JUDGMENT : G.B. Patnaik, J. - The Petitioner was appointed as a Hindi Teacher for a period of 89 days or till a candidate on being sponsored by the State Selection Board joined by an order dated 12-7-1982 arid thereafter such spells of appointment continued only with break at the commencement of the summer vacation till the school reopened after summer vacation, that is to say, the services stood terminated on the eve of the commencement of summer vacation of the year 1983 and again reappointment was made after the school reopened after the summer vacation and this process continued till 1986. After his services stood terminated on the eve of summer vacation of the year 1986 with effect from 25-5-1986 his further appointment by the Managing Committee was not approved by the educational authorities. The Inspector of Schools had given the last approval by his letter dated 3-3-1986, annexed as Annexure-6, so far as the Petitioner is concerned for a period of 89 days with effect from 23-9-1985. The Distinct Inspector of Schools, however, recommended the Petitioner's case for further continuance until a sponsored candidate is allotted in favour of the school by letter dated 9-4-1986, but the Inspector never sent any communication. The Managing Committee of the School passed a resolution on 6-7-1987, annexed as Annexure-8, requesting the Secretary to approach the educational authorities for approval of reappointment of the Petitioner and for payment of arrear salary. But as no further action was taken by the educational authorities, the Petitioner approached this Court. The Petitioner prays in the writ application that the Petitioner's appointment be regularised and Petitioner be treated as in continuous service from the date of relief on 25-5-1986 and such further direction be issued to do complete justice to the Petitioner. 2. On behalf of the educational authorities, a counter affidavit has been filed wherein the stand taken is that the Director had issued instructions in May, 1986, not to appoint any Hindi Teacher after the School reopens on account of summer vacation and, therefore, no approval has been given to the Petitioner's continuance after 25-5-1986. It has further been indicated in the counter affidavit that the Director of Secondary Education has recommended the name of one Selection Board candidate against the vacancy in which the Petitioner was serving and, therefore, the question of permitting the Petitioner to continue in the post does not arise. It has further been indicated in the counter affidavit that the Director of Secondary Education has recommended the name of one Selection Board candidate against the vacancy in which the Petitioner was serving and, therefore, the question of permitting the Petitioner to continue in the post does not arise. It has been reiterated that since the Selection Board candidate has already been allotted, the Petitioner cannot claim for any further continuance in the post. The Secretary of the Managing Committee had filed an affidavit supporting the stand of the Petitioner, but no averment has been made with regard to the fact whether the candidate allotted to the school from the select list has in fact been appointed or not. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner, but nothing has been stated in the said rejoinder with regard to the fact of select list candidate being allotted to the school. 3. In the course of hearing of the writ application, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rattan Lal and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others depricating the short spell appointment of 89 days and in view of the decisions of this Court in 1987 C. L. T. Supp 173 (Niranjan Sahu v. State of Orissa and Anr.) ; O. J. C. No. 380 of 1984 (Gurupada Mohanty v. Director of Secondary Education, Orissa and Ors.) disposed of on 13-8-1987; O. J. C. No. 188 of 1988 (Kailash Chandra Biswal v. State of Orissa and Ors.) disposed of on 10-1-1989 and O. J. C. No. 2751 of 1988 (Smt. Nirupama Mahant and Anr. v. Managing Committee, Laxmi Adivasi Girl's High School and Ors.) disposed of on 9-2-1989, the Petitioner's appointment should be approved until a select list candidate is available to be appointed and the arrear salary should be paid. The learned Counsel further urges that in view of the Orissa Educational Institutions (Appointment of Teachers Validation) Act, 1989, the Petitioner's appointment has been validated and, therefore, the question of his replacement by a select list candidate does not arise and accordingly appropriate direction should be issued to the educational authorities to approve the regular appointment of the Petitioner. The learned Counsel further urges that in view of the Orissa Educational Institutions (Appointment of Teachers Validation) Act, 1989, the Petitioner's appointment has been validated and, therefore, the question of his replacement by a select list candidate does not arise and accordingly appropriate direction should be issued to the educational authorities to approve the regular appointment of the Petitioner. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, contends that the Petitioner's appointment right from the inception was for a period of 89 days or till a select list candidate if made available. In that view of the matter and a select list candidate having been allotted, as has been stated in the counter affidavit, the question of continuing the Petitioner in a regular service does not arise. He further contends that the Validation Act only validates ad hoc appointments made during the period stated in the Validation Act without following the procedure of the recruitment rules, but conditional appointment like that of the Petitioner does not come within the purview of the Validation Act and, therefore, the Petitioner cannot claim to be appointed in a regular vacancy, nor can the educational authorities be directed to approve the Petitioner's appointment on a regular basis. The rival contentions require a careful examination of the relevant provisions of the Rules and the Validation Act. 4. The conditions of service of a teacher of an aided educational institution are governed by a set of Rules called the Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974. In the said Rules appointment to a post of teacher can be made by the Managing Committee of a candidate allotted to the school under Sub-rule (2) of Rule-5 and thus a candidate who has not been included in the list made by the selection board cannot be appointed. The only exception that has been provided for in Sub-rule (8) of Rule 5 is that a managing committee can make an appointment to a vacancy for a period of six months or till the date of receipt of the list referred to in sub rule (2) from the selection board whichever is