S. AMBWANI, J. ( 1 ) AIR Force School Bamrauli, Allahabad made an advertisement inviting applications from the candidates for walk in Interview on 19th September, 2000 for the post of P. G. T. Math (English medium) C. B. S. E. Syllabus, requisite qualification M. Sc. (Math) with B. Ed. on 10th September. 2000 in English News "sunday Times of India". Lucknow. In pursuance of the above advertisement, petitioner was interviewed and an appointment order was issued by the Wing commander, Officer Incharge, Air Force School, Bamrauli, Allahabad on 22nd September, 2000. In this appointment letter, it was clearly mentioned that petitioner was selected for the post of P. G. T. (Math) on ad hoc basis in Air Force School, Bamrauli, Allahabad w. e. f. 20th september, 2000 in the scale of Rs. 4,000 basic plus 20% D. A. per month. The appointment order attached the terms and conditions of the appointment which were to be signed by the petitioner duly witnessed for acceptance. A form of agreement was also attached to the terms and conditions in which it was provided that any dispute arising out of or relating to this appointment including any disciplinary action leading to any dismissal or removal from service or reduction in rank, etc. shall be referred for arbitration of the Chairman, School Management Committee. The decision of the Chairman, School Management Committee shall be binding on both the parties. This agreement was signed by the petitioner on 22nd September, 2000. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis. This appointment on ad hoc basis was continued till the end of academic session, i. e. , 31. 3. 2001. By letter dated 29th March, 2001, the services of the petitioner were terminated w. e. f. 31st March, 2001. The petitioner was again given fresh appointment on ad hoc basis w. e. f. 9th April, 2001 to 5th May, 2001. ( 3 ) THIS writ petition was presented on 30th April, 2001 with the prayer to quash the orders dated 29. 3. 2001 and 9. 4. 2001 to the extent it provides the termination of service of the petitioner w. e. f. 31st March, 2001 earlier and then further w. e. f. 5th May, 2001. ( 3 ) THIS writ petition was presented on 30th April, 2001 with the prayer to quash the orders dated 29. 3. 2001 and 9. 4. 2001 to the extent it provides the termination of service of the petitioner w. e. f. 31st March, 2001 earlier and then further w. e. f. 5th May, 2001. The petitioner has also sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in working of petitioner as P. G. T. teacher in the institution Air Force School, Bamrauli, Allahabad ; and further directing the respondents to further pay salary to the petitioner along with other benefits as and when due. The petitioner also sought a mandamus directing the respondents not to treat the petitioner ad hoc appointee and respondents be restrained from going for further selection for substituting another appointee against the petitioner. ( 4 ) AT the time of admission hearing, learned counsel for respondents appeared and although time was given to seek instructions, a short counter-affidavit was filed on 3. 5. 2001, to which a rejoinder-affidavit has also been filed. With the consent of the parties, the matter was finally heard. ( 5 ) AIR Force School Bamrauli, Allahabad is being run and managed by the India Air Force educational and Cultural Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is regulated by an Education Code for providing educational facility at the air force stations. The board of Governors of this Society is an apex body with A. C. A. as the Chairman. It lays down broad policy frame-work within which the schools function. At each Command Headquarters, a committee is constituted to oversee all matters concerning Unit Schools. The suggested composition of the Committee is given in para 5 of the Education Code. The overall responsibility of this Committee is to ensure that adequate schooling facilities are available to all air Force personnel posted in various Stations/units under its jurisdiction. ( 6 ) A preliminary objection was raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the Air force School, which is governed by the bye-laws of the society registered under the Societies registration Act, is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. ( 6 ) A preliminary objection was raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the Air force School, which is governed by the bye-laws of the society registered under the Societies registration Act, is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. In Smt. Rajni Sharma v. Union of India and others, (1995) 3 UPLBEC 1664 , this Court had occasion to consider whether the Society and the Schools are State within the meaning of terms under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It was held that the Army School run by Army Welfare Education Society is being run with an object to run the schools for providing educational facilities at Military Stations to meet the needs of the children of the army personnel. The overall control of the Society and the school run by it vests in the Board of Governors and the Executive Committee, consisting of army officials. The School Managing Committee also consists of army officials. Thus, the administrative control of the schools vests in the governmental authorities. The Society and its Schools are financed by Welfare funds and the management of the School is also entitled to collect the fee and the