JUDGMENT R.R.K. Trivedi, J. - Heard learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. In this petition, counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents. Both the learned Counsel are agreed that this petition may be finally disposed of at this stage. 2. Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the action of respondents in not permitting her to serve on her post from 20-5-1991 us mentioned in the appointment order filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Petitioner's case is that there were large number of vacancies in various Government Institutions which were filled under the Government order on ad hoc basis. However, in the appointment orders a condition was illegally attached that their appointment is for period upto 20-5-1991 or till a regularly selected candidate is made available for appointment on the post, whichever is earlier. Petitioner has filed Government Order dated 20-7-1986 as Annexure-II to the writ petition. This G. O. dated 20-7-1986 clearly contemplated that appointments on ad hoc basis became necessary as the U. P Public Service Commission and U. P. Subordinate Service Selection Board could not complete the selection process and could not recommend suitable candidates for appointment on the post. In this Order it has been specifically stated that appointments on ad hoc basis shall be continued until regularly selected candidates become available. Petitioner's grievance is that she is fully qualified for the post, and there is nothing against her work and conduct She is legally entitled to continue on her post, until a candidate is recommended for appointment. The action of respondents is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned Counsel along with counter-affidavit has filed another Government Order, dated 16-7-1989. A perusal of this G. O. shows that there were large number of vacancies in Government Colleges and schools and the teaching was badly affected for non-availability of teachers. The Government after considering this precarious situation permitted ad hoc appointments of teachers on certain conditions. 3. Learned Counsel along with counter-affidavit has filed another Government Order, dated 16-7-1989. A perusal of this G. O. shows that there were large number of vacancies in Government Colleges and schools and the teaching was badly affected for non-availability of teachers. The Government after considering this precarious situation permitted ad hoc appointments of teachers on certain conditions. The conditions are very relevant for correctly appreciating the controversy which is subject-matter of present writ petition and thus they are being quoted below : " 1- rnFkZ fu;qfDr;ka dsoy mUgha inks ds fo#) dh tkosxh ftuds fy;s yksd lsok vk;ksx@v/khuLFk lsok p;u cksMZ dh vf/k;kpu Hksts tk pqds gksA 2- ;g rnFkZ fu;qfDr;ka ,sls inksa ij Hkh fd;k tkuk visf{kr gS ftuds vf/k;kpu vHkh rd u Hksts x;s gksA rks muds vf/k;kpu Hkstus ds mijkUr dh vf/k;kpuksa esa fufgr inks ds fo#) fu;qfDr;ka dh tk ldsxhA 3- mDr fu;qfDr;ksa ds fy;s izkFkZuk i= mlh izdkj foKkiu ds ek/;e ls vkeaf=r fd;s tk;sxs tSls fu;fer p;u ds fy;s fd;s tkrs gSaA 4- rnFkZ fu;qfDr;ka esa inksa gsrq ogh vgrk;s fu/kkZfjr gksxh tks fu;fer p;u ds fy;s visf{kr gSaA 5- mDr fu;qfDr;ka p;u lfefr }kjk dh tkosxh ftlesa lnL; ds :i esa f'k{kk funs'kd ( ek/;fed) f'k{kk funs'kd ( csfld) rFkk 'kklu }kjk ukfer fd;k x;k ,d vf/kdkjh lfEefyr gksxsA mDr lfefr ds v/;{k f'k{kk funs'kd ( ek/;fed) gksaxsA 6- p;u lfefr }kjk p;fur vH;fFkZ;ksa dh lwfp;ka lEcfU/kr izkf/kdkfj;ksa dks ;Fkko';drk miyC/k djk;h tkosxh tks fu;ekuqlkj dk;Zokgh djsxsA 7- rnFkZ p;u esa 'kklu }kjk fuxr vkj{k.k lEcU/kh fu;eksa dk ikyu fd;k tkosxkA " 4. From the aforesaid conditions it is clear that under this G.O. appointments were to be made from among duly qualified and suitable candidates and after they faced a selection committee consisting of high officers of the Education Department. These conditions show that more or less all those formalities which are normally required for selecting regular candidates were prescribed. Appointments of teachers under this G.O. have been made after publishing advertisement inviting applications, in leading news papers. Advertisement published has been filed as Annexure-II to the counter-affidavit. The policy of reservation has been directed to be observed. In pursuance of this advertisement applications were received and scrutinised and suitable candidates were interviewed by the Selection Committee and the list of selected candidates was forwarded to-the respective regions for affecting appointments on the posts. Advertisement published has been filed as Annexure-II to the counter-affidavit. The policy of reservation has been directed to be observed. In pursuance of this advertisement applications were received and scrutinised and suitable candidates were interviewed by the Selection Committee and the list of selected candidates was forwarded to-the respective regions for affecting appointments on the posts. Thus the situation which emerged out from these facts is that the Government required services of these teachers in its schools and colleges but as regularly selected candidates were not available, ad hoc appointments have been made. It has been made clear in the conditions that their appointments shall come to an end at the close of Session on 20-5-1991 or when a regularly selected candidate becomes available. 