Dilip Gupta, J. - (1.) VEENA Misra has filed this Special Appeal under Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules 1952 for setting aside the judgment and order dated 10th April, 2009 passed by a learned Judge of this Court by which Writ Petition No. 9790 of 1994 filed by her for a direction upon the respondents not to disturb her seniority was dismissed. Savitri Singh, who was respondent no.3 in the aforesaid writ petition filed by VEENA Mishra, had also filed Writ Petition No. 38621 of 1994 for treating her to be senior to VEENA Mishra. Both the petitions decided together by the common judgment and order dated 10th April, 2009. The petition filed by Savitri Singh was allowed and it was held that Savitri Singh is senior to VEENA Mishra. The appellant who was respondent no.4 in the writ petition filed by Savitri Singh has not filed any Special Appeal to assail this judgment. The core issue in both the writ petitions, as would be evident from the prayers contained therein and the judgment, is as to which of these two teachers is senior. The prayers contained in the writ petition filed by VEENA Mishra are as follows:- "(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 24.1.1994 passed by respondent no.1 (Annexure 9) to the writ petition. (b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the resolution dated 7.10.8s4 appointing the respondent no.3 on adhoc basis as Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade and order dated 25.3.1985 approving her adhoc appointment. (c) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere with the seniority of the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition." The prayers contained in the writ petition filed by Savitri Singh are as follows:- "(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record of the case and quash the order dated 11.11.1994 (Annexure No.1) passed by the respondent No.2. (b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner as the senior most teacher in L.T. grade, and permit the petitioner to officiate and perform the duties of Principal until substantive appointment of the Principal is done by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission." It is evident that VEENA Mishra had not only sought the quashing of the order dated 25th March, 1985 granting approval to the ad hoc promotion of Savitri Singh as Assistant Teacher in the LT Grade as also the subsequent order dated 24th January, 1994 appointing Savitri Singh on probation as Assistant Teacher in the LT Grade w.e.f. 6th April, 1991, but had also sought a mandamus not to interfere with her seniority. Savitri Singh in her petition had sought the quashing of the order dated 11th November, 1994 passed by the Deputy Director of Education holding VEENA Mishra to be senior to her and for a direction upon the respondents to treat her as the senior-most teacher in the LT Grade. The learned Judge, after noticing that the dispute in both the petitions was as to which of these two teachers is senior, observed that as both Savitri Singh and VEENA Mishra had been granted substantive appointment by promotion on the post of Assistant Teacher in the LT Grade on the same date 6th April, 1991, Savitri Singh would be senior to VEENA Mishra in view of the provisions of Regulation 3(1)(bb) contained in Chapter II of The U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Regulations') as her length of service in the CT Grade was more than that of VEENA Mishra. Sri A.N. Tripathi, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant VEENA Mishra submitted that the learned Judge committed an error in holding that the appointments of both the Assistant Teachers on 6th April, 1991 in the LT Grade on substantive basis was by way of promotion. According to him inter se seniority was required to be determined in accordance with Regulation 3(1)(b) of the Regulations on the basis of age and not according to Regulation 3(1)(bb) of the Regulations on the basis of length of service reckoned from the appointment in the CT Grade and in support of this contention he has placed reliance upon the provisions of Section 33-A(1-C) of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the ''1982 Act') and emphasized that in the present case the substantive appointments were not by promotion. Sri M.K. Gupta, learned counsel for Savitri Singh and the learned Standing Counsel, however, submitted that both the teachers had earlier been granted ad hoc promotion from CT Grade to the LT Grade on 25th March, 1985 and such ad hoc promotions were subsequently regularized under Section 33-A (1-C) of the 1982 Act w.e.f. 6th April, 1991 and so it is a case of appointment by promotion and the relevant Regulation governing seniority would be Regulation 3(1)(bb) of the Regulations. