JUDGMENT

KULDIP SINGH, J. :— Special leave granted.

2. Rabinaray an Mohapatra the appellant was appointed as Hindi Teacher in Banigochha, M.E. School (Orissa) for a period of 89 days or till a candidate selected by the State Selection Board was made available. He joined the school on July 12, 1982. The appointment was made by the District Inspector (Schools) on the recommendation of the managing committee of the school. He continued to serve the school with repeated spells of 89 days-appointments and one day break in between the spell, till May 25, 1986. He was not paid the salary for the period of summer vacations during all these years. Although the appellant continues to serve the school to-date under orders of the managing committee yet his appointment after 1986 has not been approved by the educational authorities. The managing committee even passed a resolution on July 6, 1987, requesting the educational authorities of the State of Orissa to approve the continuous appointment of the appellant as Hindi Teacher but no action was taken by the said authorities.

3. The appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Orissa High Court claiming regularisation as Hindi Teacher with effect from July 12,1982. The only argument raised before the High Court was that the appellant was entitled to be regularised in terms of the provisions of Section 3 of the Orissa Aided Educational Institutions (Appointment of Teachers Validation) Act, 1989 (hereinafter called the Validation Act). The relevant part of Section 3 of the Act is reproduced hereinafter :

3. Validation of certain appointments.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Education Act or in the Rules or Regulations framed thereunder,-

(a) graduate teachers, intermediate and matriculate teachers, physical education teachers and classical teachers and Hindi teachers of aided schools appointed by the managing authorities of such schools on ad hoc basis on or after the 1st December, 1976 but not later than the 31st December, 1984;

(b) & (c) ...............

who have continuous service as such teachers or lecturers for a period of at least one year without any break or with a break or breaks in one or more aided schools or Colleges and who are continuing as such teachers or whose services have been terminated after the 31st December, 1984 save for misconduct or shall for all intents and purposes, be deemed to have been validly and regularly appointed, and no such appointment shall be challenged in any Court of law merely on the ground that the appointment Was made otherwise than in accordance with procedure laid down in the Education Act and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder; ....................

4. The High Court rejected the prayer for regularisation, and held that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of the Validation Act, on the following reasoning :

"Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on 12-7-1982 and continued till 18-7-1986 with breaks in between and the petitioners appointment was conditioned by the stipulation that he would continue until replaced by a candidate from the Select List. His case, therefore, will not come within the purview of the Validation Act and, therefore, the question of issuing any direction to regularise his service in a substantive vacancy because of the Validation Act does not arise."

5. We have heard Mrs. Uma Mehta Jain, learned counsel for the appellant. This Court in Rattan Lal v. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 S C 478 speaking through Venkataramaiah, J. (as the learned Judge then was) observed as under (at p. 478):

"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 reason. 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 Hary