earlier and all such appointment may be made with prior approval of the Inspector. Further, under sub rule (9), such appointment beyond the period of six months can be extended by the managing committee with the prior approval of the Government but that would be also till receipt of the recommendation of the selection board. As the selection board was not regularly sitting and as the select list candidates were not available, the managing committee have been appointing teachers on short-term basis for different spells. It is of course true that in view of the observations of the Supreme Court in Rattan Lal and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, appointment of a teacher till the commencement of the summer vacation of an educational session and then terminating the service on the eve of the summer vacation and reappointing him again after the school reopens on account of summer vacation cannot but be depricated and such an unhealthy practice should not be tolerated upon. But in view of the statutory rules regulating the terms and conditions of service and recruitment rule providing for a regular appointment only of a candidate from the select list, there is no manner of doubt that the Petitioner could not have been appointed on a regular basis as admittedly he had not been included in the select list nor has he been allotted to the school by the Director. The fact remains that there has been no further approval of the Petitioner's continuance after 23-5-1986 although Mr. Patnaik for the Petitioner asserts that the Petitioner is continuing in service pursuant to the order of the managing committee. The managing committee is no more in existence and the management may vests with the Inspector. There has been no assertion made by the Inspector notwithstanding our earlier order as to whether in fact the Petitioner is continuing as a teacher or not, but in the meantime, as has been averred in the counter affidavit of opposite party No. 3, a select list candidate has been allotted to the school in question. In paragraph-12 of the counter affidavit, it has been averred: ... As the name of selection Board candidate has already been sent to the Secretary of the School as mentioned above, the Petitioner has no right to demand further ad hoc appointment in the school In the same paragraph it has been reiterated: ...... In paragraph-12 of the counter affidavit, it has been averred: ... As the name of selection Board candidate has already been sent to the Secretary of the School as mentioned above, the Petitioner has no right to demand further ad hoc appointment in the school In the same paragraph it has been reiterated: ...... Since Selection Board candidates has already been allotted in the meantime the Petitioner should not claim for his ad hoc appointment against the same post... Though this counter affidavit was filed as early as on 29-2-1988 and subsequent to the same the Petitioner has filed a rejoinder affidavit and the Secretary of the erstwhile managing committee had filed an affidavit on 19-8-1989, but nothing has been said in either of those affidavits and, therefore, we must assume that a select list candidate was allotted to the school in accordance with Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of the Recruitment Rules. It is not known as to whether in fact the said allotted teacher has joined the school or not and whether the managing committee has intimated the fact in the event the allotted, candidate has not accepted the offer of an appointment. There has been no material from other side in this regard although the Petitioner has been asserting that he is continuing in service. In the premises, as aforesaid, we have no other alternative than to hold that in the event the candidate allotted from the select list has joined the school then with effect from the date of such joining the question of Petitioner continuing in the school does not arise. If, however, the said select list candidate has not joined as yet, in view of the Petitioner that the Petitioner is continuing to serve the school, we direct that he may be permitted to continue and such continuance be approved and his arrear salary for the period he has actually served if not paid may be paid to him. 5. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the Petitioner's appointment can be said to be covered by the Validation Act of 1989. Section 3 of the Validation Act clearly states that teachers of aided schools appointed by the managing authorities on ad hoc basis on or after 1st. 5. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the Petitioner's appointment can be said to be covered by the Validation Act of 1989. Section 3 of the Validation Act clearly states that teachers of aided schools appointed by the managing authorities on ad hoc basis on or after 1st. December, 1976, but not later than 31st of December, 1984, who have continuous service as such teachers for a period of at least one year without any break or with a break or breaks in one or more aided schools and who are continuing as such teachers or whose, services are terminated after 31st of December, 1984, shall for all intents and purposes be deemed to have been validly and regularly appointed and no such appointment shall be challenged in any Court of law merely on the ground that the appointment was made otherwise than in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Education Act and the rules and regulations framed thereunder. Admittedly, the Petitioner was appointed on 12-7-1982 and continued till 18-7-1986 with breaks in between and the Petitioner's appointment was conditioned by the stipulation that he would continue until replaced by a candidate from the select list. His case) therefore, will not come within the purview of the Validation Act and, therefore, the question of issuing any direction to regularise his service in a substantive vacancy because of the Validation Act does not arise. The second contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is accordingly rejected. 6. In the net result, therefore, this writ application is disposed of with the direction that if no teacher has been appointed as Hindi Teacher in the school, from amongst the list sent by the Director of Secondary Education, then the Petitioner shall continue until replaced by a candidate from the select list and he would be entitled to all his salary with effect from the date 23-5-1986. If, however, somebody else has already been appointed from out of the select list allotted to the school in which the Petitioner is serving then until that appointment is made the Petitioner must be entitled to his salary since admittedly he was discharging the duties of a teacher. We make no order as to costs. J. M. Mahapatra, J- I agree. Ordered accordingly.