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. The records indicate that Adarsh Kanya Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Seekar, District Mirzapur (hereinafter referred to as the ''School') was earlier a Junior High School which was upgraded to the level of a High School in 1984. Savitri Singh was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the CT Grade on 1st August, 1974, while VEENA Mishra was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the CT Grade on 9th October, 1980. At the time of their appointments, the School was a Junior High School but upon its upgradation to the High School both of them were granted ad hoc promotions to the L.T. Grade and the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools by the order dated 25th March, 1985 granted approval to their ad hoc promotions in the LT Grade till a regularly selected candidate from the Commission joined the post. Subsequently, both these teachers were appointed in a substantive capacity in the LT Grade w.e.f. 6th April, 1991 on probation for one year. It is at this stage that the seniority dispute between the two teachers arose. Seniority amongst teachers is determined in accordance with Regulation 3(1)(b) and Regulation 3(1)(bb) of the Regulations and they are quoted below:- "3(1)(b): Seniority of teachers in a grade shall be determined on the basis of their substantive appointment in that grade. If two or more teachers were so appointed on the same date, seniority shall be determined on the basis of age; (bb): Where two or more teachers working in a grade are promoted to the next higher grade on the same date, their seniority inter-se shall be determined on the basis of the length of their service to be reckoned from the date of their substantive appointment in the grade from which they are promoted. Provided that if such length of service is equal, seniority shall be determined on the basis of age." The date of birth of VEENA Mishra is 21st May, 1953 while that of Savitri Singh is 25th July, 1955. VEENA Mishra, therefore claimed that as the substantive appointment of both the teachers in the LT Grade was made on 6th April, 1991, she would be senior to Savitri Singh on the basis of age in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 3(1)(b) of the Regulations, while Savitri Singh claimed that she would be senior to VEENA Mishra in view of Regulation 3(1)(bb) of the Regulations on the basis of the length of service in the CT Grade as both of them had been promoted to the LT Grade on the same date. It is not in dispute that Savitri Singh had been appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the CT Grade on 1st August, 1974 and VEENA Mishra was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the CT Grade on 9th October, 1980. At that time, the School was a Junior High School. It was upgraded to the High School level in the year 1984 and by that time, the 1982 Act had came into force w.e.f. 14th July, 1981. The 1982 Act provides for substantive appointment of teachers in institutions recognized under ''The U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921' (hereinafter referred to as the ''1921Act'). Section 16 deals with appointment of teachers and provides that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the 1921 Act or the Regulations made thereunder, but subject to the provisions of Sections 18 and 33, every appointment of a teacher shall, on or after 10th July, 1981, be made by the Management only on the recommendation of the Commission or the Board, as the case may, and every appointment of a teacher in contravention of the said provisions shall be void. Thus all appointments, except those under Section 18 or 33, have to be made by the Management on the recommendations made by the Commission or the Board. Section 18 deals with ad hoc appointment of teachers and the relevant provision as it stood at the time of enactment of the 1982 Act is as follows:- "Section 18. Ad hoc Teachers. (1) Where the management has notified a vacancy to the Commission in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and - (a) the Commission has failed to recommend the name of any suitable candidate for being appointed as a teacher 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) ................. (3) ................." Section 33 deals with the power of the State Government to remove difficulties and the relevant provision as it stood at the time of enactment of the 1982 Act is as follows:- "33. Power to remove difficulties.- (1) The State Government may, for the purposes of removing any difficulty, by a notified order, direct that the provisions of this Act shall, during such period as may be specified in the order, have effect subject to such adaptations, whether by way of modification, addition or omission, as it may deem to be necessary or expedient. (2)............... (3)..............." The Government felt that the establishment of the Commission and the Selection Board was likely to take sometime and even after the establishment of the said Commission and Boards, it would not be possible to make selection of the teachers for the first few months and failure or delay in filling up the vacancies in various Institutions recognised under the 1921 Act would create difficulties. The Government, therefore, exercising powers under Section 33 of the 1982 Act, by notifications dated 31st July, 1981, 11th September, 1981 and 30th January, 1982 issued three Removal of Difficulties Orders which are popularly known as the First, Second and Third Removal of Difficulties Order. The First Removal of Difficulties Order deals with ad hoc appointment against substantive vacancies and the relevant paragraphs as amended by the subsequent Removal of Difficulties Order are, quoted below:- "2. Vacancies in which ad hoc appointment can be made. The management of an institution may appoint by promotion or by direct recruitment, a teacher on purely ad hoc basis in accordance with the provisions of this Order in the case of a substantive vacancy caused by death, retirement, resignation, or otherwise. 