Over a decades history of recruitment of teachers in the Government aided recognised institutions run by the private manage ments in the State of Uttar Pradesh discloses that the recruitment of teac hers began with ad hoc appointment which was subsequently regularised by legislative intervention. In fact the Government could not achieve its object to recruit competent teachers through fair selection by instrumentality of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) initially due to its non-establishment and subsequently due to long delay entailed in the process of selection of teachers. Thus, due to non-availability of duly selected teachers, who were urgently required in the institutions the whole machinary got involved in recruiting teachers by ad hoc appointment in the institutions. In the absence of com plete legislation in respect of method of appointment of ad hoc teachers the management of the institutions resorted to make ad hoc appointment in the manner which suited them best and this gave rise to enormous litigations which have brought burden on the Court as well as on public exchequer and further affected the standard of the education in this State. Despite illustritious judgments rendered by this Court the controversy in respect of ad hoc appointment of teachers/principal in the institutions continued to be deba ted in this Court. It is in this back ground when these writ petitions came up before the learned Single Judge the controversy as to whether the ad hoe appointment of Principal in the institution is to be done either by promo tion from amongst the senior most teacher or by direct recruitment, was raised. In the special appeal also the question raised was as to whether any approval or prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools in the matter of ad hoc appointment of teacher is required or not. In the writ petition the question raised before the learned Single Judge was that since the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 has ceased to be operative the ad hoc appointment of principal in the institution has to be done in accordance with the provisions of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as, the Intermediate Education Act) and the regulations framed thereunder. According to the learned Single Judge various Removal of Difficulties Order issued by the State Government under Section 33 of the U. P. Secon dary Education of Services Commission and Selection Board Act 1981 (herein after referred to as the Act) cannot continue for unlimited period of time inasmuch as the reason for issuing of removal of Difficulties Orders by the State Government has attained its purpose by adding a new Section 33-A by which all the ad hoc appointments made there stood regularised and as such First Removal of Difficulties Order as amended by subsequent order has ceased to be operative. In view of this, the learned Single Judge was of opinion that ad hoc appointment of Principal in the institution is permissi ble under the provisions of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act and under the regulations thereunder and not under the Removal of Difficulties Order issued under the Act. The learned Single Judge was of further opinion that the questions involved in the writ petitions require to be considered by a Full Bench of this Court. The learned Single Judge by order dated 31st March, 1992 framed five questions of law to be answered by a Full Bench. Before the learned Single Judge, it appears that certain amendments in the Act were not brought to his notice and further subsequent to the date of reference the Act has under gone through major legislative changes which are being mentioned hereinafter. By U. P. Act No. 26 of 1991, in Section 33-1, three sub-sections namely sub-section (I-A), (I-B) and (I-C) were added and further sub-section (2) of Section 33-A was substituted by new sub sectio