donations, but this does not change the character of the Society or the School run by it. Relying upon Ajai Hasia v. Khalik Mujib Sehravardi, AIR 1981 SC 497 ; Ramana Dayaram shetty v. International Air Port Authority, AIR 1979 SC 1628 and All India Sainik Schools employees Association v. Defence Minister-cum-Chairman, AIR 1989 SC 88 , it was held that the Society and the Schools run by it are "state" within the meaning of Article 12 of the constitution, and thus amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. ( 7 ) IN the short counter-affidavit of H. P. Sharma, Officer Incharge, Air Force School, Bamrauli, allahabad, it has been stated that the post against which the petitioner was appointed is not a permanent vacant post. The services of Sri U. S. Yadav, a teacher of the school, were terminated in September, 2000, and, therefore, there was an urgent need to make ad hoc appointment for the post. Taking into consideration the fact that the studies of board students of the college were suffering, a casual advertisement of ad hoc appointment was published in the daily newspaper times of India" dated September 10, 2000. Taking into consideration the fact that the studies of board students of the college were suffering, a casual advertisement of ad hoc appointment was published in the daily newspaper times of India" dated September 10, 2000. On the date fixed, only two candidates submitted their applications and agreed to work on ad hoc basis. Both of them were not qualified to be appointed permanently. Since the school was in urgent need of Maths teacher, to safeguard the interest of board students, the petitioner was given ad hoc appointment, though he is not B. Ed. It was further stated that Sri U. S. Yadav had obtained a stay order from the High Court permitting him to work but since the school was not satisfied with the working of Sri Yadav, a stop-gap arrangement was made to work on ad hoc till the end of academic session, i. e. , 31st March, 2001. In paragraph 5 of the short counter-affidavit. It has been stated that there is a separate procedure for regular appointment in the institutions. The petitioner has been appointed under clause 6 (i)of Chapter II of the Education Code. The petitioner did not raise any objection regarding his ad hoc appointment and termination during the entire period. After opening of the institution in april, 2001, he again orally requested that he may be permitted for few days more as ad hoc teacher and, therefore, he was issued a letter for ad hoc appointment upto 5th May, 2001 which is the last working day before summer vacation. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the procedure for recruitment on permanent post was adopted. In the appointment letter, there was no mention about the nature of appointment. Clause 6, Chapter II of the Education Code provides recruitment procedure to the permanent posts by the Managing Committee and since it is admitted that the procedure was followed for appointment as of permanent post, the petitioners appointment cannot be treated as ad hoc. The provision that a candidate can be appointed on ad hoc regularly, if he is not qualified, is to be read with sub-clause 4, Chapter II which provides that if candidates with requisite qualifications are not available for a particular post, that may be relaxed at the discretion of the Chairman, Managing Committee and considered for appointment. The petitioner did not have B. Ed. qualification. The petitioner did not have B. Ed. qualification. He was M. Sc. (Maths) and doing research in the university, Allahabad. As the petitioner was the only candidate with experience of teaching post graduate college and six months experience as teacher, he was recruited. The post, on which the petitioner was appointed, was permanent in nature as the services of earlier incumbent had been terminated. In the alternative, the petitioner has submitted that if he is treated ad hoc appointee, he is entitled to continue working till a regular appointment is made and a regular appointee is available in view of decisions in Rattan Lal and others v. State of Haryana and others, 1985 (IV)SCC 43 ; B. Sansarkan and others v. State of Kerala and others, 1987 (Supp) SCC 612 ; rajvindar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1988 (Supp) SCC 428 ; Ravi Narayan Mahaptra v. State of orissa, 1991 (II) SCC 599 ; Sri Ram Ratan v. District Magistrate, Maharajganj, 1993 (II) E and sc 186 (All) ; State of Haryana and others v. Piara Singh and others, AIR 1992 SC 2130 ; subhash Chandra Gupta v. Committee of Management, K. C. M. College, Moradabad, 1988 (I)UPLBEC 492 ; Km. Manish Verma v. Assistant Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, 1993 (II) UPLBEC 1166 ; Shiva Chandra Mishra v. D. I. O. S. , Allahabad, 1986 UPLBEC 248 (DB) ; Ramji Pathak v. D. I. O. S. , Gorakhpur, 1989 (I) UPLBEC 344 and Krishna Dutt Singh v. D. I. O. S. Gorakhpur, 1989 (I) UPLBEC 590. ( 9 ) I have considered the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner, and the counsel appearing for the Air Force School. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the post had fallen vacant due to the termination of services of Sri U. S. Yadav but Sri Yadav obtained stay order of the High Court. However, the Air Force School advertised the post on 10th September, 2000 and proceeded to make selection in accordance with the recruitment procedure provided for the permanent post by the Managing Committee. The fact, however, remains that the petitioner did not hold the requisite qualification for the appointment. Clause 6 (i) of the Education Code provides that only those who fulfil the qualifications spelt out in detail should be appointed as teachers. The fact, however, remains that the petitioner did not hold the requisite qualification for the appointment. Clause 6 (i) of the Education Code provides that only those who fulfil the qualifications spelt out in detail should be appointed as teachers. It further provides that the candidates who are not fully qualified may be appointed on an ad hoc or temporary basis only for the duration of the academic session. Such teachers will not be eligible to receive vacation salary and will have to seek fresh appointment for the subsequent academic session, subject to availability of vacancy. Only two candidates appeared and were interviewed and in the interest of students, who were going to appear for Board Examination, the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis although, he did not possess B. Ed. qualification. Under clause 6 (i), such appointment could only be made till the end of academic session. There is nothing on record to suggest that the Managing committee relaxed the essential qualification, i. e. , B. Ed. for this particular post. The Managing committee was faced with an extraordinary situation where the termination of a teacher was stayed from the Court and the committee was not satisfied with the situation and further it urgently required the services of a teacher to safeguard the interest of students. In the circumstances. Managing Committee resorted to exercise its powers under clause 6 (i) of the education Code to appoint the petitioner on ad hoc basis for the duration of the academic session. The appointment order is clear and specific on this count. The terms and conditions appended to the appointment letter spelt out that the petitioner was appointed only on ad hoc basis. The petitioner has signed and accepted the appointment letter with full and clear implication. He, therefore, is estopped in alleging that he was appointed on permanent basis. ( 10 ) AN ad hoc appointment is to meet an exigency and a candidate cannot be permitted to continue beyond the period of such exigency. The petitioner did not have the requisite qualification, i. e. , B. Ed. and thus, he could only be appointed on ad hoc basis. It was not a case where a teacher was not available with B. Ed. degree, I am not satisfied from the record that managing Committee has relaxed the essential qualification. The petitioner did not have the requisite qualification, i. e. , B. Ed. and thus, he could only be appointed on ad hoc basis. It was not a case where a teacher was not available with B. Ed. degree, I am not satisfied from the record that managing Committee has relaxed the essential qualification. The petitioners appointment cannot be treated to be permanent in nature, and that he could only get those rights which are available to ad hoc employee. ( 11 ) THE last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the ad hoc appointment should continue till the regular selection is made. In the present case, the appointment was made on the post which fall vacant due to termination of services of a teacher who had obtained stay order, and as the interest of the students was suffering, the appointment was made only upto the academic session. The subsequent appointment for less than a month until the school closes for summer vacation, was also by way of interim arrangement on the request of the petitioner. It cannot enure any benefit to the petitioner. In the special facts and circumstances of the case when the petitioners appointment was made only to meet the exigency to safeguard the interest of the Board students, the petitioner cannot be permitted to say that he should be allowed to continue even though he does not hold the requisite qualification for the post to which he is appointed. ( 12 ) IT is to be further noticed that the petitioner has accepted the appointment and signed the agreement, and that period of contract came to an end. He, therefore, cannot insist that he should continue in the school until a regular appointment is made. It will be against the interest of the school as well as the students to continue a teacher who does not have the essential qualification. ( 13 ) IN the end, I cannot, but comment upon the manner, and method in which the advertisement to fill up the vacancy was made. The school is run by the society which is financed by the public funds and has to perform public duty. The advertisement by a public institution should clearly state the nature of appointment. The advertisement appears to have been made as if a private company is employing personnel. The school is run by the society which is financed by the public funds and has to perform public duty. The advertisement by a public institution should clearly state the nature of appointment. The advertisement appears to have been made as if a private company is employing personnel. The method of advertisement was casual and the same caused the difficulty where a candidate could be misled to apply. It is expected, that in future the school will publish a proper advertisement giving detailed information regarding the nature of vacancy, qualifications, age, conditions and terms etc. ( 14 ) IN the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. .