3. Duration of ad hoc appointments. -Every appointment of an ad hoc teacher under paragraph 2 shall cease to have effect when a candidate recommended by the Commission or the Board, as the case may, joins the post. 4. Ad hoc appointment by promotion. - (1)............... (2) Every vacancy in the post of a teacher in Lecturers grade may be filled by promotion by the senior- most teacher of the institution in the trained-graduate (L.T.) grade. (3) Every vacancy in the post of a teacher in the trained graduate (L.T.) grade shall be filled by promotion by the senior-most teacher of the institution in the trained under-graduate (C.T.) grade. (4) ................... 5. Ad hoc appointment by direct recruitment. - (1) Where any vacancy cannot be filled by promotion under Paragraph 4, the same may be filled by direct recruitment in accordance with Clause (2) to (5). (2) ....................... (3) ...................... (4) ......................... (5) ........................" The Second Removal of Difficulties Order deals with the procedure for filling up short term vacancies. We are not concerned with such vacancies and, therefore, it is not necessary to refer to them. A perusal of Section 18 of the 1982 Act as it stood at the time of enactment of the 1982 Act shows that it deals with ad hoc appointments by direct recruitment or promotion against substantive vacancies but the procedure for making such appointments has not been prescribed. The First Removal of Difficulties Order, however, prescribes a detailed procedure for making ad hoc appointment by promotion or direct recruitment against substantive vacancies. Section 18 of the 1982 Act was subsequently amended by U.P. Act No. 24 of 1992 w.e.f. 14th July, 1992 to provide for a procedure for making ad hoc appointments but as the ad hoc promotions in the present case were made on 25th March, 1985 it is not necessary to refer to the said amendments. Prior to the amendments made in Section 18 of the 1982 Act, confusion prevailed as to the manner in which ad hoc appointments could be made under Section 18 of the 1982 Act by promotion or direct recruitment against substantive vacancies and at times the Management made these ad hoc appointments without following the procedure prescribed under the First Removal of Difficulties Order. The provisions of Section 18 of the 1982 Act and the Removal of Difficulties Order were examined by a Full Bench of this Court in Radha Raizada and Ors. Vs. Committee of Management, Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter College and Ors., (1994) 3 UPLBEC 1551 and in respect of appointments made between 31st July, 1981 and 13th July, 1992 (U.P. Act No. 24 of 1992 came into effect from 14th July, 1992), it was observed:- "..............Thus, these provisions show that Section 18 and First Removal of Difficulties Order, both independently empowers the Management of institutions to make ad hoc appointment of teachers in the institution. But Section 18 does not provide the method and manner of such appointment. Whereas Removal of Difficulties Orders while empowering the management of the institutions to appoint teachers on ad hoc basis further lay down the procedure of such ad hoc appointment of teachers. In fact Section 18 as well as First Removal of Difficulties Order operate in one field and are part of one integrated scheme, namely for providing ad hoc teachers who are urgently required in the institutions. Thus, ad hoc appointment of teacher either under Section 18 of the Act or under the provisions of First Removal of Difficulties Orders has to be done in the manner laid down in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the First Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981. .................The power of ad hoc appointment either by direct recruitment or by promotion can be exercised only when the management has notified the substantive vacancy to the Commission and the Commission has failed to, recommend the name of suitable candidate within one year from the date of such notification or the posts of teacher has actually remained vacant for more than two months. Thus one of the two conditions is sine quo non for enabling the management to exercise the power to appoint a teacher on ad hoc basis, either by promotion or by direct recruitment in the institution. If the condition is absent, such a power to appoint on ad hoc basis either by promotion or direct recruitment is not available to the management of the institution. In case the pre-condition is found to be present, the management is first required to fill up the substantive vacancy by promotion on ad hoc basis from amongst the senior most teachers of the institution. .................... Paragraph 5 of the First Removal of Difficulties Order provides that where any vacancy cannot be filled by promotion under paragraph 4 of the Order, same may be filled by direct recruitment. Thus, it is mandatory on the part of the Management to first fill up the vacancy by promotion on the basis of seniority alone........................." (emphasis supplied) As the records of this case show, the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, Varanasi by the order dated 25th March, 1985 approved the ad hoc promotion of both the Assistant Teachers in the LT Grade till 0 such time as a regularly selected candidate from the Commission joined