ground that Rama Nand Mishra did not join College after expiry of leave after 31.01.1994, therefore, vacancy became substantive and he is entitled for benefit under Section 33-B. It was also placed before Court that claim of Raghvendra Babu Misra for regularization under Section 33-B was not accepted by D.I.O.S. on the ground that Rama Nand Mishra was confirmed as Headmaster in Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Telesra, Aligarh on 08.02.1990 and therefore, short-term vacancy, on which Ragavendra Babu Mishra was appointed, already became substantive on 08.02.1990, hence his ad-hoc appointment was liable to be ceased in view of Para 2 of Second Order and he ceased to be a Lecturer (Physics) in college from that date. The view taken by D.I.O.S. was upheld by Single Judge by relying on Full Bench decision in Smt. Pramila Mishra (Supra). The Division Bench in appeal has given precedence to the fact that Raghuvendra Babu Misra was appointed against short term vacancy on ad-hoc basis on 15.07.1989 and continued to work till 31.01.1994. The view taken by D.I.O.S. was upheld by Single Judge by relying on Full Bench decision in Smt. Pramila Mishra (Supra). The Division Bench in appeal has given precedence to the fact that Raghuvendra Babu Misra was appointed against short term vacancy on ad-hoc basis on 15.07.1989 and continued to work till 31.01.1994. Court did not examine that continuance of Raghvendra Babu Misra, once short-term vacancy became substantive on 08.02.1990, was in the teeth of Para 3 of Second Order and patently illegal. The mere fact that he defacto continued till 31.01.1994 obviously either was due to illegal negligence or collusion of Management or any other authority and hence for such continuance, no benefit could have been given. We also find it strange that Division Bench distinguished Supreme Court judgment in Committee of Management, Arya Nagar Inter College, Kanpur through its Manager and another Vs. Sree Kumar Tewary and another (supra), wherein Court denied application of Section 33-B in respect of a teacher who continued on the basis of an interim order passed by Court though his ad-hoc appointment stood terminated with effect from 30.06.1988 when short term vacancy became substantive due to retirement of concerned teacher. As we have already noticed, Supreme Court said that continuance by virtue of interim order and not own rights will not give any benefit of such service and therefore, Section 33-B cannot be made applicable in such a case. Raghuvendra Babu Misra also did not continue in his own rights but was permitted to continue illegally, in the teeth of specific declaration of cessation of ad-hoc appointment under Para 3 of Second Order. The aforesaid judgment, therefore, does not lay down a correct law and with great respect to learned Division Bench we have no hesitation in overruling the same. 191. Then comes another Division Bench judgment in Surendra Kumar Srivastava (supra). Here one Daya Ram, an Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) was sanctioned 2 years leave with effect from 01.11.1993. In the aforesaid short term vacancy Surendra Kumar Srivastava was appointed and said appointment was approved by D.I.O.S. initially for the period of 01.07.1994 to 30.06.1995 which was extended up to 30.06.1997. Since D.I.O.S. did not grant any further approval, Management served a notice that Surendra Kumar Srivastava would cease on 30.06.1997. In the aforesaid short term vacancy Surendra Kumar Srivastava was appointed and said appointment was approved by D.I.O.S. initially for the period of 01.07.1994 to 30.06.1995 which was extended up to 30.06.1997. Since D.I.O.S. did not grant any further approval, Management served a notice that Surendra Kumar Srivastava would cease on 30.06.1997. Thereupon he filed Writ Petition No. 14307 of 1997 contending that he is entitled to continue till a candidate recommended by Commission/Board is available. Learned Single Judge disposed of writ petition by directing D.I.O.S. to re-examine question of grant of financial sanction on representation made by Sri Surendra Kumar Srivastava. D.I.O.S. passed order that Daya Ram's leave initially was granted from 01.11.1993 to 30.06.1996 which was extended up to 30.06.1997 and in the meantime, Daya Ram was appointed in government service as Block Development Officer by appointment order dated 11.11.1993, hence application of Daya Ram seeking extension of leave from 01.07.1997 to 30.06.1998 was rejected, therefore, Surendra Kumar Srivastava could not have been granted any further sanction. This order of D.I.O.S. dated 09.10.1998 was challenged before learned Single Judge but writ petition was dismissed and that is how matter came before Division Bench. An argument was raised, that, when leave application of Daya Ram was rejected, it resulted in a substantive vacancy and hence, Surendra Kumar Srivastava could not have been terminated as he was entitled to continue till a candidate selected by Commission was available or an appointment on ad-hoc basis was made under Section 18 read with First Order. However, we find that Court examined, first a question whether on very first day when ad-hoc appointment was made against alleged short term vacancy, whether there actually existed any short term vacancy or a substantive vacancy. Admittedly, Daya Ram was appointed in government service on 11.11.1993. Under Regulation 26 read with 29(3) Chapter III of Regulations, Daya Ram could not have been granted leave but he was obliged to tender resignation before joining government service as Block Development Officer. Court, therefore, recorded a finding that Daya Ram was not granted leave validly and approved finding of D.I.O.S. on this aspect. Court also held that a substantive vacancy had occurred which could have been filled in following the procedure prescribed in Section 18 read with First Order. Court, therefore, recorded a finding that Daya Ram was not granted leave validly and approved finding of D.I.O.S. on this aspect. Court also held that a substantive vacancy had occurred which could have been filled in following the procedure prescribed in Section 18 read with First Order. Court then proceeded to examine another question "Whether the appellant was entitled to continue till a regularly selected candidate from Commission is available pursuant to the short-term vacancy of the teacher become substantively vacant or at least till an ad-hoc appointment is made under Section 18 of the Act read with First Order". 192. Relying on Full Bench judgment in Smt. Pramila Mishra (supra), Division Bench answered the above question by observing as under: ".... A bare reading of Clause-3 of Second Order provides that an ad hoc appointment against short term vacancy made under Second Order shall cease from the earliest date when the short term vacancy ceases to exist. If we permit an ad hoc appointment against short term vacancy to continue till an ad hoc appointment against substantive vacancy made is available, that would result in adding the condition in Clause-3 of Second Order that even if the short term vacancy has ceased and the incumbent's short term appointment has also ceased but still he will continue till a person appointed on ad hoc basis against substantive vacancy under the Removal of Difficulties Order or the Act is available. This is neither desirable nor permissible in law." 193. Dealing with argument raised in that case that in the interest of Institution and students, when a substantive vacancy has occurred, ad-hoc appointment made against short term vacancy should be allowed to continue till a regularly selected candidate from Commission/Board is available, Division Bench held that legislature having wide experience, if in its wisdom has made certain provision which is very clear and unambiguous, the same must be given due effect and there is no reason to twist, extend or enlarge or give some different contour to such provision which were not contemplated by legislature. This is evident from Para 33 of judgment where Division Bench has observed as under: ".... This is evident from Para 33 of judgment where Division Bench has observed as under: ".... The legislature in its wisdom and with the experience of widespread misuse of such provisions, thought it appropriate to continue with such provision and simultaneously did not make any provision for continuance of a person appointed on ad-hoc basis against a short term vacancy when the vacancy is converted into a substantive one. Considering the legislative history, it cannot be said that the legislature is unaware of the problem but if in its wisdom it has chosen not to make such a provision it would not be appropriate for the Court to provide such a contingency by process of judicial interpretation." 194. However, we find that some observations made in Para 34 of judgment by referring to Sections 33-B, 33-C and 33-F have been made, which are not correct. Division Bench has referred to Section 33-F inserted by Amendment Act 5 of 2001 with effect from 30.12.2000, which sought to regularize ad-hoc teachers appointed by promotion or direct recruitment in Lecturer Grade or T.G.T. Grade on or after 14.04.1991 till 06.08.1993, if vacancy is subsequently converted in substantive and other conditions are satisfied. Court then, in para 34 of the judgment referred to Section 33-B and observed as under: "....It would be appropriate to refer that similar provision of regularization was made while Section 33-B was inserted by U.P. Act No. 1 of 1993 w.e.f. 7.8.1993, and thereafter the matter was considered by the Full Bench and it held that Clause-3 of Second Order clearly provides that an ad-hoc appointee against a short term vacancy shall cease as soon as the short term vacancy