JUDGMENT : L. Rath, J. - The grievance of the petitioner is of his being not allowed 10 resume duties as a Lecturer in History in the D.G.B K. Mahavidyaiaya, whose Governing Body is opposite party No. 4 in the case, since after he completed M. Phil, Course under the Utkal University. While it is his case that he had been relieved on study leave to undergo the course, it is the case of the Governing Body that his services had been terminated with effect from 1-6-1990 by order passed on 20-6-1990 and that he is no longer in the service of the college. 2. To adumbrate the facts, the petitioner joined as Lecturer in History on 27-1-1987. In 1988 the institution became aided receiving the grant-in-aid. While it is the petitioner's case that he was relieved on 5-7-1990 by orders of the Secretary passed on that day for doing M.Phil. Course under the Utkal University, it is the case of the Governing Body that the document is not genuine and that instead the petitioner's service was terminated with effect from 1-6-1990 by order passed in Annexure-B/1 on 20-6-1990. Annexure-2 is an office order of the Utkal University stating of the petitioner having completed M. Phil. Course and of being relieved of his duty in the P. G. Department of History, Utkal University in the afternoon of 18-7-1991, and Annexure-3 is an order of 19-7-1991 of the Principal of the college of having received the petitioner's joining report on that date. Annexure- 4 is an Advocate's notice on behalf of the petitioner served through registered post with acknowledgement due tor his being not allowed to join the college. Annexure-3 is not accepted as genuine by the Governing Body. 3. In the counter affidavit filed the stand is taken that the petitioner's services were terminated in accordance with the letter No. 27451 dated 14-5-1990 of the Director of Higher Education, which itself was based upon a resolution of the State Government bearing No. 9491/EYS dated 19-3-1990 published in the Orissa Gazette bearing No. 324 dated 21-3-1930 directing that the recruitment to the grade of Lecturers should be made by direct recruitment through the State Selection Board. The letter of the opposite party No. 2 was also based upon Rule 5(8) of the Crissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institution) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 1974 Rules') which require the prior approval of the Director, Higher Education before any adhoc appointment to a post of Lecturer for a period of six months or till the posting of Selection Board candidate is made. A further factual controversy between the parties is regarding the engagement of the opposite party Nos. 6, 6 and 7 as Lecturers in History in the college. Whereas the petitioner has come with the case that all the three opposite parties have been appointed subsequent to his relieve from the college, it is the case of the Governing Body that the opposite party No. 5 is not at all a Lecturer in History in the college, but the opposite party No. 6 is a prior appointee having been appointed on 12-3-1984. The opposite party No. 7 is admitted to have been appointed after termination of the service of the petitioner. 4. The learned Additional Government Advocate has, by way of a memorandum, made available the letter of the Director of Higher Education (opposite party No. 2) of 14-5-1990. The letter was addressed to the Principals of all non-Government aided colleges and said that Rule 5(8) of the 1974 Rules required that in all aided educational institutions, for adhoc appointment in the post of Lecturers for a period of six months or till the posting of Selection Board candidate whichever is earlier, the prior approval of the Director is to be taken and that the Government had decided by its resolution of 19-3-1990 that recruitment to the grade of Lecturers should be made by direct recruitment through the State Selection Board. A direction was given in the letter that all irregular appointments made on or after 1-1-1985 by the Governing Bodies of the college should be terminated immediately under intimation to the Directorate. There is hence no doubt that the order of termination stated to have been passed by the Governing Body with effect from 1-6-1990 in respect of the petitioner was in pursuance of the order of the Director of Higher Education. 5. There is hence no doubt that the order of termination stated to have been passed by the Governing Body with effect from 1-6-1990 in respect of the petitioner was in pursuance of the order of the Director of Higher Education. 5. Admittedly by the time the petitioner was appointed on 27-1-1987 the college was not aided one and there was no control vested in the Director of Higher Education to question the appointment of the petitioner. In OJC No. 4490 of 1990 decided on 14-8-1992 this Court has decided that all persons appointed prior to an institution becoming aided continue as staff of the aided educational institution after it becomes aided subject only to the decision in any particular case regarding his/har unacceptability. It is also settled position that in aided institutions teachers and staff have their services protected u/s 10-A of the Orissa Education Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act') and their termination of service cannot be made without obtaining the approval of the Director of Higher Education. It is also admitted by Mr, Sahoo that prior approval for termination of service of the petitioner had not been taken. The termination of services of the petitioner hence was bad because of the violation of the provisions of Sec 10-A of the Act. It has to be made clear that the prior approval required u/s 10-A of the Act cannot be taken to have been conveyed by the letter of the Director since the approval is necessary to be given individually in respect of the staff whose service