the post. There is no reference to either Section 18 of the 1982 Act or the First Removal of Difficulties Order in the said order dated 25th March, 1985. The issue of regularization of the services of these two teachers who had since been promoted on ad hoc basis in the LT Grade from the CT Grade needs be examined. At the time of enactment of the 1982 Act, there did not exist any provision for regularization of ad hoc appointments. It was only by addition of Section 33-A by U.P. Act No. 19 of 1985 w.e.f. 12th June, 1985 that appointments of teachers directly appointed on ad hoc basis against substantive vacancies in accordance with Paragraph 2 of the First Removal of Difficulties Order were regularised. The newly inserted Section 33-A is reproduced below :- "33-A. Regularisation of certain appointments.- (1) Every teacher directly appointed, before the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards (Amendment) Ordinance, 1985, on ad hoc basis against a substantive vacancy in accordance with Paragraph 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981, as amended from time to time, who possesses the qualifications prescribed under, or is exempted from such qualifications in accordance with, the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, shall, with effect from the date of such commencement, be deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity provided such teacher has been continuously serving the institution from the date of such appointment to the date of such commencement. (2)................. (3).................." A perusal of the aforesaid Section 33-A(1) shows that it sought to regularize the services of only such ad hoc teachers who had been appointed by direct recruitment on or before 12th June, 1985 under Paragraph 2 of the First Removal of Difficulties Order. Ad hoc teachers who had been appointed by promotion under the First Removal of Difficulties Order or those who had been appointed on ad hoc 1 basis either by promotion or direct recruitment under Section 18 of the 1982 Act felt discriminated as their services were not regularized. This issue was decided against such teachers by a Division Bench of this Court in Lalta Prasad Yadav and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors., 1988 UPLBEC 345 holding that :- "Learned Counsel for the petitioners have argued that all the ad-hoc appointees whether the appointment was made directly or by way of promotion under the Removal of Difficulties Order or under Section 18 of 1982 Act were broadly speaking standing on equal footings and could not be discriminated against in the matter of regularisation of their services. It is submitted that the provision in so far as it provides for reguarisation only of the teachers appointed directly is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. We have carefully considered this question and are of the view that this submission has no force. In so far as the teachers appointed by way of promotion, the only basis of selection was the seniority of the teacher, the senior-most was required to be appointed. He was not required to face any selection involving consideration of his merits including academic record for this purpose. The appointments under Section 18 of 1982 Act were also not made after any selection on merit. The same were in the nature of short duration appointments which could be made only after the vacancies had been notified to the Commission. After the notification of the vacancies it was expected that the Commission Board would make selection and provide the candidates within a short time. No procedure for selection for purposes of such ad hoc appointments was prescribed and as such the candidates to be appointed under Section 18 were not be face any selection on any objective consideration on merit. As against these two categories, the appointment by direct recruitment under paragraph 2 of the Removal of Difficulties Order were required to be made through the District Inspector of Schools on the basis of quality point marks as provided in paragraph 5 of the Removal of Difficulties Order, read with the schedule of quality point marks as set out in the appendix to the Removal of Difficulties Order. The category of direct appointees under para 2 of the Removal of Difficulties Order are such, distinct and qualitatively different from the categories of appointees by way of promotion or under Section 18 of 1982 Act. This question came up for consideration in Chandrika Prasad Yadav V. State of U.P. and others, 1986 UPLBEC 410, wherein it was held that the benefit of Section 33-A is available only to those teachers who were appointed on ad hoc basis directly and not to the teachers who were appointed on ad hoc basis under the Removal of Difficulties Order of 1981 by way of promotion. It was also held that there is no merit in the submission that Section 33-A is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India in that it concerns the benefit of regularisation only of the teachers who were directly appointed on ad hoc basis. The language of Section 33-A is clear and explicit providing that the protection of regularisation was available to those teachers who were directly appointed under paragraph 2 of Removal of Difficulties Order and not to the other two categories of ad hoc appointees, namely, those appointed by way of promotion or under Section 18 of 1982 Act." (emphasis