comes to an end. If some persons appointed on ad hoc basis against short term vacancy have continued and subsequently the vacancy became substantive entitling the incumbent to claim benefit under Section 33-F, that it itself would not have an effect of amendment or alteration of the provisions of Second Order. It would be useful to remind that by virtue of Section 33 an order of removal of Difficulties may be issued which may have the effect of amendment, alteration etc. of the provisions of the Act but not vice-versa. It would be useful to remind that by virtue of Section 33 an order of removal of Difficulties may be issued which may have the effect of amendment, alteration etc. of the provisions of the Act but not vice-versa. The Removal of Difficulties Orders, were issued with an objective to cope up a situation as obtained on account of implementation and operation of the Act for certain reasons but there is nothing to show or to infer to draw a conclusion that the provisions of Removal of Difficulties Order may be deemed to be amended or altered in the light of the provisions made under 1982 Act" 195. The Division Bench in Surendra Kumar Srivastava (supra), in making observation in para 34, as noticed above, committed mistake and failed to appreciate that First and Second Orders were issued when selection and appointments of teachers in Secondary Institutions were stopped by a Radiogram dated 07.04.1981 and though Act, 1982 was brought in its earliest form of First Ordinance published on 10.07.1981 but entire process was in nascent stage, and, neither Commission/Board was constituted nor there was any occasion for such Recruitment Body to proceed for selection, and students and Educational Institutions needed teachers since vacancies were already in existence when Radiogram was issued and subsequently were continuously occurring. 196. Section 33, therefore, was invoked and Removal of Difficulties Orders were issued but such orders could not have been allowed to prevail over substantive legislation made subsequently i.e. Section 33-B etc., or to change the scheme substantially, as discussed above. 197. Removal of Difficulties Orders, as we have already discussed, neither could have altered basic feature of statute nor could have prevailed over subsequent insertion/amendments of provisions of Principal Act unless provided otherwise. Section 33-B was inserted by Amendment Act 1 of 1993 and therefore, Second Order in respect of cases covered by Section 33-B where incumbent was entitled to be considered for substantive appointment under Section 33-B and further to continue till he is discontinued, as provided in Section 33-B(5) and (6), as the case may be, had to subserve. Division Bench erred in observing that provisions of Removal of Difficulties Order cannot be deemed to have been amended or altered in the light of these provisions made in Act, 1982. Division Bench erred in observing that provisions of Removal of Difficulties Order cannot be deemed to have been amended or altered in the light of these provisions made in Act, 1982. This aspect we have already dealt with in detail and, in our view, the observations made by Division Bench in Para 34 of the judgment in Surendra Kumar Srivastava (supra) as quoted above are not correct and we overrule the same. 198. In fact, we find that it was not at all necessary for Division Bench to refer and consider Sections 33-B, 33-C and 33-F for the reason that neither Section 33-B nor Section 33-F was at all attracted to give any benefit to Surendra Kumar Srivastava. The argument of his counsel was that irrespective of tenure provided in Para 3 of Second Order, if a short term vacancy is converted into a substantive vacancy, an ad-hoc appointee had a right to continue till a candidate recommended by Commission/Board is available. This argument was clearly contrary to Para 3 of Second Order and had to be rejected outright which was rightly rejected by Division Bench. But Division Bench's further discussion in Para 34 of the judgment by referring to Sections 33-B, 33-F was clearly unnecessary. 199. However, since in the above discussion a wrong and incorrect law has been laid down as we have already shown, therefore, to this extent Division Bench judgment in Surendra Kumar Srivastava (supra) is also overruled. 