is to be terminated and such approval is also to be communicated as such to the person concerned. In that view of the matter, it is not necessary to enter into the. controversy as to whether the petitioner had been relieved on study leave or not as it is the admitted case of the Governing Body that the petitioner's service was terminated without complying with the provisions of law. It has of course been also otherwise decided that when a teacher of an aided educational institution is relieved on study leave and on his return is not allowed to join the institution, the action amounts to termination of service illegally and the teacher is entitled to a mandamus directing his joining the institution. Reference may be made to Dhaneswar Nayak Vs. Reference may be made to Dhaneswar Nayak Vs. State of Orissa and Others but that aspect of the case need not be pursued here as the fact of the petitioner's relieve on study leave is disputed. 6. Further, the very direction of the Director of Higher Education in letter of 14-5-1990 could only be operative prospectively and would not apply to the lecturers who had already been appointed in the college prior to those becoming aided. A college is required to comply with the provisions of Rule 5(8) of the 1974 Rules in the matter of appointment of lecturers only alter it has become aided. The State Government's direction in its resolution of 19-3-1990 also applied only to colleges after they had become aided. There hence could not have been any competence in the Director of Higher Education to direct termination of service of all lecturers whose appointments were made on or alter 1-1-1985 even at a time when the college was not aided. That being so, the petitionar becomes entitled to a mandamus to be issued to the opposite parties for allowing him to join the college and discharge his duties. 7. Next comes in the question of opposite party Nos. 5, 6 and 7 It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the opposite party No. 6 was never a prior appointee than him in the college. In support of that, reliance is placed by him on Annexure-5 purported to be a list of the teaching staff of the college from 1981 to 1988 prepared and forwarded by the college to the Director of Higher Education. In it, so far as the Department of History is concerned, the names of six Lecturers are shown who are S/Shree Sudarsan Patra, Akshaya Kumar Tripathy, M. Rajmohan Rao, Mahendra Kumar Pattnaik, Chittaranjan Misra and Pradipta Kumar Mohanty. The first one was shown as officiating as Principal from 22-7-1980 to 15-7-1983 and the second and third were shown to have been relieved respectively on 29-12-1981 and 10-8-1983 and the other three to be continuing in the college then. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the name of the opposite party No. 6 is not shown there as a Lecturer. This document is however taken exception to by the learned counsel appearing for the Governing Body. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the name of the opposite party No. 6 is not shown there as a Lecturer. This document is however taken exception to by the learned counsel appearing for the Governing Body. The genuineness of the document is available to be verified by the opposite party No. 2 to whom it is purported to have been forwarded. It being however the admitted case of the Governing Body that the opposite party No. 5 is not a lecturer and the opposite party No. 7 has been appointed after the petitioner, the question of seniority, as is raised by Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, relates only to the petitioner and the opposite party No. 6. Such question has to be resolved by the Governing Body after hearing the respective parties. It has been brought to our notice that one Sri Chitta Ranjan Misra, a Lecturer referred to in Annexure-5, was a petitioner before this Court in OJC No. 6556 of 1993 seeking the relief of direction to the Director of Higher Education to dispose of his appeal preferred to him on 26-10-1990 regarding termination of his service with effect from 1-6-1990. That case was disposed of directing the Director to dispose the appeal within three months from the date of receipt of the order of the Court. The petitioner in the present application accepts the admitted seniority of Sri Chitta Ranjan Miara over him. None of the counsels of the parties is however in a posi- tion to state whether the appeal of Sri Chitta Ranjan Misra has been disposed of by the Director of Higher Education in the meantime. 8. Because of such facts, while we hold that the petitioner is entitled to resume duties in the college forthwith, we leave open the question of seniority to the Governing Body to decide after hearing all parties concerned. 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed with costs. 8. Because of such facts, while we hold that the petitioner is entitled to resume duties in the college forthwith, we leave open the question of seniority to the Governing Body to decide after hearing all parties concerned. 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed with costs. The petitioner shall be deemed to be a Lecturer in History of the college from the date of receipt of the registered notine as in Annexure-4 by the Governing Body and shall be entitled to all his arrear employments, bill in respect of which is to be submitted by the opposite party No. 4 to the Director of Higher Education within six weeks from the date of receipt of the writ from this Court end thereafter the arrear shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months. The petitioner shall be paid his salary also regularly on his joining the college. The opposite party No. 4 is directed to allow the petitioner to join his duties forthwith. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 300/- Final Result : Allowed