ORDER 1. Leave granted. There has been a dispute of fact between the parties. Whereas the petitioner claims that he was appointed as a teacher, the management disputes it and says that he was working as a clerk. The petitioner relied on Rule 8(2)(b) of the Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided a Education Institutions) Rules, 1974 to contend that he was entitled to be a teacher and get promotion while being treated as if on the post of the teacher. That rule reads as follows: "8. Exception to selection by the Board.-2(b) The vacancy in a post, carrying higher scale of pay, is filled up with prior approval of Government in case of a college and the Director concerned in case of b an institution other than a college, by an employee of same institution who possesses the prescribed qualifications and experience and whose performance in respect of the post he holds, has been found satisfactory. Such appointment shall be treated as regular appointment from the date, the same is filled up on ad hoc basis by the Managing Committee or the Governing Body, as the case may be, in the event of its approval by the competent authority." The word "employee" used therein was liberally construed by two Division Benches of the Orissa High Court but in the instant case the ratio thereof was questioned and the matter was referred to the Full Bench. The answer given by the Full Bench on the interpretation of the rule is that the vacancy in a post can be filled only by such employee who possesses the prescribed qualifications and experience and whose performance in respect of the post he holds has been found satisfactory. This means that the claim must be in the same post where he gains experience and shows satisfactory performance. This benefit is not available to a claimant if he holds one post and claims benefit in another. On the fact-situation the appellant is in the post of the clerk and cannot be permitted to seek claim for promotion on the post of the teacher. The High Court was right in its interpretation. There is no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed.