JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanty, J. - The petitioner has prayed for quashing the communication of the Deputy Secretary to Government in Higher Education Department, intimating inadmissibility of the second post of lecturer in History of Malkangiri College, Malkangiri on the basis of the workload furnished with effect from 1983-84 and consequently informing that the petitioner is not eligible to receive grant-in-aid against the said post, a copy whereof is Annexure-B. The further prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to opposite party No. 1 to sanction the post held by the petitioner and release of grant-in-aid as per the order of this Court in Annexure-7. 2. The facts giving rise to the present petition is that Malkangiri College was established in the year 1980 in the district of Koraput and received Government concurrence for opening of LA. classes with 128 seats in Arts during 1980-81 in the subjects mentioned therein and also received affiliation from Berhampur University in" the year 1980-81. The college was admitted to grant-in-aid in the year 1983-84. During the year 1982 degree courses were opened and provisional affiliation was accorded in the year 1986 vide letter No. 15778 dated 24.11.1986 of the University and the Government concurrence was also received in Government letter No. 45641 dated 17.10.1990. The petitioner asserts that after passing his M.A. in the subject History in the year 1976 and being placed in 2nd class with 55% of marks, he was appointed as a lecturer-in History in the aforesaid Malkangiri College in the year 1982. A copy of the letter of appointment is annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ application. The Governing Body confirmed the services of the petitioner with effect from 3.1.1982. The petitioner became eligible to receive minimum grant-in-aid from 1.6.1983. The then Deputy Director verified the appointment . letter, joining report and resolution pertaining to appointment of the petitioner on 29.11.1986 for the purpose of approval of his post and assessment of grant-in-aid. Opp. Party No. 3, Director, Higher Education submitted the proposal vide letter No. 90-84-84 (IV) - 9404-GH dated 8.4.1991 to opposite party No. 1 requesting the Government to accord their sanction to an expenditure of Rs. 1,34,760/- as per the detailed financial statement given in Annexure -1. 3. Opp. Party No. 3, Director, Higher Education submitted the proposal vide letter No. 90-84-84 (IV) - 9404-GH dated 8.4.1991 to opposite party No. 1 requesting the Government to accord their sanction to an expenditure of Rs. 1,34,760/- as per the detailed financial statement given in Annexure -1. 3. The petitioner claims that it is clear from the verification report that the second post of Lecturer in history is eligible for receiving grant-in-aid basing on the work-load of the year 1983-84. However, opp. party No. 1 delayed the sanction of the post and reminder to release the grant-in-aid of the second post of History was also made. Opp. party No. 2 again vide his letter No. 50-84-84-10-3442-G.H. dated 29.6.1992 requested opp. party No. 1 for releasing the grant-in-aid against second post of Oriya and History indicating the work-load in history from academic session 1983-84 and specifically indicating therein that the work-load of history during 1983-84 is 29 period per week. In subsequent years the work-load is also more than the required number of classes for assessment of work-load, for which opp. party No. 2 was requested for approval. It is alleged that even though the petitioner was working in the College since 1982 for more than 14 years without any break he has not yet received his grant-in-aid salary for the mala fide action of opp. party No. 1 and therefore he moved this Court in O.J.C. No. 5581 of 1985 and this Court disposed of the writ application with the observation that the requisite information and particulars having furnished to the State Government by the Director for sanction of petitioner's post, opposite party No. 1 will consider the matter and communicate the order to the Director, Higher Education within three months from the date of communication of the order. Opposite party No. 1 did not comply with the order dated 31.8.1995 for which the petitioner moved this Court in Original Criminal Misc. Case No. 119 of 1996 but the Deputy Secretary to Government vide his letter No. 25663/HE, dated 8.4.1996 intimating the petitioner that the second post of lecturer in history of Malkangiri College does not justify on the basis of work-load furnished for 1983-84 and consequently the petitioner is not eligible to receive grant-in-aid against the said post. A copy of the order is annexed as Annexure-8. It is the case of the petitioner that the order of opp. A copy of the order is annexed as Annexure-8. It is the case of the petitioner that the order of opp. party No. 1 in Annexure-8 is illegal, whimsical, discriminatory and against the materials on records. 