S. U. Khan, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner as well as respondent No. 7 were appointed as Assistant Teachers in C. T. Grade in B. D. M. Municipal Inter College, Shikohabad on ad hoc basis. Petitioner was appointed about a month before Smt. Nirmala Sharma, respondent No. 7. However, by virtue of Section 16-GG of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 as amended in 1977, services of both were regularised on the same date. Admittedly respondent No. 7 is senior in age than petitioner. By virtue of Chapter-2 Regulation-3 (1) (b) of the Regulations framed under the Act, in such contingency senior in age is to be treated as senior. However, under U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulty Order), 1981, under Explanation to Paragraph-4, it is provided that for ad hoc promotion ''senior most teacher means a teacher having longest service in a particular grade. Accordingly, on this ground promotion of petitioner to L. T. Grade on 12. 04. 1982 approved by D. I. O. S. cannot be faulted. Contrary view taken in the impugned orders dated 12. 08. 1987 (by D. I. O. S.) and 11. 04. 1988 (by D. D. E.) is erroneous in law. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 7 has cited an authority of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1988 SC 84 "sudama Singh Vs. Nath Saran Singh". However, in the said authority provisions of U. P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, 1982 and removal of difficulties orders issued thereunder were not under consideration as appointments/ promotions had been made in 1976-77. Supreme Court in AIR 2008 SCW 6672 : JT 2008 (8) SC 381 "balbir Kaur Vs. U. P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad and others" has held that by virtue of Section 32 of U. P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982 if there is any conflict between the provisions of the said Act and the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Act, 1921, then provisions of Act of 1982 will prevail. Same principle will apply to removal of difficulties orders and rules. Supreme Court in Balbir Kaur (supra) was dealing with Rules of 1998 framed under Act of 1982. Learned counsel for respondent No. 7 has referred to the Rules (of 1983, 1995 and 1998) framed under the Act of 1982. However, in 1982 when promotion was made, there were no Rules. However, now respondent No. 7 has retired, hence matter ends. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of. It is clarified that no amount already paid as salary shall be recovered from respondent No. 7 or deducted from her retiral benefits. .;