Order (Oral) ;— We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the pleadings of Special Appeal. 2. Dr.Ramesh Pandey, learned counsel for appellant submitted that admittedly the appellant was appointed against a short term vacancy in the year 2007 and the said vacancy during his continuance as adhoc teacher was converted into a substantive vacancy on 13.06.2008. Despite continuous working as such the appellant is not being paid salary. In this background he filed writ petition no.2986 (SS) of 2008, which was decided by the impugned order with certain observations like: ".........In this regard Sri V.S.Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on the basis of the affidavit filed by Sri Jitendra Kumar, Secretary Secondary Education, Govt.of U.P.Lucknow in Special Appeal No.351 of 2009 (Hari Bansh Bahadur Singh Vs.Jitendra Kumar and others) has categorically submitted that necessary steps has been taken in order to fill up the vacancy in question, an advertisement has been issued, so it is hope and trust that the State/official respondent shall take effective steps in this direction in order to fill up the vacancies in question in order to carry out the direction/mandate as given by this Court in Rakesh Kumar Mishra's case (Supra) expeditiously keeping in view that the career of the students who are studying in the institution in question will not suffer during the present era of competition................." 3. Now the question for consideration is whether the appellant who has worked since 2007 continuously as adhoc teacher firstly against short term vacancy and thereafter against substantive vacancy, is entitled to get the payment of salary from the State Government because the institution in question is a State aided institution. 4. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that it has been held in umpteen number of orders passed by this Court that against a vacancy if a candidate has been appointed on adhoc basis, he should continue till a regularly selected candidate is made available. Learned counsel also referred to a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court reported in (2000)3 UPLBEC 2494 (District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar and others Versus Diwakar Lal and others). In the said judgment, it was held by the Division Bench that if a short term vacany becomes substantive vacancy in due course of time, the adhoc appointees shall be allowed to continue unless there is any complaint against them or regularly selected candidates are made available. In the said judgment, it was held by the Division Bench that if a short term vacany becomes substantive vacancy in due course of time, the adhoc appointees shall be allowed to continue unless there is any complaint against them or regularly selected candidates are made available. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for State submitted that it is a case of collusion between the appellant and the management to get and continue with appointment, obviously for the reason that the institution is a State aided institution. In a State aided institution a regular selection committee is formed even for adhoc appointment. Lastly, learned State Counsel also submitted that in terms of ratio of Judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in 2012(1) SCC, 122, Vishwa Mohini Versus DIOS and others, the petitioner may be paid salary but the State Government would be at liberty to recover the amount from the management of School or from any other individual. 6. Shri S.P.Shukla, learned counsel, appearing for the management also supported the arguments of learned counsel for appellant and further added that despite repeated requisition and reminders sent to the Secondary Education Selection Board through the District Inspector of Schools to fill the vacancies of teachers, no step has been taken and thus if the management does not appoint teachers against short term vacancy etc., the educational institution would stand closed. 7. On due consideration of rival submissions, we are of the view that for the duties performed by the appellant, on equitable grounds also, he is entitled to get remuneration. We have passed numerous orders saying that against an existing vacancy unless regularly selected candidate is made available, the adhoc selectee should be allowed to continue. The appellant was appointed in 2007 against the short term vacancy which was later converted into substantive vacancy and has continued to receive salary, though under the interim orders of this Court. Moreover in the Division Bench judgment in the case of Diwakar Lal (supra) in a case with some what identical facts a Division Bench of this Court has also taken the view that in such a situation the adhoc appointee should be allowed to continue unless there is any specific complaint. against him. Moreover in the Division Bench judgment in the case of Diwakar Lal (supra) in a case with some what identical facts a Division Bench of this Court has also taken the view that in such a situation the adhoc appointee should be allowed to continue unless there is any specific complaint. against him. In a latest judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the matter of Vishwa Mohini (supra), the Court directed the payment of salary to the appointee for the period she had worked within 8 weeks but granted liberty to the District Inspector of Schools to recover that amount from the management of the School or from any other individual as the case may be. 8. In view of all the aforesaid, we partly allow the Special Appeal and set aside the impugned order insofar as it relates to affirming the stoppage of payment of salary to the appellant. However, as regards the observation as noticed hereinabove to take steps for filling the vacancy, we are in agreement with that. We would also like to add that the process of selection as noticed in the observation as aforesaid, shall be completed within a maximum period of 6 months from the date of receiving a copy of this order. 9. Special appeal is, thus, disposed of. _