R. H. ZAIDI, J. The petitioner filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent not to permit the petitioner to continue as Assistant Teacher, to pay his salary and to consider him for regular appointment on the said post, 2. In brief, it was pleaded that in the educational institution known Mewa Lai Gupta Poorv Madhyamik Vidyalaya Gorakhnath, District Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to as the school) two pasts of Assistant teachers fell vacant in the year 1988. One post out of the two was reserved for the candidates belonging to the scheduled caste. The post were adver tised on 8-5-1988. In the advertisement it was mentioned that one of the said posts was reserved for scheduled caste candidate. Petitioner belongs to scheduled caste and possessed requisite qualifications, applied for his ap pointment. The petitioner was called upon to appear before the selection committee which was constituted in accordance with law under the super vision of A. D. I. , Gorakhpur, he appeared on 25-9-1988. The result of the said selection was not declared, however, the petitioner was appointed as teacher on ad hoc basis and joined his duties w. e. f. 6-12-1989. However, no letter of appointment was issued by the committee of management in his favour. The respondent instead of issuing the letter of appointment in favour of the petitioner have been threatening to appoint other persons of their choice, consequently, the petitioner approach this Court and filed the present writ petition and prayed for the reliefs noted above. This Court vide order dated 11-10-1991 permitted the petitioner to appear provisionally before the selection committee in the interview for the appointment of Assistant teachers in the college. 3. The petitioner also filed an application dated 8-11-1994 for amendment of the writ petition, by means of which he wanted to bring on record of the present petition the subsequent events which took place after filing of the writ petition to add the grounds and also to amend the prayer clause. The amendment application was also heard along with the writ petition. In the affidavit filed in support of the amendment application it was stated that the petitioner possessed the degrees of B. A. , and B. Ed, he was fully qualified for the post in question. The amendment application was also heard along with the writ petition. In the affidavit filed in support of the amendment application it was stated that the petitioner possessed the degrees of B. A. , and B. Ed, he was fully qualified for the post in question. Vide order dated 14-5-1991 the Basic Shiksha Adhikari approved the appointment of the petitioner only for six months i. e. from 17-11-1992 to 15-5-1993 and simultaneously directed the management to re-advertise the post but the same was not re-advertised and the petitioner was working on the said post, but no salary was paid to him in spite of his representation made to the committee of management and to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. Management is also alleged to have written letter to the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari dated 18-7-1994 but Basic Shikbha Adhikari shown his inability to grant permission to make appoint ment saying that since the institution was already upgraded as High school he had no authority to grant the permission. The school was stated to be upgraded since 1993-94 but the recognition was granted without financial support (Vitti Vihin) on account of which no post at High School level could be created. It was also stated by the petitioner that the appointment of Subash Chandra Tiwari was also approved by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari under the similar circumstances by his order dated 14-5-1991 and he has also filed the writ petition No. 20910 of 1992. On the application made by Shri Subhas Chandra Tiwari this Court vide order dated 18-6-1992 permitted him to continue to work on the post in question even after 30-6-1992 and directed the respondents not to make appointment of any one on his post. The said writ petition was finally decided by this Court on 31-8-1995. It was held that the post, which fall vacant on account of Shri Akhilesh Kumars joining Railways, was liable to be re-advertised and appointment on the same be made in accordance with law. 4. The petitioner claims that he was the only scheduled caste candi date, therefore, he was fully qualified to be appointed on the said post. It was held that the post, which fall vacant on account of Shri Akhilesh Kumars joining Railways, was liable to be re-advertised and appointment on the same be made in accordance with law. 4. The petitioner claims that he was the only scheduled caste candi date, therefore, he was fully qualified to be appointed on the said post. Therefore, he also prayed for the following relief :- "to issue a writ of mandamus order or direction in the nature to mandamus commanding the respondent to continue the peti tioner as Assistant Teacher and pay his salary regularly and to pay his arrears of salary till regular selection on the post is held. " 5. In the present case counter-affidavits has been filed only on behalf of the committee of management. In the said counter-affidavit