200. Now we come to Full Bench judgment in Smt. Parmila Mishra (supra). We do not find anything contrary in the aforesaid judgment with reference to Section 33-B. The question was, "whether a teacher appointed on ad-hoc basis in a short term vacancy is entitled as of right to continue even after short term vacancy is converted into permanent vacancy" came to be considered in Smt. Pramila Mishra vs. Deputy Director of Education, Jhansi Division, Jhansi and others (Special Appeal No. 898 of 1995) connected with (Special Appeal No. 322 of 1993) Vachaspati Shastri vs. District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Dehat and others and (Special Appeal No. 249 of 1993) Ramakant Yadav vs. District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh and another. Full Bench was constituted on a reference made by order dated 12.04.1994 by a Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 322 of 1993, Vachaspati Shastri vs. District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Dehat and others. Full Bench was constituted on a reference made by order dated 12.04.1994 by a Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 322 of 1993, Vachaspati Shastri vs. District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Dehat and others. Relevant part of the reference order reads as under: "Cites judgments of the Division Bench in Civil Writ Petition No. 7786 of 1986 Rafiq Ahmad and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. decided on March 10. 1988; Heera Lal Sahu v. District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Dehat and Ors. decided on May 20, 1988. A reading of these judgments would show that there is no reference in either of them to the provisions of Clause 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) (Second) Order, 1981 regarding duration of ad hoc appointment. In this view of the matter, both these judgments in our opinion require reconsideration and we consequently admit this Special Appeal to Full Bench." 201. From the judgment we find that one Smt. L.R. Mishra, Lecturer (Economics) working in Nagar Palika Balika Inter College, Kalpi District Jalaun at Orai proceeded on medical leave on 01.07.1989. Smt. Sneh Lata Mishra in the resultant short term vacancy was appointed on ad-hoc basis on 01.01.1990. Smt. Pramila Mishra, an Assistant Teacher (C.T. Grade) appointed on 31.01.1978 became entitled for L.T. Grade after completion of 10 years service in C.T. Grade with effect from 01.02.1988. Smt. Pramila Mishra filed Writ Petition No. 10393 of 1994 claiming L.T. Grade with effect from 01.01.1986. She also filed Writ Petition No. 19052 of 1990 challenging ad-hoc appointment of Smt. Sneh Lata Mishra. This writ petition of Smt. Pramila Mishra caused a difficult situation before Smt. Sneh Lata Mishra with regard to payment of salary hence, she also filed Writ Petition No. 17217 of 1992 seeking a mandamus for payment of salary. Writ Petitions No. 19052 of 1990 and 17217 of 1992 were decided holding that representation of Smt. Pramila Mishra against ad-hoc appointment of Smt. Sneh Lata Mishra was rejected by Deputy Director of Education (hereinafter referred to as "D.D.E.") without giving any opportunity. However, direction for payment of salary to Smt. Sneh Lata Mishra was issued in Writ Petition No. 17217 of 1992. Smt. Sneh Lata Mishra then filed special appeal insofar as Writ Petition No. 19052 of 1990 was allowed but the same was dismissed. However, direction for payment of salary to Smt. Sneh Lata Mishra was issued in Writ Petition No. 17217 of 1992. Smt. Sneh Lata Mishra then filed special appeal insofar as Writ Petition No. 19052 of 1990 was allowed but the same was dismissed. Thereafter, D.D.E. passed a fresh order on 06.07.1995 declining to extend ad-hoc appointment of Smt. Sneh Lata Mishra and held that Smt. Pramila Mishra was entitled for promotion as Lecturer (Economics). This order was challenged in Writ Petition No. 19152 of 1995 by Smt. Sneh Lata Mishra. Court found that short term vacancy occurred on 01.07.1989 due to medical leave granted to Smt. L.R. Mishra Lecturer (Economics). On that date Smt. Pramila Mishra was not qualified to be promoted as Lecturer (Economics) having not completed qualifying service in L.T. Grade. In the circumstances, direct appointment of Smt. Sneh Lata Mishra against short term vacancy was rightly made following the procedure under Second Order. Smt. L.R. Mishra died on 19.04.1990 causing short term vacancy converted into substantive vacancy. Continuance of Smt. Sneh Lata Mishra on conversion of short term vacancy into substantive vacancy on 19.04.1990 was upheld by learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 19.09.1995 holding that she was entitled to continue till a candidate recommended by Commission/Board joins and she cannot be substituted by another ad-hoc appointee. Learned Single Judge did not examine that an ad-hoc appointment against substantive vacancy has to be made by a different procedure prescribed in First Order. This judgment came up for consideration and referred to Larger Bench of three Judges. 