R.M.Sahai, J. - (1.) IT is not disputed that petitioner was initially appointed in October, 1973 as a temporary untrained teacher in C.T. Grade. But letter of appointment was given to him in 1974 appointing him from 20th August, 1974 till June 30, 1975. After expiry of this period he was appointed afresh from 19th August, 1975. On 3rd November 1976 he was intimated that as directed by State Government his services shall come to an end on 15th November, 1976. Against this order he made representations but as no reply was received he filed this petitioner which was admitted and an interim order was passed directing opposite parties to pay petitioner's salary whether they take work from him or not. No counter -affidavit has been filed on behalf of Committee of Management or District Inspector of Schools. A counter -affidavit has been filed on behalf of principal, according to whom as petitioner's services were terminated on 30th June 1975 he was not entitled to the benefit of the Government order No. Ma/8170/(Pandhra) 7 -76 -2 -(18)/1975 dated 27th November, 1976. It is further averred that petitioner was not selected by any committee as he was not qualified. In rejoinder affidavit it is stated that when petitioner was appointed he was not a trained teacher but he obtained B.Ed. degree on 10th June, 1976. Further when he was appointed in August, 1975 his appointment was got approved by District Inspector of Schools. Therefore, he was appointed in a substantive vacancy. The factual position, therefore, is that petitioner was appointed between August, 1975 and September 30, 1976 and continued to serve till his services were terminated by an order dated 3rd November, 1976 on 21st April, 1976 Section 16GG was enacted regularising appointment of Ad -hoc teacher. According to this Section if a teacher has been appointed on ad -hoc basis against a clear vacancy, and possession prescribed qualifications or having been exempted from such qualifications in accordance with the provisions of the Act, then he shall be deemed to be appointed in a substantive vacancy from the date of commencement of this Section. As stated earlier all these requirements were fulfilled by the petitioner. He was appointed between 1975 and September, 1976 on an ad -hoc basis in clear vacancy. Although he was not a trained teacher on the date when he was appointed but as his appointment was got approved by District Inspector of Schools it has to be assumed in absence of any counter -affidavit on behalf of opposite party that this approval must have been granted on exemption granted by the authorities concerned. Moreover, in June, 1975 petitioner having acquired B.Ed. degree he became a qualified teacher and if there was any deficiency in his qualifications that was also fulfilled. There is yet another requirement namely, the teacher should have continued to serve from the date of his appointment till commencement of this Section. On 27th November, 1976, Fifth Remedy of Difficulties Order was issued. Under clause (3) of it a teacher appointed prior to June, 1975 with approval of District Inspector of Schools and continued till 15th November 1976 was to be treated as a teacher appointed in substantive vacancy. Therefore by this order petitioner's services were not only continued but they became I substantive. Then by sixth Removal of Difficulties order service of teachers appointed on ad -hoc basis after 18th August, 1975 were continued till May, 1977. In explanation appended to Section 16GGcontinuity in service of an ad -hoc teacher shall be disregarded unless it was for his mis -conduct or own volition. In other words except in circumstances mentioned a teacher who was appointed between August, 1975 to September, 1976 and was otherwise qualified by fiction of law shall be deemed to continue in service. As petitioner's services were terminated due to government order he was not covered by one of the exigencies contemplated in Explanation and shall be deemed to have continued in service without break to whom provisions of Section 16GG applied. In either view of the matter petitioner's claim that his services could not be terminated and he should be deemed to continue in service appears to be well founded,
(2.) IN the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to treat the petitioner as a teacher appointed in substantive vacancy and proceed in accordance with law as contained in Section 16GG, there shall be no order as to costs.;