it has been stated that the Institution was Junior High School and the provisions of U. P. Junior High School (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978 were applicable to it. In the year 1993-94 Institution was upgraded as High School and the High School Classes were permitted to be opened by the District Inspector of Schools for literary subjects only, on the conditions that expenditure in respect thereof will be borne by the management. Now the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, were applicable to it and not that of Basic Education Act. 6. The other facts stated in the writ petition were also controverted and in brief it was stated that the appointment of the petitioner in Junior High School was on ad hoc basis and the same was approved only for six months and it was further stated that the Committee of Management was willing to make appointment in accordance with rules but it was unable to do so on account of change of status of the Institution. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. On behalf of the petitioner, it was contended that the petitioner was selected for appointment by the select committee on 25-9-1986 and thereafter appointed, but his ap pointment was approved by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari only for the period of six months, since then he was continuously discharging his duties, but without any pay. It has not been disputed by the respondent that although recognition for opening High School Classes was created but without finan cial sanction. It has not been disputed by the respondent that although recognition for opening High School Classes was created but without finan cial sanction. Consequently, neither any post of High School standard could be created nor any appointment could be made and the teachers were appointed in Junior High School are continuing to teach even the High School sections. He has also urged that the petitioner was admittedly appointed and his appointment was also approved by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari on ad hoc basis. He has, therefore, asserted that the petitioner was entitled to hold the post till regularly selected candidate is appointed by the commission, constituted under the U. P. Secondafy Education Service and Selection Board Act, 1982. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent, on the other hand, has contended that the appointments of the petitioner was on ad hoc basis for limited period, on the expiry of the said period petitioner has got no right to continue as teacher in the said Institution. It was further submitted that after the Institution was upgraded to the High School the petitioner cannot be permitted to hold the post in question and -wag also not entitled to receive his salary. 9. I have considered the rival contention made by the learned counsel for the parties. In my opinion, petitioner is entitled to continue to hold the post in question till a regularly selected candidate is appointed by the Management. This court in several cases particularly in Committee of Management of Sanatam Dharam Intermediate College, Daulatpur, Mainpuri v. Distt, Inspector of Schools, Mainpuri, 1985 UPLBEC 496 ; (ii) Murli Persad and another v. State of U. P. and others, 1986 UPLBEC 344 ; (iii) Shiv Chandra Misra & another v. District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad, 1986 UPLBEC 248, was pleased to rule that the teacher appointed on ad hoc basis is entitled to continue till some candidate is regularly selected and appointed on the post in question. It is also well settled in law that an ad hoc appointee cannot be substituted by another adhoc appointee. 10. The petitioner admittedly was selected for appointment by the selection committee on 25-9-1988 and on the basis of his selection he was permitted to join his duties on 6-12-1989. His appointment was also approved by Distt. Inspector of School and since then he has been perform ing his duties in accordance with law. 10. The petitioner admittedly was selected for appointment by the selection committee on 25-9-1988 and on the basis of his selection he was permitted to join his duties on 6-12-1989. His appointment was also approved by Distt. Inspector of School and since then he has been perform ing his duties in accordance with law. The salary only for the period of six months was paid to him, but thereafter no payment has been made for which there is no justification. In view of the aforesaid discussions the writ petition deserves to be allowed in part. 11. The writ petition is allowed in part. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to continue to hold the post in question till some candidate is selected and appointed by the U. P. Secondary Edu cation Service Commission, in accordance with law. The petitioner is also entitled to the arrears of his salary from the date of the salary has not been paid to him. Respondents are directed to pay the arrears of petitioners salary within one month from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the respondent No. 1. In future his salary will be paid as and when it falls due and he will be permitted to discharge his duties in accordance with law. Petition partly allowed. .