202. It is true that in the opening paragraph of the judgment in Pramila Mishra (supra), Court noticed question, "whether a teacher appointed on ad-hoc basis in a short term vacancy like leave vacancy is entitled as of right to continue on said post even after short term vacancy has been converted to permanent vacancy due to death, resignation or retirement of permanent incumbent would depend on interpretation of Section 33-B of Act, 1982", but we find that in the facts of the case, Section 33-B was not at all attracted for the reason that Smt. Sneh Lata Mishra was not entitled to continue after short term vacancy was converted into a substantive vacancy due to death of Smt. L.R. Mishra Lecturer (Economics) on 19.04.1990. Para 3 of Second Order would have come into play and by operation of law Smt. Sneh Lata Mishra was bound to cease to work as ad-hoc teacher against short term vacancy. In the judgment, we find that Court has referred to First and Second Orders and provisions of Act, 1982, as also Section 33-B and thereafter in Para 16 of judgment has observed that there is no provision which directly or even indirectly, vests a right in a person appointed as ad-hoc teacher in a short term vacancy to continue even after the said vacancy has ceased to exist and substantive vacancy has been created in its place. This bald proposition, it appears, has created confusion. It is to be seen, bereft of the facts of an individual case that after 06.07.1993, i.e., on enforcement of Section 33-B, cases, which would be within the ambit of said provision, a statutory right is conferred in such cases upon ad-hoc teachers appointed in a short term vacancies converted into substantive vacancies to be considered for substantive appointments, provided other conditions, as already discussed above, are satisfied and if such persons are not found suitable for substantive appointment are liable to be terminated in the manner provided in sub-section (5) of Section 33-B. An ad-hoc teacher appointed against a short term vacancy covered by Section 33-B is entitled to be governed by said provision and, to that extent, we have no manner of doubt that Para 3 of Second Order cannot be made applicable and it has to sub-serve mandate of Section 33-B. But so long as Section 33-B is not attracted and Para 3 of Second Order is not touched otherwise by any other provision, it has to be given full effect and its consequences neither need be whittled down nor be diluted nor should be construed in any other manner which is not contemplated under the said provision. This bald observation, it appears has caused error in subsequent matters. In fact it was unnecessary. 203. Principles of interpretation are very clear. This bald observation, it appears has caused error in subsequent matters. In fact it was unnecessary. 203. Principles of interpretation are very clear. When legislature makes a provision which is unambiguous and its simple interpretation also does not results in such a drastic effect that even a man of ordinary prudence will have no doubt that such drastic effect could not have been contemplated by legislature such statutory provision in its simplistic way must be interpreted as it is and should be applied. 204. In our system governed by Constitution of India, there is division of power between Legislature, Executive and Judiciary though dividing lines are very thin. The general proposition is that Legislature makes law, judiciary interprets whenever there is any dispute or difference and, Executive enforces law. The collective legislative wisdom should not normally be doubted or twisted by judicial interpretation since individual Judges may have their different perceptions, conceptions and experiences but while deciding a case, particularly while interpreting a law, individual perception should not prevail over the well settled canons of interpretation. A simple legislation should not be read in complicated manner so as to create more confusion and multiple litigation. Sometimes situation may arise that a Judge may have a view that a particular legislation should have been drawn in a different manner but that is no ground to twist the simple language of the statute and carve out an interpretation which is not intended by legislature and at least no one may find such an interpretation from a simple and plain reading of statute. Legislature is answerable to People of India, therefore, a law made by them is considered to be a well discussed law made by a body applying collective mind and such law should not be tinkered by judicial interpretation carving out new consequences or different results by a different interpretation. 