Judgment : PARITOSH K. Mukherjee, J. 1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner Km. Mamta Shah has challenged the impugned order of termination dated 23-5-1987, passed by the Principal, Government Girls Inter College, Gopeshwar, being respondent No. 3, set out at Annexure HI to the writ petition. 2. AT the time of admission of the writ petition, a Division Bench of this Court, consisting of Hon'ble B. N. Misra and S. K. Mookerji, JJ. on 24-7-1987 granted interim order to the effect that the petitioner shall continue in her post and shall be deemed to have continued as such after 20-5-1987. The aforesaid interim order, however, vacated by another Division Bench of this Court, consisting of Hon'ble S. D. Agarwala and B. N. Misra, JJ. by order dated 10-12-1987, following the decision in Civil Misc. writ petition No. 13560 of mi-Ram Pal Prasad v. The State of U. P., decided on 13-8-1987. 3. BUT, later on the aforesaid vacation order was recalled on the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. SHORT facts which have been pleaded in the instant writ petition are as follows : In the year 1985 an advertisement was published for filling up G. T. Grade teachers against permanent vacancies. The petitioner applied in the said C. T. Grade post in the month of May, 1985 and interview took place by a duly constituted Selection Committee. The petitioner being a successful candidate was placed on waiting list. Thereafter in the month of January, 1987 the petitioner received an appointment letter dated 13-1-1987, in which it was mentioned that the petitioner is being appointed in Government Girls Inter College, Gopeshwar, against C. T. Grade permanent vacancy, which has been caused by the promotion of Smt. Ramkali Bhandari, in L. T. Grade. It was also mentioned in the aforesaid appointment letter that the appointment of the petitioner was temporary till a permanent appointment is made. Immediately after receiving the aforesaid appointment letter of temporary nature, the petitioner raised a pertinent point that since the vacancy is permanent and regular, and for which interview has been made by a regularly constituted Selection Committee, the petitioner should be appointed as permanent employee, and not on temporary basis which has been annexed as Annexure II to the writ petition. 5. 5. ULTIMATELY the petitioners services were sought to be terminated, treating the petitioner as an ad hoc employee, by the impugned order, dated 23-5-1987. The English version of the impugned order, dated 23-5-1987 reads as follows : "according to the letter No. Shi/758-88/vividh/87-88, dated 19-5-1987 of the Regional Inspectoress Girls Schools, Garhwal Region, Pauri the services of all ad hoc teachers are terminated with effect from 20-5- 1987" 6. AT the time of final hearing of the writ petition Sri V. B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ratanlal v. State of Haryana, A. I. R. 1987 SC 478, wherein it has been held that the principle of Government to appoint teachers on ad hoc basis at commencement of year and terminate their services before summer vacation is a bad practice and is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. According to the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court 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. 7. IN support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner also places a decision of Calcutta High Court in the case of Bakul Raj v. State of West Bengal, 1987 Lab 1c 62, whereof Hon'ble Bhagdbati Prasad Banerjee, J. has dealt with the service of the part time teachers with a meager salary and, inter alia, has observed as follows ; "the petitioners were highly qualified persons and were working as part-time Asst. teachers in schools which were approved posts. The petitioners were paid very meagre emoluments. They continuing in the same position for a number of years. From teachers were sought to be appointed to these posts on permanent basis ignoring the claims of the petitioners. " 8. KEEPING in view the aforesaid position, Hon'ble Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee, J. held that the action of the respondents was illegal and accordingly issued mandamus commanding the respondents to absorb the petitioners in their respective posts and/or available posts of permanent and full-time posts and if necessary, to create new posts to accommodate the petitioners forthwith. " 8. KEEPING in view the aforesaid position, Hon'ble Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee, J. held that the action of the respondents was illegal and accordingly issued mandamus commanding the respondents to absorb the petitioners in their respective posts and/or available posts of permanent and full-time posts and if necessary, to create new posts to accommodate the petitioners forthwith. After placing the afore said two decisions Sri V. B. Singh, learned counsel submitted that on the point of equity, since the petitioner was appointed on a permanent vacancy and the petitioner was duly qualified to be absorbed in the said post, the order of appointment in temporary nature cannot be justified by any rhyme or reason. 9. ON the contrary, learned standing counsel appearing for the State submits that because of the promotion of Smt. Ramkali Bhandari in L. T. Grade, the appointment of the petitioner was made purely on temporary basis. 10. IN reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted the averments made in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the writ petition, wherein the petitioner has stated that she appeared for an interview on the basis of an advertisement for filling up the vacancy of C. T. Grade teacher against permanent vacancy before a duly constituted Selection Committee. This fact has not been actually denied by the respondents while they filed counter-affidavit. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, it has become necessary for this Court to scruitirize the rival submissions of both the parties 11. HAVING heard both the parties, this Court is in agreement with the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ratanlal v. State of Haryana (supra) wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court in a certain terms has observed that ad hoc teachers are unnecessarily subjected to an arbitrary 'hiring and firing' policy, and held that the petitioner should not be deemed to have been given appointment on temporary post but on a permanent post, as the petitioner has accepted the appointment subject to objection, which is evident from Annexure II to the writ petition. 12. IT is further to be mentioned that finding a great deal in the substance of the instant writ petition, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim order, allowing the petitioner to continue, even after passing of an improper order of termination. In the result writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 12. IT is further to be mentioned that finding a great deal in the substance of the instant writ petition, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim order, allowing the petitioner to continue, even after passing of an improper order of termination. In the result writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned order, dated 23-5-1987, passed by the Principal, Government Girls Inter College, Gopeshwar filed as Annexure III is hereby set aside. 13. RESPONDENTS are directed not to treat the petitioner a temporary teacher and regularise the services as the petitioner has already rendered nine years of services under the coverage of the interim order. RESPONDENTS are further directed to continue the services of the petitioner and the petitioner would be deemed to continue in services and shall be paid salary accordingly. 14. SUCH order, declaring the petitioner as permanent teacher should be issued by the respondents, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.