The main legal point established in the judgment is that statutory provisions prevail over any executive instructions or clarifications issued in contravention to the statutory rules.

JUDGMENT

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. - Heard Mr. Samir Kumar Das, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.N. Mishra, learned A.G.A on behalf of Respondents No.1 & 2 and Mr. M.K. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent No.4.

2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 24.8.2017 passed by the State Education Tribunal (in short, 'The Tribunal') in G.I.A Case No.87 of 2014 under Annexure-13 and also with a prayer to quash the letter dated 26.10.2013 along with its memorandum dated 24.10.2013 of Respondent No.2 under Annexure-9 as well as Government letter dated 20.2.2014 under Annexure-10 and order dated 19.6.2014 of Respondent No.2 under Annexure-11 3. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that G.I.A Case No.87 of 2014 was filed by the appellant with a prayer to quash the order dated 20.2.2014 passed by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and for direction to approve the appointment of the appellant and release Block Grant in her favour from 20.1.2009 under the provisions of Grand In Aid Order, 2008. It is submitted that the appellant was appointed as a Lecturer in Sanskrit vide order dated 30.8.1992 under Annexure-7. It is submitted that the college in question Lakheswar Women's College, Phulnakhar was established in 1993 and the said college was brought into the Block Grant scheme of the Government w.e.f 20.1.2009 and accordingly it became an aided educational institution within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969.

4. It is submitted that on the opening of the college, it applied for grant of permission and recognition in five optional subject i.e. History, Political Science, Economics, Education and Sanskrit with two compulsory subject i.e. English and Oriya. It is submitted that even though the application for permission and recognition was made in respect of the aforesaid five optional subject, but the concerned authority while granting the recognition, instead of allowing Sanskrit as an optional subject, wrongly allowed the subject Oriya in its place. But it is submitted that the College after being communicated with such order and recognition immediately brought the said fact to the notice of the authority for necessary correction in the order of permission and recognition. Even though the college came into existence from the academic session 1993-94, but the college was granted permission vide order dated 30.5.1996 from the academic session 1994-95 and recognition was also granted vide order dated 30.10.1998 retrospectively from the said academic session 1994-95. It is also submitted that since the college while applying the permission and recognition applied for five optional subjects which includes Sanskrit, the college not only admitted students in Sanskrit subject, but also those students were allowed to appear in the Council Examination along with other subjects right from the beginning. It is also submitted that subsequent to the temporary recognition granted vide order dated 30.10.1998, the college when was extended with such recognition, Sanskrit was allowed as an optional subject in place of Oriya. It is also submitted that while issuing the permanent recognition vide order dated 9.7.2004 under Annexure-4, Sanskrit was allowed as an optional subject. It is also submitted that subsequently vide order dated 26.8.2010, under Annexure-5, Sanskrit was allowed as an optional subject right from the very beginning i.e. from the academic session 1994-95 and the affiliation of the council was also made vide order dated 25.1.2011 under Annexure-6.

5. It is submitted that since the petitioner was appointed as against the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit vide order dated 30.8.1993 under Annexure-7 and the appellant joined in the said post on 3.9.1993 with having the required percentage of marks in M.A(Sanskrit), the college when was brought into