JUDGMENT : Pradipta Ray, J. - The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a writ of mandamus commanding the opp. parties to approve his appointment as an Assistant Teacher in Astasambhu Sanskrit Vidyapitha at Krushnanagar in the district of Jajpur. 2. The Astasambhu Sanskrit Vidyapitha (hereinafter referred to as the 'School') became a recognised institution in 1987. It was admitted into the minimum grant-in-aid scheme with effect from June 1, 1994. The petitioner, a graduate, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on March 23, 1991 by the School. The petitioner has been continuing in the said post of Assistant Teacher since such date of appointment. After the school became an aided institution, the Superintendent of Sanskrit Studies (in short 'Superintendent') called upon the Head-Pandit of the School to submit the staff position for his approval. The Managing Committee by letter dated November 27, I 995 submitted the staff position in which the petitioner was shown ugainsi the post of a trained Graduate Assistant Teacher (Annexure-5). The Superintendent sent a reply pointing out that the petitioner and two other teachers not being trained were not possessed of requisite qualifications for the trained graduate posts. On February 24, 1996 the petitioner submitted a representation addressed to the Head-Pandit of the School stating that he would get necessary training within three years. The petitioner requested that on such condition his appointment should be approved and he should be granted untrained scale till he became trained. In support of his case, the petitioner cited an instance of one Sri L. N. Acharya. though untrained, was approved b\ the Superintendent against a trained graduate post. 3. On behalf of the Superintendent of Sanskrit Studies, Orissa the opp. party No. 4, a counter has been filed stating that an untrained graduate teacher cannot be approved against a trained graduate post. Regarding the instance cited by the petitioner, it has been stated in the counter that Shri Acharya was approved as a special case because ol the.order dated January 13. 1995 passed in OJC No. 5662-oJ 199.1 4. Thus, the question lor determination is whether this Court should issue a direction to the opp. party No. 4 to approve the appointment of the petitioner, an untrained graduate, against a trained graduate post. 5. Mr. 1995 passed in OJC No. 5662-oJ 199.1 4. Thus, the question lor determination is whether this Court should issue a direction to the opp. party No. 4 to approve the appointment of the petitioner, an untrained graduate, against a trained graduate post. 5. Mr. K. K. Swain, appearing for the petitioner by referring to the provisions of the Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules. 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Recruitment Rules, 1974") and the Orissa Subordinate Education Service (General Branch) Rules. 1972 submitted that the minimum qualification for the post of an Assistant Teacher in a High School was graduate and as such the approval cannot be refused on the ground that the petitioner is not a trained graduate. 6. The procedure for appointment of staff in aided institutions and the procedure of selection of candidates by the Selection Board are provided in Rules 5 and 6 of the Recruitment Rules, 1974. Rule 7 (c) of the Recruitment Rules, 1974 provides that age and qualification for appointment as teachers and for other posts would be the same as for similar or corresponding posts in educational institutions established and maintained by the Government. The Orissa Subordinate Education Service (General Branch) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Subordinate Service Rules, 1972") regulated the method of recruitment and eligibility of candidates for appointment to the posts of teachers and other posts. It appears from Rule 3 of the Subordinate Service Rules, 1972 that the post of an Assistant Teacher was in the junior grade of the Subordinate service. In the said Subordinate Service Rules direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Teacher was to be made through a competitive examination. Rule 7 (d) provided that a candidate for direct recruitment must have passed the Bachelor's Degree or an equivalent examination of a recognised University. The said Subordinate Service Rules, 1972 were replaced by the Orissa Subordinate Education (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Subordinate Education Rules, 1993) which came into force on and from December 17, 1993. Under the Subordinate Education Rules, 1993 the qualification for direct recruitment to the junior grade has been prescribed as Bachelor's Degree in Arts, Science or Commerce along a degree of Bachelor of Education from a recognised University. 7. Relying upon the aforesaid rules Mr. Under the Subordinate Education Rules, 1993 the qualification for direct recruitment to the junior grade has been prescribed as Bachelor's Degree in Arts, Science or Commerce along a degree of Bachelor of Education from a recognised University. 7. Relying upon the aforesaid rules Mr. Swain has urged that when petitioner was appointed on March 23, 1991 Subordinate Service Rules. 1972 was in operation; that the petitioner being a Graduate was possessed of the qualification required for appointment as Assistant Teacher and that the authorities could not refuse to approve his appointment against the concerned trained Graduate Post. Mr. Swain also relies upon a decision of this Court on OJC No. 1024 of 1990 (Gouri Devi v. State of Orissa and Ors.) and in Bibekananda Das Vs. State of Orissa and Others, in support of his submission. 8. We are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Swain that the State Government is bound to approve the appointment of untrained graduates in trained graduate posts even after introduction of new pattern of teaching staff in 1981. When Subordinate Service Rules, 1972 were made, the posts of Assistant Teachers need not be necessarily trained graduate. The posts of Assistant Teachers being basically graduate posts at that time, the prescribed minimum qualification was graduation for earning eligibility for direct recruitment to the posts of Assistant Teachers either through Selection Board in the non-Government Aided Schools or through competitive examination in Government Schools. But that could not mean where higher qualification was expressly and specifically prescribed for a particular post or posts, persons not having such prescribed qualification could be appointed against such specified posts. Rule 7 (c) of Recruitment Rules, 1974 read with Rule 7 (d) of the Subordinate Rules, 1972 pre- supposed that the posts of Assistant Teachers were not trained graduate posts. The situation changed with the issuance of Government Order No. 28465/EYS dated July 8, 1981 whereby new pattern of standard staff was introduced for all non-Government Secondary Schools with effect from July 1, 1981. 