5. Now the serious question for consideration is as to whether the teachers so appointed under the aforesaid Government Orders, are legally entitled to continue until candidates are actually recommended for appointment on the posts or their appointment shall come to an end on the close of Session or on the dale mentioned in appointment order. 6. Identical situation arose in colleges and schools run by private managements which receive the Government aid and wherein after 1981 teachers can be appointed on basis of recommendation of the Services Commission constituted separately for Higher Secondary Schools and Degree Colleges. A Division Bench of this Court in Shiv Chandra Mishra and others v. D.I.O.S. and others, reported in 1986 UPLBEC 248, while interpreting Section 18 of U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1981, under which ad hoc appointments were made, disapproved the action of the State Government and the managements in giving appointments for fixed period even though regularly selected candidates have not been recommenced. All ad hoc appointments were directed to be continued until candidates were recommended for appointment, without any break. Similar view has been taken by another Division Bench in case Subhash Chandra Gupta v. Committee of Management, reported in 1988 UPLBEC 492, while faced with a case under Section 16 of U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1981 I do not find any distinguishable feature in the facts of the present case. Petitioner has been appointed as ad hoc teacher as the Public Service Commission could not select a suitable candidate and according to the averments made in the writ petition the process of selection has not even been started. Petitioner has been appointed as ad hoc teacher as the Public Service Commission could not select a suitable candidate and according to the averments made in the writ petition the process of selection has not even been started. There is nothing in the counter-affidavit to show that petitioner lacks in qualification or her work or conduct was not found satisfactory during the period she has worked in the institution. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rattanlal and others v. State of Haryana and others, reported in AIR 1987 SC p. 478, has criticised the Government policy to appoint ad hoc teachers and thus to deprive them of their service with the close of the Session. It has also been disapproved that these teachers could not be given all those benefits which are available to the regularly selected candidates. The action was found discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case may be gainfully quoted hereunder :- "The State Government of Haryana has failed to discharge that duty in these cases, it has been appointing teachers for quite some time on an ad hoc basis for short periods as stated above without any justifiable reasons In some cases the appointments are made for a period of six months only and they are renewed after break of a few days. The number of teachers in the State of Haryana who are thus appointed on such ad hoc basis is very large indeed. If the teachers had been appointed regularly, they would have been entitled to the benefits of summer vacation along with the salary and allowances payable in respect of that period and to all other privileges such as casual leave, medical leave, maternity leave etc. available to all the Government servants. These benefits are denied to these ad hoc teachers unreasonably on account of this pernicious system of appointment adopted by the State Government. These ad hoc teachers are unnecessarily subjected to an arbitrary 'hiring and firing' policy. These teachers who constitute the bulk of the educated unemployed are compelled to accept these jobs on an ad hoc basis with miserable conditions of service. The Government appears to be exploiting this situation. This is not a sound personnel policy. It is bound to have serious repercussions on the education institutions and the children studying there. These teachers who constitute the bulk of the educated unemployed are compelled to accept these jobs on an ad hoc basis with miserable conditions of service. The Government appears to be exploiting this situation. This is not a sound personnel policy. It is bound to have serious repercussions on the education institutions and the children studying there. The policy of 'ad hocism' followed by the State Government for a long period has led to the breach of Article 14 of the Constitution. Such a situation cannot be permitted to last any longer. It is needless to say that the State Government is expected to function as a model employer." 7. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis for a definite period and she could not be continued after expiry of the said period. At the most the authority may be directed to appoint her again on the start of the fresh session in case regularly selected candidate is not available. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned Standing Counsel and in my opinion it cannot be accepted. If this practice is permitted it shall be in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and will be highly discriminatory towards the petitioner or other identically appointed teachers. Under law they should be given same benefits which are normally admissible to regularly appointed candidates, till they are working on the post. Such benefits include leave during summer vacation with pay and other medical facilities and casual leave etc. The break in service as suggested by learned Standing Counsel is not permissible in law and is also not in public interest. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rabinarayan Mohapatra v. State of Orissa and others, reported in AIR 1991 SC 1286 , (in Para 6) has observed as under : "The Validity Act has been enacted by the Orissa legislature with the obvious object of granting relief to these members of teaching community who are being exploited for years together by keeping them in short spell appointments like 89 days appointments as herewith one day break and in the process denying them their rightful dues and other service benefits. In spite of repeated deprecations by this Court the practice continues to be followed by various State Governments in the country. In spite of repeated deprecations by this Court the practice continues to be followed by various State Governments in the country. Under the Constitution the State is committed to secure right to education for all citizens. Bulk of our population is yet illiterate. Till the time illiteracy is effaced from the country the resolution enshrined in the Preamble cannot be fulfilled. Education is the dire need of the country. There are neither enough schools nor teachers to teach. Insecurity is writ large on the face of the teaching community because of nebulaus and unsatisfactory conditions of service. In order to make the existing educational set-up effective and efficient it is necessary to do away with ad hocism in teaching appointments. An appointment on 89 days basis with one day break which deprives a teacher of his salary for the period of summer vacation and other service benefits is wholly arbitrary and suffers from the vice of discrimination." 9. In the facts and circumstances and the legal position narrated above, in my opinion, petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed. She is entitled to continue on the post she has been appointed, until a candidate duly selected becomes available for appointment. However, it is made clear that petitioner and all other teachers so appointed on ad hoc basis shall be subject to all disciplinary and administrative control of State Government like other Government employees. They may be transferred or may be dealt with like other teachers already serving in Government Colleges and schools. 10. There is yet another important aspect of the matter which needs consideration. Under the Government orders dated 22-7-1989 and 15-7-1989, admittedly a large number of teachers have been appointed in schools and colleges ail over the State particularly in Hill areas. There may be cases where teachers serving in remote areas, may not have been able to approach this Court, for some reasons like financial etc. However, if such identically situated teachers are not given similar benefits which shall now be available under this order to petitioner and to other teachers who have approached this Court, by filing separate petitions, a great injustice shall be worked to them. Teaching in Government colleges and schools has recently started. However, if such identically situated teachers are not given similar benefits which shall now be available under this order to petitioner and to other teachers who have approached this Court, by filing separate petitions, a great injustice shall be worked to them. Teaching in Government colleges and schools has recently started. In these facts and circumstances, and in the interest of justice, the respondents are directed to permit all these teachers also to continue, who approach the authorities and are willing to continue on their post on which they were appointed on ad hoc basis, and to extend to them also all the benefits like present petitioner. 11. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed. Petitioner shall be allowed to continue on the post as teacher until a candidate duly selected and recommended joins the post and shall be entitled to get ail benefits like regular teachers including back wages, if any. There will be no order as costs.