205. As we have already said that scheme of legislation was very simple when Radiogram was issued on 07.04.1981 and thereafter various enactments were issued and amendments were made. 205. As we have already said that scheme of legislation was very simple when Radiogram was issued on 07.04.1981 and thereafter various enactments were issued and amendments were made. Legislature attempted to cover subsequent situations, as and when arisen but our judicial experience shows that this very legislation of Act, 1982 has caused a heavy burden on this Court resulting in thousands and thousands writ petitions and mostly due to the fact that there are numerous amendments, and interpretation of various provisions were made differently having different consequences, sometimes in the zeal of extending hands of justice to serve individuals ignoring the plain consequences of statutory provisions and sometimes due to different perception of Judges of the Courts in respect of administration of justice. Time and again, it has been cautioned by Apex Court that interpretation of statute should be carefully done and there should not be any diversion, deviation or angular interpretation by doubting wisdom of legislature whether principal or delegated, unless legislation itself is assailed being ultra vires for one or other reasons or if consequences of plain interpretation and application, as we have already said, are absolutely against public interest and/or so drastic that no one could have intended the same. 206. Full Bench judgment in Smt. Parmila Mishra (supra) therefore, insofar as a bald observation has been made in Para 16 of judgment (as quoted above) is clarified and we hold that cases governed by provisions relating to substantive appointment/regularization like 33-B and 33-F etc., the same wherever applicable, will prevail over otherwise inconsistent provision contained in Removal of Difficulties Order and in particular Second Order. 207. In the light of above discussion on some of aspect, we may summarize our conclusion as under: I. After enforcement of Act, 1982, Ad-hoc appointment could have been made in accordance with Section 18 read with Removal of Difficulties Orders issued under the said Act. II. Para 3 of First Order, notified on 31.7.1981, is/was mandatory. A teacher appointed on ad-hoc basis in the vacancy referred to in Para 2 of First Order would cease, by operation of law, when candidate recommended by Commission/Board joins the post or on the expiry of six months' period from the date of ad-hoc appointment, whichever is earlier. II. Para 3 of First Order, notified on 31.7.1981, is/was mandatory. A teacher appointed on ad-hoc basis in the vacancy referred to in Para 2 of First Order would cease, by operation of law, when candidate recommended by Commission/Board joins the post or on the expiry of six months' period from the date of ad-hoc appointment, whichever is earlier. This cessation is on account of declaration made in Para 3 of First Order, as notified on 31.7.1981, and would come into play even if no other order is passed by Appointing Authority. III. With effect from 11.9.1981, by virtue of Para 5 of Second Order, the nature of vacancies on which the First Order was applicable,, remained to be applicable only in respect of substantive vacancies caused by death, resignation or otherwise. Other vacancies mentioned in Para 2(c) of First Order, published on 31.7.1981 would stand omitted from First Order. IV. The Second Order became applicable to ad-hoc appointments in short term vacancies with effect from 11.9.1981. It provided procedure for such appointment. It is mandatory. Para 3 of the Second Order, providing duration of ad-hoc appointment is also mandatory. Any teacher who is appointed on ad-hoc basis in accordance with procedure prescribed under Para 2 of the Second Order, by operation of law, would cease to function on the happening of any of the following events, whichever is earlier: (i) the teacher, who was on leave or suspension, joins the post; or (ii) six months' period from the date of ad-hoc appointment expires; or (iii) short term vacancy otherwise ceases to exist, V. With effect from 30.01.1982, the tenure of ad-hoc appointee underwent a change under First Order. From that date, such teacher would cease only when a candidate recommended by Commission/Board joins the post. This is also mandatory. This cessation is by operation of law. There would not be any difference even if no order is passed by Appointing Authority in respect of above cessation on occurrence of above contingency. VI. With effect from 30.1.1982, the tenure of the ad-hoc teachers appointed against short term vacancies, also underwent a change. Such teacher would cease only when the teacher, who may have been on leave or suspension, joins the post or the short term vacancy otherwise ceases to exist. VI. With effect from 30.1.1982, the tenure of the ad-hoc teachers appointed against short term vacancies, also underwent a change. Such teacher would cease only when the teacher, who may have been on leave or suspension, joins the post or the short term vacancy otherwise ceases to exist. In other words, with effect from 30.1.1982, an ad-hoc teacher appointed in a short term vacancy, under Second Order, would not cease on expiry of six months from the date of ad-hoc appointment as that condition stood omitted. VII. Vide Section 33-A (2), ad-hoc appointments made between 10.07.1981 to 11.06.1985 against substantive vacancies in accordance with Para 2 of First Order, as amended from time to time, were declared "deemed to have been appointed on substantive capacity" provided such teacher had been continuously serving in concerned Institution from the date of such ad-hoc appointment up to the date of commencement of U.P. Ordinance No. 12 of 1985, substituted by U.P. Act 19 of 1985, that came into force on 12.06.1985. VIII. Such teacher, who had been appointed in substantive capacity, under Section 33-A of Act, 1982 had also been declared as deemed to be on probation from 12.06.1985 i.e. the date of commencement of U.P. Ordinance No. 12 of 1985. IX. The two exceptions for application of Section 33-A of Act, 1982 are: (a) On 12.06.1985, post held by such ad-hoc teacher had already been filled or selection for such post had already been made in accordance with Act 1982; or (b) If such ad-hoc teacher was related to any member of Committee of Management or Principal or Head Master of the Institution; X. All ad-hoc promotions of teachers made in accordance with Para 2 of First Order, as amended from time to time, were declared as deemed to have been appointed on substantive capacity with effect from 06.04.1991, if they had been appointed as per procedure prescribed in Para 2 of First Order and possessed qualification prescribed or were exempted from possessing such qualifications under Act, 1921. XI. XI. Teachers appointed on ad-hoc basis against substantive vacancy in C.T. Grade between 12.06.1985 and 13.05.1989 in accordance with Para 2 of First Order, as amended from time to time, and possessing qualifications or exempted from possessing such qualification, as prescribed under Act, 1921, were also declared as "deemed to have been appointed in substantive capacity" provided they continued to serve from the date of their ad-hoc appointment to the date of commencement of Amendment Act 26 of 1991 i.e. 06.04.1991. XII. Section 33-A(1-C) of Act, 1982 gave similar benefit to teachers, promoted or appointed directly, on ad-hoc basis, before 31.07.1988 against substantive vacancy in accordance with Section 18 of Act, 1982 and they were also declared "deemed to have been appointed in substantive capacity" with effect from 06.04.1991, provided they had been continuously serving the Institution from the date of ad-hoc appointment till 06.4.1991. XIII. Exceptions as applicable to Section 33-A(1) continued to apply to Section 33(1-A), (1-B) & (1-C) with the only difference as to the date of commencement i.e. 06.04.1991. XIV. Section 33-B of Act, 1982 deals with ad-hoc appointments in short term vacancies, and, provides : (i) Teachers appointed in Lecturer or Trained Graduate grade by promotion or direct recruitment on ad-hoc basis till 14.5.1991, or in C.T. grade till 13.5.1989, against a short term vacancy, in accordance with Para 2 of Second Order, if they possess requisite qualification and have been continuously serving the Institution from the date of ad-hoc appointment till 7.8.1993 i.e. the date of commencement of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1993, and are not related to any member of Management or Principal or Head Master, would be entitled to be considered for appointment in a substantive capacity on and after 07.8.1993, by a Selection Committee, if such vacancy was subsequently converted into substantive vacancy. (ii) A teacher appointed on ad-hoc basis by direct recruitment from 14.7.1981 to 12.6.1985, against a substantive vacancy in C.T. grade through advertisement, and whose appointment was approved by D.I.O.S., shall also be entitled to be considered for substantive appointment by Selection Committee constituted under Section 33-B(2) of Act, 1982. (ii) A teacher appointed on ad-hoc basis by direct recruitment from 14.7.1981 to 12.6.1985, against a substantive vacancy in C.T. grade through advertisement, and whose appointment was approved by D.I.O.S., shall also be entitled to be considered for substantive appointment by Selection Committee constituted under Section 33-B(2) of Act, 1982. (iii) A teacher appointed on ad-hoc basis against substantive vacancy in accordance with Section 18 (as it was sought to be omitted by U.P. Act No. 1 of 1993 though in effect omission never took place since Section 13 of Amendment Act 1 of 1993 was never came to be enforced), between 31.7.1988 and 14.5.1991, whether by promotion or direct recruitment, would be entitled to be considered for substantive appointment by the Selection Committee constituted under Section 33-B(2) of Act, 1982. (iv) Such teacher, who is recommended by Selection Committee for substantive appointment was declared "deemed to be on probation" from the date of such substantive appointment. (v) Teachers under Section 33-B were considered for substantive appointment in order of seniority, determined from the date of their ad-hoc appointment. (vi) However, such teachers shall not