9. After July 1, 1981 all the posts of Assistant Teachers excepting the Classical Teachers and Hindi Teachers were made trained posts. The situation changed with the issuance of Government Order No. 28465/EYS dated July 8, 1981 whereby new pattern of standard staff was introduced for all non-Government Secondary Schools with effect from July 1, 1981. 9. After July 1, 1981 all the posts of Assistant Teachers excepting the Classical Teachers and Hindi Teachers were made trained posts. After introduction of the said new pattern expressly providing that the posts were trained posts, the schools were not free to appoint untrained Graduate or Intermediate or Matriculate as Assistant Teacher in Hindi School at their will excepting under unavoidable circumstances justifying appointment of untrained persons, such as non-availability of suitable trained graduate 10. Subsequent change in the situation may make provisions of a particular rule unusable under normal circumstances even though it -retains its place in the Rule Book and is not expressly repealed or modified. Eligibility or permissibility is only for consideration and it does not ipso facto give a right to get appointment or approval. Even where there is power, exercise of such power is also required to satisfy the test of reasonableness and good faith. Power is conferred with an object and such power can be exercised to achieve the object and not to defeat it. Assuming that power to appoint untrained persons continued even after introduction of new pattern, the management of School must justify appointment of an untrained person in a trained post. If appointment of untrained Graduate in trained Graduate posts are automatically allowed after July 1, 1981 without any justifying circumstances, it would make the new pattern totally redundant, produce undesirable results and affect the interest of the education inasmuch as it is an accepted position that teaching of student should be entrusted to appropriately trained teachers. The decision in Bibekananda Das's case cannot be said to have laid down any proposition that the management of the School was free to appoint untrained persons at their will without making any effort to get trained persons. According to us, after new pattern was introduced with effect from July 1, 1981, untrained persons could be appointed against trained post only under unavoidable circumstances justifying such appointment. 11. However, if any trained graduate was validly appointed in accordance with the prescribed process before July 1, 1981, his services could not be dispensed with without giving him reasonable opportunity and facility from getting himself trained. 12. 11. However, if any trained graduate was validly appointed in accordance with the prescribed process before July 1, 1981, his services could not be dispensed with without giving him reasonable opportunity and facility from getting himself trained. 12. Besides, the School was an un-aided private School till May 31,1994. Neither the Recruitment Rules of 1974 nor the Subordinate Service Rules of 1972 were directly applicable to the School. The petitioner was appointed on March 23, 1991 long after the standard pattern of 1981 was introduced. The notification dated July 8, 1981 introducing new pattern of standard staff was applicable to all non-Govt. Secondary Schools, aided or un-aided. Recruitment Rules, 1974 were applicable only to the teachers and members of staff of aided educational institutions. It further appears from the letter of the State Government dated July 11, 1995 (Annexure-A/4) that it was expressly made clear that only the teaching staff appointed in accordance with the recruitment procedures and having requisite qualifications would be approved for the purpose of giving grand-in-aid. The Government cannot be compelled to pay salary to a person who did not have the requisite qualification at the time of his appointment of even at the time of consideration for approval. The decision in OJC No. 1024 of 1990 relied on by Mr. Swain cannoi be applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case the writ petitioner was appointed on September 5, 1 980 i.e. before introduction ? of new standard pattern. The writ petitioner's appointment was also approved there on the condition that the writ petitioner would have to get herself trained within a period of two years. Said approval was cancelled subsequently before expiry of the two years period granted for securing training. In the said factual context, the writ application was allowed. The said decision cannot be of any help to the writ petitioner in the present case. 13. It appears that the writ petitioner herein was in fact given an opportunity to undergo B.Ed, training when his application was forwarded on June 27. 1995. Although more than two and half years had passed in the meantime, the petitioner failed to avail of the said opportunity and could not obtain B.Ed, qualification. Accordingly, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the action of the Superintendent of Sanskrit Studies in not approving the appointment of the petitioner. 14. 1995. Although more than two and half years had passed in the meantime, the petitioner failed to avail of the said opportunity and could not obtain B.Ed, qualification. Accordingly, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the action of the Superintendent of Sanskrit Studies in not approving the appointment of the petitioner. 14. However, in view of the fact that the petitioner has been admittedly serving the school from March 26. 1991 and at that point of time there was some confusion regarding the legal position, we, in the special facts and circumstances of this case and without intending to create any precedent are of the view that another opportunity should be given to the petitioner to obtain training. If the petitioner can obtain B.Ed, qualification by the next academic session for such training course, the Superintendent will approve the petitioner against the said trained graduate post and admit him to grant-in-aid. If the petitioner fails to obtain B.Ed, qualification within the aforesaid period, the School will be at liberty to appoint a trained graduate teacher in his place in accordance with the recruitment procedure. The petitioner will be allowed to .continue to serve the School for the said period i.e. til! the end of next academic session for B.Ed. Course, and the management, will pay his salary according to the untrained scale. The authorities concerned including the management of the School will provide necessary facility and opportunity to the petitioner to enable him to obtain B.Ed, qualification in the next academic Sessionn. 15. The writ application is thus disposed of. R.K. Patra, J. 16. I agree.