By the Court.—The special appeal has been restored to its original number vide order of date passed on restoration application. As requested by learned counsel for the parties, the special appeal is taken up for hearing and is being disposed of finally at this stage.

2. Sri A.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the vacancy in question was for short term and, therefore, it was not required to be advertised in two daily newspapers. Placing reliance on Section 16-E(11) of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the “1921 Act’) and Regulation 9(1) Chapter II of the Regulations framed thereunder he contended that the aforesaid provision commences with non-obstante clause and, therefore, have overriding effect. They do not require that a short term vacancy i.e. leave vacancy shall be referred to selection committee. Meaning thereby that there is no selection, hence no advertisement. He submitted that when the requirement of reference to selection committee has been dispensed with, it automatically results in the inference that the vacancy need not be advertised in the newspapers and submitted that the Hon’ble Single Judge has erred in law in holding otherwise relying on the Full Bench decision in Radha Raizada v. Committee of Management, 1994 (2) ESC 345. He also contended that the aforesaid two provisions namely Section 16-E(11) of the Act and Regulation 9(1) Chapter II have not been considered in Radha Raizada (supra), therefore, the said judgment needs to be reconsidered by a Larger Bench. He lastly contended that in fact a short term vacancy is not a vacancy at all inasmuch as holder thereof continue to maintain lien on the post and, therefore, the procedure prescribed for appointment on regular basis would have no application to a short term vacancy.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant placing reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in State of U.P. and another v. Sudha Chaturvedi (Smt.) and another, 2004(3) UPLBEC 2965, contended that the Division Bench has already held the judgment of Hon’ble Single Judge in appeal before this Court erroneous and, therefore, the appeal is liable to be allowed in any case.

4. Having given our anxious thoughts to the aforesaid submissions we however, do not find substance in any of the aforesaid submissions.

5. Section 16-E(11) of 1921 Act reads as under :

“16-E(11) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing sub-sections, appointments in the case of a temporary vacancy caused by the grant of leave to an incumbent for a period not exceeding six months or by death, termination or otherwise of an incumbent occurring during an educational session, may be made by direct recruitment or promotion without reference to the Selection Committee in such manner and subject to the such conditions as may be prescribed:

Provided that no appointment made under this sub-section shall, in any case, continue beyond the end of the educational session during which such appointment was made.”

6. A perusal of Section 16-E(11) of the Act shows that though it has a non-obstante clause but that would prevail over the various sub-sections of Section 16-E of 1921 Act and not to the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the “1982 Act”). On the contrary, 1982 Act has overriding effect over any provision of 1921 Act and regulations framed thereunder to the extent they are contrary to 1982 Act. Section 16 of 1982 Act reads as under :

“16. Appointment to be made only on the recommendation 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, 33, 33-A, 33-B, 33-C, 33-D and 33-F, every appointment of a teacher, shall on or after the date of the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board (Amendment) Act, 2001