supplied) However, the legislature intervened and subsequently certain other ad hoc appointments were sought to be regularized by U.P. Act No. 26 of 1991 w.e.f. 6th April, 1991. This was done by addition of sub- 2 sections (1-A), (1-B) and (1-C) after Section 33-A(1) of the 1982 Act. We are not concerned with sub- section (1-B) as it deals with CT Grade Teachers. The statement of objects and reasons for adding these sub-sections in Section 33-A of the 1982 Act mentions that the Government had decided to amend the 1982 Act to regularise the services of those qualified teachers also who were appointed by promotion on ad hoc basis against substantive vacancies in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2 of the First Removal of Difficulties Order or those who had been appointed by promotion or direct recruitment before 31st July, 1988 on ad hoc basis against substantive vacancies in accordance with Section 18 of the 1982 Act. The statement is as follows:- "Prefatory Note- Statement of Objects and Reasons.- Section 33-A of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards, Act, 1982 provides for the regularization of the Services of such teachers as were appointed directly before June, 12, 1985 on ad hoc basis against substantive vacancies in accordance with paragraph 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 and possessing the prescribed qualifications or exempted therefrom. It has been decided to amend the said Act to regularize the services of those qualified teachers also who were- (a) appointment by promotion on ad hoc basis against substantive vacancies in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2 of the said Order of 1981 and are continuing as such; and (b) appointment by promotion or be direct recruitment before July 31, 1988 on ad hoc basis against substantive vacancies in accordance with Section 18 of the said Act and are continuously serving as such." Sub-sections (1-A) and (1-C) as added by U.P. Act No. 26 of 1991 to Section 33-A after sub-section (1) are as follows:- "(1-A) Every teacher appointed by promotion, on ad hoc basis against a substantive vacancy in accordance with paragraph 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981, as amended from time to time, who possesses the qualifications prescribed under, or is exempted from such qualifications in accordance with the provisions of, the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 shall, with effect from the date of such commencement, be deemed to have been 3 appointed in a substantive capacity provided such teacher has been continuously serving the institution from the date of such appointment to the date of such commencement. (1-B) ..................... (1-C) Every teacher appointed by promotion or by direct recruitment before July, 31, 1988 on ad hoc basis against a substantive vacancy in accordance with Section 18, who possesses the qualifications prescribed under, or is exempted from such qualifications in accordance with the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 shall, with effect from the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards (Amendment) Act, 1991 be deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity provided such teacher has been continuously serving the institution from the date of such ad hoc appointment to the date of such commencement. (2) ................... (3) ...................." We are not concerned with sub-section (1) of Section 33-A of the 1982 Act as it deals with regularisation of the services of a teacher directly appointed on ad hoc basis against a substantive vacancy under the First Removal of Difficulties Order. The two sub-sections relevant for our purpose are sub-sections (1-A) and (1-C) as they both deal with regularization of services of such teachers who had been granted appointment on ad hoc basis against substantive vacancies. The submission of Sri A.N. Tripathi, learned Senior Counsel for VEENA Mishra is that since both the teachers had been appointed in a substantive capacity w.e.f. 6th April, 1991, their seniority will be governed by Regulation 3(1)(b) of the Regulations and Regulation 3(1)(bb) of the Regulations will not be applicable as they had not been promoted from the CT Grade to the LT Grade. A conjoint reading of Regulations 3(1)(b) and (bb) of the Regulations clearly shows that when substantive appointments of two or more teachers in a Grade is made by way of promotion on the same date, then seniority is governed by Regulation 3(1)(bb) of the Regulations and in such a situation Regulation 3(1)(b) of the Regulations will not be applicable. 