JUDGMENT : B.L. Hansaria, C.J. - The grievance in this application relates to the appointment of opp. party No, 3 as trained graduate teacher in the. school in question. This opp. party was appointed in the school on 7-12-1972 as classical teacher where as the petitioner found his berth in the school on 18-3-1975; When the petitioner was appointed, he was I. Sc, B. A. and subsequently obtained his B. Ed. degree during the session 1976-77, Opp. party No. 3 was i. A., B. A. (Sanskrit) at the time of his appointment and got. B. Ed. degree in 1976-77. The rule relating to appointment to the post in question, Rule 8(2j(b) of the Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational institutions) Rules, 1974, read as below at the relevant time ; " (2) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in these rules it shall not be necessary to apply to or submit any appointment made by the Managing Committee or the Governing Body to the Selection Board of__ (a) xx xx xx (b) The vacancy, carrying a higher scale of pay and existing in an institution, is filled up with the prior approval of Government by an employee, of the same institution who possesses the prescribed qualification and experience and whose performance in' respect of the post he holds has been found satisfactory," 2. A doubt was entertained at one stage as to whether a class. teacher like opp. party No, 3 could be considered for the post of trains graduate teacher. This was clarified' by the Government which was communicated to the Secretary of the School vide Annexure 5 which required the Secretary to send necessary proposal with required documents' of opp. party No. 3 who was officiating against the post of classical teacher. After this communication was received, the Secretary sent Annexure-6 to the inspector of Schools narrating the respective qualifications and experience of both the candidates and left the matter open for consideration by the Inspector After the reply of the Inspector was received, the matter was taken up by the Managing Committee in its meeting held on 15-9-1982 and keeping in view the qualifications, opp. party No. 3 was promoted to the 4th trained graduate post. The resolution, however, stated the promotion was on probation and was subject to satisfactory discharge of duty and conduct. 3. party No. 3 was promoted to the 4th trained graduate post. The resolution, however, stated the promotion was on probation and was subject to satisfactory discharge of duty and conduct. 3. In assailing the promotion of opp. party No. 3 to the aforesaid post, Mr. Dora has contended that the appointing authority did not place proper emphasis on experience as is required by Rule 8(2)(b), noted above. He next submitted that in any case materials are lacking to show that the performance of opp. party No. 3 was found satisfactory. 4. As to the experience, the case of opp. party No. 3 is that though he was appointed as classical teacher, the was teaching from his very appointment Oriya in Class lX, History in Classes lX and X and English in Class VIII it Cannot, therefore, be S3id that the experience of opp party No. 3 Is confined to teaching of Sanskrit alone. As to the performance of op), party No. 3, we owould like to refer to Annexure C/2 which shows that the Managing Committee itself confirmed this opp. party in his service after receiving a report from the Headmaster which would show that the performance must have been taken to be satisfactory by the Managing Committee. 5. In view of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to interfere with the promotion of opp. party No. 3 in the present proceeding. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. S.C. Mohapatra, J. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed