The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982, regarding ad-hoc appointments are mandatory and must be strictly complied with.

( 1 ) THE present special has been filed against the judgment and order dated 11. 12. 1998 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15293 of 1992, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner-appellant has been dismissed.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to the present special appeal are as follows : janta Inter College, Barsathi, Jaunpur (hereinafter referred to as the college) is a recognised and aided College under the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Act, 1921. One Sri Karam Raj mishra, lecturer in Civics retired on 30. 6. 1991. The Committee of Management of the said college advertised the vacancy on 4. 7. 1991, in the local newspaper "dainik Manyavar", a newspaper published in the District Jaunpur. The Committee of Management of the College vide resolution passed on 4. 8. 1991, selected the writ petitioner-appellant on the post of Lecturer in civics and issued an appointment letter on 16. 8. 1991. The appointment of the writ petitioner-appellant was made on ad-hoc basis. He joined on the post of Lecturer in Civics in the said College on 19. 8. 1991. When the appellant was not being paid the salary, he approached this court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which as mentioned hereinbefore had been dismissed by the learned Single Judge whose order is under challenge in the present special appeal.

( 3 ) WE have heard Sri Anil Bhushan, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was appointed on 16. 8. 1991 as ad-hoc Lecturer in Civics against the vacancy caused by the retirement of Sri Karam Raj mishra. The College Authority had sent the requisition under Section 18 of the U. P. Secondary education Service Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the 1982 Act ). The vacancy was notified to the Commission and even if the appointment has been made before the expiry of a period of two months from the date of notifying the vacancy to the commission, the appointment would not be bad and illegal, but would take effect after the expiry of the period of two months. He further submitted that the vacancy was advertised in the local newspaper Dainik Manyawar published on 24. 7. 1991, which is a widely circulated newspaper in the District of Jaunpur and if the vacancy was not advertised in two daily newspapers, as per u. P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1982, then it is only an irregularity, which will not make the appointment void. He further submitted that the requirement of advertisement in two newspapers was directory and not mandatory. He relied upon the following cases :

1. Km. Madhu Chauhan v. District Inspector of Schools, 1988 UPLBEC 397; 2. Ashika Prasad Shukl v. District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad and Anr. , 1998 (3) ESC 2006 (All); 3. Radha Raizada and Ors. v. Committee of Management, Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter College and Ors. , 1994 (2) ESC 345 (All) (FB); 4. Konch Degree College, Jalaun and Ors. v. Ram Sajivan Shukla and Anr. , 1997 (11) SCF 153; and

( 5 ) ARUN Tiwari and Ors. v. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh, 1998 (1) ESC 257 (SC ). 5. Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Standing Counsel, however, submitted that under Section 18 of the 1982 Act, the Management has been given powers to make appointment by direct recruitment or promotion of a Teacher on purely ad-hoc basis only after the Management had notified the vacancy to the Commission in accordance with Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the aforesaid Act and the post of the Teacher actually remained vacant for more than two months. According to him the post of Lecturer in Civics in the College fell vacant only on 1. 7. 1991 and the appointment of the appellant was made on 16. 8. 1991, even without waiting for the expiry of the period of