4 It has, therefore, to be seen whether ad hoc appointments of the two teachers in the LT Grade were made by promotions or by direct recruitment. The order dated 25th March, 1985 passed by the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, Varanasi is absolutely clear. It grants approval to the ad hoc promotions of both the teachers till such time as a regularly selected candidate from the Commission joins the post. There is no material to show that the process for making direct recruitment was ever undertaken by the Management. Even otherwise, as noticed above, ad hoc appointment has first to be made by promotion and it is only when any vacancy cannot be filled up by promotion that steps have to be taken for filling it by direct recruitment. We, therefore, have no doubt that both the teachers had been granted ad hoc promotions from the CT Grade to the LT Grade w.e.f. 25th March, 1985. It is, however, not clear whether they had been granted ad hoc promotions under Section 18 of the 1982 Act or under Paragraph 2 of the First Removal of Difficulties Order. If ad hoc promotions had been granted to them under Paragraph 2 of the First Removal of Difficulties Order, then their regularisation will be governed by sub-section (1-A) of Section 33-A of the 1982 Act which provides that every teacher appointed by promotion on ad hoc basis against a substantive vacancy in accordance with Paragraph 2 of the First Removal of Difficulties Order shall be deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity with effect from 6th April, 1991 provided such teacher had been continuously serving the Institution from the date of such ad hoc appointment to the date of commencement. Thus, in such a case it will be because of the ad hoc promotions granted to them that the two teachers could claim appointment in a substantive capacity w.e.f. 6th April, 1991. If ad hoc promotions in the LT Grade were granted to the two teachers under Section 18 of the 1982 Act, then their regularisation will be governed by sub-section (1-C) of Section 33-A of the 1982 Act which provides that every teacher appointed by promotion or by direct recruitment before 31st July, 1988 on ad hoc basis against a substantive vacancy in accordance with Section 18 of the 1982 Act shall be deemed to have been appointed in a substantive capacity w.e.f. 6th April, 1991 provided such teacher had been continuously serving the Institution from the date of such ad hoc appointment to the date of commencement. In such a situation also it would be because of the ad hoc promotions of the two teachers in the LT Grade that they could claim substantive appointments w.e.f. 6th April, 1991. A perusal of the statement of objects and reasons of U.P. Act No. 26 of 1991 shows that the 1982 Act had been amended to regularise the services of those teachers who had been appointed by promotion on ad hoc basis against substantive vacancies in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2 of the 5 First Removal of Difficulties Order or those who had been appointed by promotion or direct recruitment before 31st July, 1988 on ad hoc basis against substantive vacancies in accordance with Section 18 of the 1982 Act. In the present case the services of the two teachers were regularized because they had been appointed by promotions on ad hoc basis against substantive vacancies. Though the latter part of sub- section (1-C) of Section 33-A of the 1982 Act speaks of ''appointment in a substantive capacity' but the earlier part of the sub-section refers to ''appointed by promotion or by direct recruitment' and, therefore, the benefit of substantive appointment would, in the present case, accrue on account of appointment by promotion on ad hoc basis. To overcome this difficulty, Sri A.N. Tripathi learned Senior Counsel for VEENA Mishra at one stage even suggested that the two teachers had been appointed by direct recruitment on ad hoc basis in the LT Grade by the order dated 25th March, 1985. This suggestion is without any basis as it is not only contrary to the express terms contained in the order dated 25th March, 1985 of the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, Varanasi granting approval to the ad hoc promotions in the LT Grade, but is also against the pleadings in the writ petition. We, therefore, hold that both the teachers had been granted substantive appointment by promotion to the next higher LT Grade on the same date, i.e., 6th April, 1991. In such circumstances, the inevitable conclusion that follows is that the relevant Regulation governing seniority would be Regulation 3(1)(bb) of the Regulations and since Savitri Singh had greater length of service in the CT Grade, she would be senior to VEENA Mishra. This is what has been held by the learned Judge. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the consideration of the mater by the learned Judge does not suffer from any error which calls for interference in this Special Appeal. There is yet another reason for declining relief to the appellant. This Special Appeal has been filed for setting aside the judgment and order passed in Writ Petition No. 9790 of 1994. The said petition had been filed by VEENA Mishra for quashing the ad hoc promotion of Savitri Singh in the LT Grade by the order dated 25th March, 1985 as also her substantive appointment in the LT Grade w.e.f. 6th April, 1991 by the order dated 24th January, 1994. VEENA Mishra had also sought a direction upon the respondents not to interfere with her seniority. It is the latter relief which 6 was pressed before the learned Judge as the judgment under appeal shows that no submissions were made on her behalf for quashing the ad hoc promotion of Savitri Singh or regularization of such ad hoc promotion. The petition filed by VEENA Mishra was dismissed. Savitri Singh had also filed Writ Petition No. 38261 of 1994 for quashing the order dated 11th November, 1994 passed by the Deputy Director of Education holding VEENA Mishra to be senior to her on account of age. Savitri Singh also sought a direction upon the respondents to treat her to be the senior most teacher in the School in the LT Grade. This petition was allowed and it was held that Savitri Singh is senior