JUDGMENT : R.K. Patra, J. - The Director, Higher Education, Orissa, in office order No. 22067 dated 1.5.1996 (Annexure-13) refused to approve the appointment of the petitioner as lecturer in English in Pranakrushna Mahavidyalaya, Baitarani Road, on the ground that he was not qualified to hold the post of lecturer as he had secured 53.9% marks at the qualifying examination which was less than the minimum percentage of marks prescribed by the Government at the relevant time. As no counter affidavit had been filed, the writ petition was disposed of by order dated 26.3.1997 on the basis of the averments made by the petitioner wherein it was held that in view of the Government clarification in letter No. 22585 dated 29.6.1979, the marks of the petitioner could be rounded-up to 54 per cent which was the qualifying marks for recruitment of lecturers. In view of the fact that the petitioner had got 53.9 per cent of marks, the same was rounded to 54 per cent and the Director, Higher Education, Orissa was required to approve the appointment of the petitioner within one month of receipt of the order. 2. On 18.8.1997 the petitioner filed Misc. Case No. 10178 of 1997 alleging non-implementation of the aforesaid order and prayed for further appropriate direction. The said misc. case was adjourned from time to time at the request of the State counsel. Thereafter on 15.9.1997 the opposite parties filed Misc. Case No. 11482 of 1997 praying to recall the order dated 26.3.1997 on the grounds, inter alia, that certain documents relevant for the purpose cold not be brought to the notice of the Court at the time of disposal of the case. Considering the grounds stated therein, by order dated 17.9.1997 we recalled the order dated 26.3.1997 by which the writ petition was disposed of. Consequently O.J.C. No. 6462 of 1996 was set down for fresh hearing. 3. The petitioner was appointed as lecturer in English in Pranakrushna Mahavidyalaya, Baitarani Road as per appointment order dated 16.3.1889 (Annexure-1). He joined his duties on 17.3.1989. At the time of his initial appointment, the petitioner had got 50 per cent of marks in aggregate. After joining the College, he appeared in the subsequent M.A. examination to improve his percentage of marks. The said examination was held in July, 1989. He joined his duties on 17.3.1989. At the time of his initial appointment, the petitioner had got 50 per cent of marks in aggregate. After joining the College, he appeared in the subsequent M.A. examination to improve his percentage of marks. The said examination was held in July, 1989. The State Government in its resolution No. 44032 dated 6.10.1989 prescribed 55% marks in M.A. Examination as the qualifying marks for appointment as lecturers in aided colleges. On 10.4.1990 result of the repeat examination of the petitioner was published in which he secured 431 marks out of 800, i.e., 53.9%. The Principal of the College on 20.4.1993 submitted proposal (Annexure-7) to the Director for approval of the petitioner's appointment against the 1st post of lecturer in English. As there was delay in taking decision, the petitioner fried O.J.C. No. 8774 of 1994 on 23.12.1994 praying for a direction to the opposite parties to approve his appointment. On 11 .9.1995, the said O.J.C. was disposed of with direction to the opposite parties to consider the proposal of the Principal relating to approval of the petitioner's appointment. By the impugned order dated 1.5.1996 (Annexure-13) the Director refused to accord approval to the petitioner's appointment by observing as follows : "Sri Upendra Kumar Swain has been-appointed as lecturer in English in the above mentioned college with effect from 17.3.1989. Records reveal that Sri Swain has secured 53.9% of marks in the qualifying M.A.Examination which is less than the minimum percentage of marks prescribed for the purpose by Government at that relevant time....." 4. In the counter affidavit filed by opposite party No. 1, it has been pleaded that the petitioner was not a candidate selected by the State Selection Board nor was there any prior approval from the Director for such appointment as required under Rule 5 of the Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974. From the resolution dated 11.2.1989 of the Governing Body (Annexure-A) it appears that because none turned up to face the interview for selection of lecturer in