JUDGMENT

A.N. Varma, J. - This petition is typical of a spate of litigations which is coming to this Court in the shape of writ petitions praying for a writ of mandamus directing the District Inspector of Schools of the concerned to pay salary to ad hoc teacher for the period beyond 30th of June following the date of their appointment. The question raised in this petition is being disposed of after hearing learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Standing Counsel.

2. The petitioners' grievance is that even though the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission has not recommended any candidate for appointment under the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act (U.P. Act No. V of 1982), the District Inspector of Schools has stopped payment of salary to the petitioners on the ground that their ad hoc appointment made under Section 18 of the aforesaid Act has automatically come to an end on the 30th of June following the date of such ad hoc appointment in virtue of clause (c) of Section 18 (3) of U.P. Act No. V of 1982. The petitioners assert that they have been validly appointed under Section 18 as ad hoc teachers and their ad hoc appointment having received the approval of the District Inspector of Schools their ad-hoc appointment Should be deemed to be continuing till a candidate recommended by the Commission or the Board, on the case may be, joins the post. It is further asserted that no teacher has yet been selected by the Commission or, if selected, joined the post held by the petitioner. That being so, it is urged, the District Inspector of Schools should continue to pay salary to the petitioners even beyond 30th June following the date of their ad hoc appointment.

3. The learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submitted that upon plain terms of clause (c) of Section 18 (5) of the ad hoc appointment of the petitioners must be deemed to have terminated on the 30th June following the date of such appointment and this is so even if no candidate has been selected or recommended by the commission for substantive appointment.

4. Before we proceed to consider the validity of the above submissions it will be necessary to have a look at the relevant Statutory provision, namely. Section 18 of the aforesaid Act which provides

"18. Ad hoc Teachers. - (1) Where the management has notified a vacancy to the commission in accordance with the provisions of of this Act, and -

(a) The Commission has fail to recommend the name of and Suitable candidate for being appointed on a teachers 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 provisions 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 subsection (2) shall cause 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."

It appears that when the legislature had enacted Section 18 of the Act it was not anticipated that the process of selection would be unduly delayed and would not be concluded even upto 30th June followed the date of such ad hoc appointments. However, as it is frequently happening the Commission is unable to complete the selection or recommend a candidate for substantive a