4. On notice being issued, opp. parties 2 and 3 have filed their separate counter affidavit and the petitioner has filed rejoinder to such counter affidavit. It is the case of opposite party No. 2 that Malkangiri College is an aided educational institution having higher secondary +2 classes. It is further stated that history is one of the subjects for which concurrence and affiliation has been granted by the appropriate authorities. There is only one sanctioned post of lecturer in history which was admitted to grant-in-aid. It is stated that the college authorities made an application in Form-B (as required u/s 7-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 read with the Grant-in-aid Order 1994), a copy of which is annexed herewith as Annexure-A/2. In the said application, the college authorities tried to justify a second post of lecturer in history from the academic session 1983-84 by giving the details as under: 1983 - 84 HISTORY Class +2 (1st Year) +2 (2nd Year) Old I.A. 2nd Year Section strength --96 128 128 Actual students --94 124 125 No. of Gen. Class --04 (per week) 04 (per week) 04 No. of Tutorial Classes -- 04 (per week) 06 (per week ) 08 Total No of Class -- 08 (per week) 10 (per week) 12 It is the stand of opposite party No. 2 that on examination of the matter it revealed that the tutorial classes as indicated in the aforesaid chart could not be 8 for the second year of the old LA. classes which was to be phased out. The roll strength of the class being 125, it is asserted that there could only have maximum 6 tutorial groups consisting of 24 students per group as per the Government letter dated 1.5.1984. classes which was to be phased out. The roll strength of the class being 125, it is asserted that there could only have maximum 6 tutorial groups consisting of 24 students per group as per the Government letter dated 1.5.1984. A reference has been made to the Government letter dated 1.5.1984, a copy whereof is Annexure-B/2 to show that as per the letter each tutorial group should consist of 24 students and calculated on that basis the classes were assessed at 06 per week, instead of 08 per week of 2nd year I. A. class of the year 1983-84, it is stated that the college in question justifies total 28 classes in history and not 30 as claimed. It is, therefore, the stand or opp. party No. 2 that in view of the Government letter dated 1.5.1984 (Annexure - B/2), a second post is justified only when a college is required to have minimum 29 classes in a week in a particular subject. Since the Roll strength of the College did not justify more than 28 classes per week in the subject of History, it was considered that the second post in History which the petitioner held was not justified and accordingly, the claim has been rejected rightly and communication made in Annexure-8. 5. Opp. party No. 3, however, in its counter has stated that the Governing Body taking into consideration the yardstick prevailing at the time due to introduction of +2 courses the work-load for 2nd post of History justified and as such the petitioner was appointed against a post justified according to the work-load is eligible to receive the minimum grant-in-aid from 1.6.1986. It is further stated that as per the direction of the Director, Higher Education. Form-B application was submitted to opp. party No. 2 vide letter No. 87/95 dated 27.4.1995. The letter along with the workload for admissibility of teaching staff as per yardstick has been filed as Annexure C/3. The petitioner however filed a rejoinder affidavit disputing the stand taken in the counter affidavit. A reference has been made to the Government Order. No. 35597/ EYS. dated 4.9.1981 in supersession to the earlier G.O. No. 7298-E dated 22.3.1971 to refix the yardstick for teaching staff in Government and non-Government college of the State with effect from the current academic session 1981-82. A reference has been made to the Government Order. No. 35597/ EYS. dated 4.9.1981 in supersession to the earlier G.O. No. 7298-E dated 22.3.1971 to refix the yardstick for teaching staff in Government and non-Government college of the State with effect from the current academic session 1981-82. It is indicated in the Government Order that the post of lecturer in any particular subject is admissible on confirm workload for 25 periods (21 + 4) as already prescribed, per week. An additional post of lecturer is also admissible for any fraction over the multiple of 25 periods. The G.O. dated 4.9.1981 was again superseded by G.O. 37172/EYS. dated 8.8.1983, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexurc-10. It is the claim of the petitioner that as per the G.O. dated 4.9.1981 which was applicable to the petitioner an additional post of lecturer is admissible for any fraction over the multiple of 25 periods and as such when there is requirement of 26 periods in a week then an additional post (2nd post) in a subject is justified. It is further stated that each tutorial/ practical group for Arts/Science/Commerce subjects should consist of 24 students for intermediate and +2 courses. But prior to the Government Order dated 8.8.1983, the tutorial group was to consist of 16 students. It is further claimed by the petitioner that the Directorate has also not taken into account the latest G.O. No. VEG - 10/90-3340/EYS. dated 2.2.1990 while passing the order in Annexure-8. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the short question that arises for consideration is as to whether the calculation of workload made by the State Government while assessing the justification for the second post of Lecturer in History is in consonance with the workload prescribed by it at the relevant point of time and if the workload for the session 1983-84 in Malkangiri College where the petitioner is working is within 28 periods per week or is either 29 or more to justify a second post which is being held by the petitioner. 7. Undisputedly, if the required number of classes per week in a subject is 29 or more, then a second post is justified. 7. Undisputedly, if the required number of classes per week in a subject is 29 or more, then a second post is justified. The only controversy is with regard to the number of classes required to be taken in the college, where the petitioner was working and more particularly as to what will be the number of students in the tutorial group and as to whether the number of students would be 24 as stated by the opposite parties or 16 as claimed by the petitioner and the management of the college. The opposite party No. 2 relying on the letter No. 21191 dated 8.5.1984 assets that if the number of classes are 29 or more an additional post is justified inasmuch as each tutorial group/practical group for Arts. Science and Commerce subjects should consist of 24 students for intermediate and +2 courses. The petitioner and the management of the college rely on the letter No. 37172/EYS, dated 8.8.1983 of the Government in Education and Youth Services Department at Annexure-11. Under Clause (ii) each tutorial/ practical group for Arts/Science/Commerce subject should consist of 24 students for Intermediate and +2 course. But under Clause (iii),in the degree/graduate stage, the existing tutorial/practical group is to consist of 1.6 students. In letter No. 5540/EYS dated 2.2.1990 at Annexure-12 under paragraph 2(iii) tutorial or practical groups in case of old Intermediate Courses (during 1981-82 and 1982-83 ) may be 16 as per prevalent then and not 24 which has been prescribed for 1983-84 and onwards. According to the petitioner in view of the letter dated 2.2.1990 at Annexure-12 the tutorial group for old Intermediate Course during 1981-82 and 1982-83 has been specifically prescribed to the 16 per group and as such, the calculation for the purpose of determining the number of classes has to be made taking the strength of the tutorial group to be 16 and not 24 as has been done by the State Government to dislodge the claim of the petitioner. On a reading of letters of the Government hearing No. 37172 dated 8.8.1983 and No. 5540/EYS. dated 2.2.1990, there is no room for doubt that so far as Part-II of the old Intermediate course is concerned for the year 1982-83 the prescribed strength of a tutorial group was 16 and not 24 as claimed by opposite party No. 2 in its counter. dated 2.2.1990, there is no room for doubt that so far as Part-II of the old Intermediate course is concerned for the year 1982-83 the prescribed strength of a tutorial group was 16 and not 24 as claimed by opposite party No. 2 in its counter. Thus, calculating the number of classes required to be taken for the second year old Intermediate course in the college at 16 per group the total number of classes per week comes to 08 as given in the table furnished by the college in Form B. 8. In that view of the matter, the number of classes required to be taken in the subject History in the college during the sessions 1982-83 and 1983-84 was more or less 30 classes per week and as such, as per the Government Circular letter Annexure-B/2, a second post of lecturer in History was justified. Thus, the order of the Government in Memo No. 25663 (5) dated 8.4.1996 under Annexure-B cannot be sustained in law and is hereby quashed. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to accord approval to the post held by the petitioner and release the grant-in-aid due as admissible to the petitioner in accordance with law. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid direction. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. S. Chatterji, J. 9. I agree. Final Result : Allowed