English in the College, the Secretary of the Governing Body appointed the petitioner to take care of the English teaching in the college as by that time the result of his M.A.Examination had not been publishsed. The resolution of the Governing Body was categorical that in the event the petitioner failed to obtain 54% marks in the M.A.Examination his service would be done away with. The petitioner did not secure the required 54 percent marks in the M.A. Examination held in July, 1989 and secured 53.9% marks (result of which was declared an 10.4.1990). Thus by 11.2.1989, 16.3.1989 and 17.3.1989, the petitioner had not secured 54% of marks and, as such, he was not qualified to hold the post of lecturer in English. 5. In order to resolve the controversy, it is necessary to refer to the following regulations and Government resolutions prescribing the percentage of marks in M.A. Examination for recruitment and regularisation, if any, of lecturers in Government aided colleges : (1) In para-6 of Appendix-I of Orissa Higher Secondary Education Regulations, 1992, 54% of marks in M.A. Examination is the minimum requirement to be appointed as lecturer in a college. (2) Government resolution dated 13.9.1983 (Annexure-B) required minimum 54% of marks in Post-graduate level with minimum Second Class Honours/Pass in the B.A./ B.Sc./B.Com Examination for being appointed as lecturer. (3) Resolution dated 6.10.1989 (Annexure-C) under which 55% of marks in M.A.Examination was prescribed to be the qualifying marks for being appointed as lecturers. (4) Memo No. 31705 (175)/EYS, dated 8.7.1983 (Annexure-D) and Government letter No. 13081 /EYS. dated 19.3.1986 (Annexure-E)by which it was clarified that Government order Nos. 21674/EYS. dated 20.6.1979 and 22586/ EYS. dated 29.6.1979 clarifying that lecturers securing 53.5% and above marks in the Master's Degree Examination would be treated as 54% were cancelled due to revision of qualification for recruitment of lecturers of the affiliated colleges with effect from 29.4.1983. 6. From the aforesaid, it is evident that 55 per centage of marks was for the first time came to be introduced with effect from 6.10.1989 i Annexure-C). Prior to it, the minimum qualifying marks prescribed was 54 per cent. It is not in dispute that the petitioner appeared at the repeat examination held in July, 1989 wherein he secured 431 marks out of 800, i.e., 53.9% which is almost 54%. In Smt. Urmila Beura Vs. Director, Higher Education and Others question arose for consideration was whether subsequent acquisition of requisite qualification can validate an irregular appointment. It is not in dispute that the petitioner appeared at the repeat examination held in July, 1989 wherein he secured 431 marks out of 800, i.e., 53.9% which is almost 54%. In Smt. Urmila Beura Vs. Director, Higher Education and Others question arose for consideration was whether subsequent acquisition of requisite qualification can validate an irregular appointment. One of us (P.Ray, J.) in a separate judgment held that after the result of an examination is published, it relates back to the date of the examination. For the reasons indicated above, we have no hesitation to hold that by July, 1989, the petitioner had the requisite qualification for being appointed as lecturer in the college. At the cost of repetition, it may be noted that the required percentage of marks at the relevant time was 54%. In this connection, we may refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa and another Vs. Damodar Nayak and another, wherein the apex Court treated 53.9% of marks as equivalent to 54% for the purpose of release of grant-in-aid. Although the petitioner's initial appointment was irregular, having regard to the fact that by July, 1989 he had secured 54% marks.(53.9% rounded to 54%) and has been serving in the College for about 8 years against an existing vacancy, his appointment can be approved with effect from July, 1989. 7. In the result, the impugned order at Annexure-13 is quashed. The opposite parties are directed to approve the appointment of the petitioner with effect from July, 1989. Grant-in-aid as admissible may be made available as expeditiously as possible preferably within four months of receipt of this order. The writ application is accordingly allowed. There would be no order as to costs. Pradipta Ray, J. 8. I agree. Final Result : Allowed