get any benefit of Section 33-B if on 07.8.1993, where such substantive vacancy had already been filled or selection for such vacancy had already been made in accordance with Amendment Act, 1/1993. XV. The teachers, who come within the ambit of Section 33-B, whether appointed on ad-hoc basis against substantive vacancies or short term vacancies on and after 07.8.1993 (the date when Amendment Act 1 of 1993 came into force) would be entitled to continue till they are not considered by the Selection Committee for substantive appointment. In their cases, the term of ad-hoc appointment would not be governed either by the First Order or the Second Order, and with effect from 7.8.1993, it would be governed by sub-section (5) of Section 33-B. In other words, on and after 07.8.1993, a teacher appointed on ad-hoc basis, whether against short term vacancy or substantive vacancy, falling within the ambit of Section 33-B(1) will continue to work till such date, as the State Government may by order specify, and, his tenure will not be governed either by Para 3 of the First Order or Para 3 of the Second Order, as the case may be. 208. 208. We do not propose to expand our observations in respect of subsequent provisions made for substantive appointment/absorption namely, Sections 21-C, 33-D, 33-E, 33-F and 33-G, since those issues are not necessary to examine to answer the questions referred to us. 209. In view of above discussion, we answer questions referred to this Bench as under : A. Question (a) is answered in affirmative. We hold that tenure of ad hoc appointed teachers against short-term vacancies, provided in Para 3 of Second Order, is mandatory and will continue to hold the field till 06.08.1993. On and after 07.08.1993, when Section 33-B was enacted and enforced, teachers who come within the ambit of Section 33-B and entitled to be considered for substantive appointment thereunder, their tenure would be governed by sub-section (5) and till such teachers are not considered by Selection Committee for substantive appointment, they will be entitled to continue even if any contingency, referred to in Para 3 of Second order, has arisen on and after 07.08.1993. In other words, Section 33-B wherever applicable, shall prevail over Para 3 of Second Order, but, in cases where Section 33-B is not applicable and ad hoc appointment is made against short term vacancies as per procedure prescribed in Second Order, in those cases only, even after 07.08.1993, tenure provided in Para 3 shall be applicable. B. In view of the conclusion noted above and answer to question (a), question (b) is answered in negative. C. Question (c) is answered in affirmance. D. Question (d) is answered as under : (i) Decision in District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar and others vs. Diwakar Lal and others (supra) is overruled to the extent as stated in para 180 to 182 above. (ii) Decision in Raj Kumar Verma and others vs. District Inspector of Schools, Saharanpur and others (supra) is overruled to the extent as stated in para 183-188 above. (iii) Decision in Smt. Shashi Saxena and others vs. Deputy Director of Education and others (supra) is overruled to the extent as stated in para 189 above. (iv) Decision in Raghuvendra Babu Misra vs. District Inspector of Schools, Etah and others (supra) is overruled to the extent as stated in para 190 above. (v) Decision in Surendra Kumar Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and others (supra) is overruled to the extent as stated in para 191 to 199 above. (iv) Decision in Raghuvendra Babu Misra vs. District Inspector of Schools, Etah and others (supra) is overruled to the extent as stated in para 190 above. (v) Decision in Surendra Kumar Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and others (supra) is overruled to the extent as stated in para 191 to 199 above. (vi) The Full Bench judgment in Smt. Pramila Mishra vs. Deputy Director of Education, Jhansi Division, Jhansi and others (supra) to the extent of observation made in para 16 of the said judgment, are clarified in the manner as stated in para 206 above. E. We reiterate that so far as cases which are within the ambit of Section 33-B of Act, 1982, to that extent tenure of ad hoc teachers appointed against short term vacancies following procedure prescribed in Para 2 of Second Order shall be governed by sub-section (5) of Section 33-B. It shall prevail over otherwise inconsistent provision contained in Para 3 of Second Order. Further, for interregnum period such teachers so long as are not considered by Selection Committee constituted under sub-section (2) of Section 33-B, for that period also such ad hoc teachers will continue and will not stand terminated by taking recourse to Para 3 of Second Order on and after 07.08.1993. 210. Let all the appeals and connected writ petition be placed before appropriate Bench for further orders.