The main legal point established in the judgment is that an appointment made without the necessary qualifications and a valid selection process is invalid and does not confer any right on the appointee.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Ganguly, C.J. - This appeal has been filed challenging the Judgment and Order Dated 22.6.2001 passed by a Learned Judge of the Writ Court in OJC No. 10584 of 1997.

2. In that Writ Petition the present Appellant was the Petitioner and he prayed for quashing the appointment of Opposite Party No. 8 Sachindra Kumar Parida in the post of Trained Graduate Teacher in Mahyama stream as well as for a direction to promote him to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher.

3. The case of the Appellant In the Writ Petition as appreciated by the Learned Judge of the Writ Court is that the Appellant was appointed against a Trained Matric Post in Ramdas Sanskrit Vidyapitha on 15.10.1979 and at that point of time the institution was a Prathama institution. Thereafter on 9.1.1981 the said institution started receiving' aid from State Government and became an aided institution. While working in the said institution, the Appellant applied for and acquired B.Ed qualification in 1989 and in the said year the institution was upgraded to a Madhyama institution. The school was granted provisional recognition as a Madhyama institution from the academic session 1991-92 by the Deputy Secretary of Education Department, Government of Orissa by an Order Dated 7.2.1992.

4. The Learned Judge noted that the case of the Appellant is that in 1992 the Appellant made a representation to the Managing Committee of the institution for consideration of his case for promotion to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher which was available. But the grievance of the Appellant is that without considering his case for promotion to the said post in terms of Rule 8(2)(b) of 1974. Rules the Managing Committee appointed Respondent No. 8 (Opposite Party No. 8 in the Writ Petition) on 27.11.1992 against the said post though admittedly Respondent No. 8 was not qualified and was untrained at the time of such appointment.

5. It has been further noted by the Learned Judge that Madhyama stream of the said institution was notified for receiving grant in aid from the State Government with effect from 1994, but the appointment of Respondent No. 8 against the post of Trained Graduate Teacher was not approved by the Superintendent of Sanskrit Studies in view of the fact theta Respondent No. 8 was unqualified. The Learned Judge of the Writ Court further noted that finding no other alternative the Appellant made a representation on 13.12.1996 for consideration of his case for promotion to the said post. But, the said representation did not produce any result and then the Appellant approached this Court by filing OJC No. 2109 of 1991. This Court disposed of the said Writ Petition by an Order Dated 24.2.1991. The said order is as follows:

24.2.97. Heard Shri Swain for the Petitioner and the Additional Standing Counsel for Opposite Parties 1 to 5.

Case of the Petitioner is that since October, 1979 he has been working as an assistant teacher in Ramdas Sanskrit Vidyapitha, Sanamanitia in the district of Kendrapara. He, completed graduation in the year 1986 and obtained B.Ed., degree in the year 1989. According to him, in view of his acquisition of higher qualification, he is eligible to be considered for appointment against a trained graduate post which is lying vacant. But till now the Superintendent of Sanskrit Studies, has not taken up his case for being considered even. Shri Swain states that the Petitioner has made a representation dated 30.12.1996 (Annexure-5) in this regard to the Superintendent of Sanskrit Studies, Orissa but no decision has yet been communicated.

Considering the grievance of the Petitioner, we dispose of this matter with a direction to Opposite Party No. 4 to consider the matter and communicate his decision on the representation within three months from the date of receipt of this order.

Requisites for communication of the order will Us filed within three days.

The case of the Appellant is that pursuant to the aforesaid Order Dated 24.2.1997 passed in OJC No. 2109 of 1997,