ORDER :- Having heard learned counsel for the parties at quite some length, we are satisfied that no interference with the judgment of the High Court upholding the constitutional validity of S. 31B of the U.P. Higher Educational Services Commission Act, 1980 is called for. Two main contentions have been raised by Shri Kacker, learned counsel for the petitioners, who are all ad hoc teachers appointed after January 3, 1984, namely : (1) The adoption of the cut-off date in S. 31B of the Act as January 3, 1984 for purposes of regularisation of the services of ad hoc teachers appointed by the Management of the affiliated colleges was arbitrary and irrational and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution, inasmuch as equals have been treated unequally. It is said that all teachers appointed by the Management of the affiliated colleges before the cut-off date January 3, 1984 and after that date were similarly situate, some of them being merit scholars and other having doctorates and were therefore eligible for appointment and S. 31B which makes discrimination against a class within a class offends against Art. 14 as there was no reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved. (2) The Legislature could not arbitrarily adopt January 3, 1984 as the cut-off date for regularisation of the services of ad hoc teachers merely because that was the date on which the U.P. Higher Educational Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1983 expired. It is pointed out that the cut-off date for regularisation of services of ad hoc University Teachers appointed in excess of the requirement under S. 2 of the U.P. State Universities (Validation of Appointments) Act, 1984 which appointed August 10, 1984 i.e. the date of promulgation of the relative ordinance, and also the cut-off date for purposes of regularisation of ad hoc teachers appointed in Higher Secondary Schools under S. 33-A of the U.P. Secondary Educational Services Commission and Selection Boards (Amendment) Act, 1985, was again the date of promulgation of the Ordinance. It is said that the Legislature could not have made the cut-off date in S. 31B relatable to January 3, 1984 which after all being the date of expiry of the Second Removal of Difficulties Order, was nothing but result of executive action. We are afraid, neither of the two contentions can prevail.

2. We agree with the High Court that fixation of the date January 3, 1984 for purposes of regularisation was not arbitrary or irrational but had a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The whole object of enacting, S. 31B was to regularise the services of ad hoc teachers appointed -under the provisions of the two U.P. Higher Educational Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Orders, 1982 and 1983 which remained in operation till January 3, 1984. In view of the proviso to S. 31A, the State Government had no power to issue any fresh Removal of Difficulties Order as it was available only for a period of two years from the date of commencement of the Act. It follows that the Management of the affiliated colleges had no power after January 3, 1984 to make any ad hoc appointments under the provisions of the said Removal of Difficulties Order. Under S. 12(l) of the Act, no such appointments could be made by the Management after, that date except under S. 31A i.e. where the Management had notified a vacancy to the Commission in accordance with S. 12(2) and the Commission failed to recommend the names of suitable. candidates as required by sub-s. (1) thereof within three months from the date of such notification.

3. Admittedly, the petitioners were all appointed as ad hoc teachers after the appointed day i.e. after January 3, 1984 and therefore were not entitled to the benefit of regularisation under S. 31A. On the contrary, their appointments were subject to the prohibition contained in S. 12(5) and therefore void. It is quite clear upon the terms of S. 12(l) of the Act, as amended, that no such appoin