to VEENA Mishra. Though VEENA Mishra was a respondent in the writ petition filed by Savitri Singh, she has not filed any Special Appeal against that judgment and has allowed it to become final. The decision in the writ petition filed by Savitri Singh will, therefore, operate as res-judicata in this Special Appeal filed by VEENA Misrha. This is what was observed by the Supreme Court in Sheodan Singh Vs. Daryao Kunwar, AIR 1966 SC 1332. "Our conclusion on the question of res judicata raised in the present appeals is this. Where the trial Court has decided two suits having common issues on the merits and there are two appeals there-from and one of them is dismissed on some preliminary ground, like limitation or default in printing, with the result that the trial Court's decision stands confirmed, the decision of the appeal court is to confirm the decision of the trial Court given on merits, and if that is so the decision of the appeal court will be res judicata whatever may be the reason for the dismissal. It would be a different matter, however, where the decision of the appeal court does not result in the confirmation of the decision of the trial Court given on the merits, as for example, where the appeal court holds that the trial Court had no jurisdiction and dismisses the appeal, even though the trial Court might have dismissed the suit on the merits. In this view of the matter, the appeals must fail, for the trial Court had in the present case decided all the four suits on the merits including the decision on the common issues as to title. The result of the dismissal on a preliminary ground of the two appeals arising out of suits Nos. 77 and 91 was that the decision of the trial Court was confirmed with respect to the common issues as to title by the High Court. In consequence the decision on those issues became res judicata so far as appeals Nos. 365 and 366 are concerned and Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure would bar the hearing of those common issues over again. It is not in dispute that if the decision on the common issues in suits Nos. 77 and 91 has become res judicata. Appeals Nos. 365 and 366 must fail." (emphasis supplied) 7 The Supreme Court in Premier Tyrers Ltd. Vs. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, AIR 1993 SC 1202, after noticing the decision in Sheodan Singh (supra), observed that the same consequences will follow when a judgment or decree in connected suits is not appealed from and the relevant observation is as follows:- "Although none of these decisions were concerned with a situation where no appeal was filed against the decision in connected suit but it appears that where an appeal arising out of connected suits is dismissed on merits the other cannot be heard, and has to be dismissed. The question is what happens where no appeal is filed, as in this case from the decree in connected suit. Effect of non filing of appeal against a judgment or decree is that it become final. This finality can be taken away only in accordance with law. Same consequences follows when a judgment or decree in a connected suit is not appealed from." In this connection it would also be useful to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shri Ram Prakash Vs. Smt. Charan Kaur and Anr., AIR 1997 SC 3760. The High Court had dismissed the appeal holding :- "Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid factual as well as legal proposition, it can safely be said that where two connected suits have been tried together and the findings recorded in one of the suit have become final in absence of an appeal, the appeal preferred against the findings recorded in the other suit would definitely be barred by the principles of res judicata. This is the ratio of the above cited case law decided by the apex Court of the country.........." The Supreme Court agreed with the view taken by the High Court and observed as follows:- ".............The self-same question was directly in issue and was the subject-matter of both the suits. The same having been allowed to become final, it cannot be gone into since the same had attained finality, the petitioner having not filed any appeal against the appeal dismissing the suit. In view of this situation, the High Court was right in concluding that the decree of dismissal of the suit against the petitioner would operate as res judicata under Section 11, CPC in the appeal against which the petitioner has filed the second appeal." The issue can be examined from another angle. The writ petition filed by Savitri Singh had been allowed and she was held senior to VEENA Mishra. This judgment has attained finality. If the Special Appeal filed 8 by VEENA Mishra is allowed and it is held that she is senior, then there will be a contrary judgment. This has to be avoided as was observed by the Supreme Court in Narayana Prabhu Venkateswara Prabhu Vs. Narayan Prabhu Krishna Prabhu (dead) by L. Rs., AIR 1977 SC 1268 :- ".................If we were to hold otherwise, it would necessarily mean that there would be two inconsistent decrees. One of the tests in deciding whether the doctrine of res judicata applies to a particular case or not is to determine whether two inconsistent decrees will come into existence if it is not applied. We think this will be the case here." Thus, for all the reasons stated above, the Special Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs.;