JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanty, J. - The Petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a direction to be opposite parties to allow him Trained Graduate Scale of pay for the period from 21-8-71 to 27-1-75 after quashing Annexure-8 dated 11-5-93. 2. The case of the Petitioner in brief, is that he was appointed in a post of Matric C. T, by the Management of Gadadhar Academy High School on 6-4-59. After obtaining I.A. qualification, he was promoted and adjusted against I. A; C.T. post on 1-11-63 and allowed to draw I.A. C.T. scale of pay. The Petitioner claims that he passed B.A. examination on 20-7-69 and B. Ed. examination on 21-8-71. On introduction of the direct payment scheme, he was paid salary directly by the Government. Additional sections were opened in different classes due to increase of seats and one Raghunath Sahoo, who was an untrained Graduate was appointed on 1-8-68 against the I.A. C.T. post consequent upon opening of additional sections and after he became a trained Graduate, he was allowed to continue in the said post and accommodated in a Trained Graduate post without approval of the competent authorities. It is alleged that on 1-11-73, the authorities illegally reverted the Petitioner to a Matric C.T. post ignoring his claim for adjustment in the Trained Graduate Post and extended the benefit to the other teachers who were not entitled to get the said benefit: The grievance is that due to wrong adjustment of Sri Raghunath Sahoo against the fourth Trained Graduate Post from 25-8-71 to 27-1-75, die Petitioner has been deprived of the benefits and he was entitled to the said post from 25-8-71 and recommendations were made accordingly to the Government for creation of a temporary Trained Graduate Post for adjustment of the Petitioner from 25-8-71 to 27-1-75, but the same having been rejected illegally, the Petitioner has visited this Court for quashing the said order under Annexure-8 and granting him the benefits. 3. Opposite parties 2 and 3 have filed a comprehensive counter affidavit denying the claim of the Petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that Sri Raghunath Sahoo, a teacher of the school having acquired B. Ed. qualification earlier than the Petitioner, was allowed to draw Trained Graduate Scale of pay from the date he acquired the B. Ed. 3. Opposite parties 2 and 3 have filed a comprehensive counter affidavit denying the claim of the Petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that Sri Raghunath Sahoo, a teacher of the school having acquired B. Ed. qualification earlier than the Petitioner, was allowed to draw Trained Graduate Scale of pay from the date he acquired the B. Ed. qualification i.e. from 1-11-68 and there being no other post vacant, the Petitioner could not be adjusted against the post giving the scale. Pursuant to the order of the Director, Secondary Education, the Petitioner has been allowed to draw trained graduate scale of pay from a date when the vacancy is available i. e. from 28-1-75 and proposal for creation of supernumerary post for adjustment in the post of a Trained I Graduate Teacher for a period 21-8-71 to 27-1-75 was made but that has been rejected by order dated 11-5-93. It is asserted that in absence of a Trained Graduate Post available in the school from 25-8-71 to 27-1-75, even though the Petitioner acquired the qualification as a matter of right he is not entitled to the said post from the date he acquires the qualification. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed. It is asserted in the rejoinder affidavit that by the time the Petitioner passed B. Ed. Training course, a Trained Graduate Post was lying vacant and accordingly, the Managing Committee by its Resolution recommended the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the Inspector of Schools vide letter No. 26 dated 22-1-72, but the Inspector of School ignoring the seniority of the Petitioner and the recommendation of the Managing Committee, promoted Sri Ragunath Sahoo in the year 1974 with effect from 1-11-68. It is asserted further that said Raghunath Sahoo was appointed against a sectional post on opening of additional section in Class-VIII in the year 1968 and it was a term appointment. 4. In view of the rival contention of the learned Counsel for the parties, the question that emerges for consideration is, as to whether the 'petitioner -who was appointed against a Trained Matric Post having acquired the required Matric C.T. qualification is entitled to be adjusted against a higher post on acquiring higher qualification and that he is entitled to the Trained Graduate Post on acquiring the training qualification. The undisputed position is that the Petitioner was appointed as a Matric C.T. teacher on 6-4-59, which was approved by order of the Inspector of Schools dated 1-7-59. The Petitioner acquired I.A. qualification in the year 1963 and because of the available vacancy, he was promoted to the post of I.A. C.T. teacher on 1-11-63. The Petitioner acquired B.A. Degree in the year 1969 and passed B. Ed. examination on 21-8-71. On 1-11-73, the Petitioner was reverted to the Matric C.T. Post and one R.C. Prusty was adjusted against the said post. The Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Director arid the Director by order dated 13-9-92 held that the Petitioner is senior to Sri R.C. Prusty and is entitled to draw I.A. C.T. Scale.. 5. The Petitioner relies on the decision of the Director, Public Instruction(S), Orissa dated 13-9-82 under Annexure-1 to contend and claim that, since the Director has declared him senior to Sri Prusty and directed that, he should be declared so and extended I.A.C.T. scale with effect from 1-11-63, he was entitled to Trained Graduate Scale of pay with effect from 2-6-71, but he has illegally been denied such scale from that date and given the scale only from 27-1-75. The contention is wholly misconceived. The Director of Public Instruction(S) in his order dated 13-9-82 in Annexure-l has clearly directed in its penultimate paragraph in the following terms: It is therefore ordered that Sri C.S. Sahu is senior over Sri Prusty and he is due for I.A.C.T. scale with effect from 1-11-63. Now Sri Sahu is trained Graduate and he will get such post in case of vacancy in the school. The Inspector of Schools in his letter dated 5-11-82 addressed to. Director, Public Instruction(S) indicated that since there was no trained graduate past available in the school from 26-1-71 to 27-11-75, which was occupied by one Sri Raghunath Sahoo, the Petitioner could not be adjusted against any Trained Graduate Past. The Petitioner nowhere earlier to this writ application challenged the seniority of said Sri Raghunath Sahoo to claim that, he was entitled to the Trained Graduate past and that Sri Sahoo has also not been made a party either in the appeal be fare the Director or in this writ application.. The Petitioner nowhere earlier to this writ application challenged the seniority of said Sri Raghunath Sahoo to claim that, he was entitled to the Trained Graduate past and that Sri Sahoo has also not been made a party either in the appeal be fare the Director or in this writ application.. In that view of the matter whether the Petitioner was entitled to held a Trained Graduate Past or said Sri Raghunath Sahoo cannat be gone into the present petition. The past of a Trained Graduate Teacher during the relevant period between 26-1-71 and 27-1-75 was admittedly held by Sri R. Sahoo and as such, there existed no vacancy in the school to adjust the Petitioner in the Trained Graduate Post, he having necessary qualification to held the said past. The order of the Director dated 13-9-82 (Annexure-1) which is the truth card of the Petitioner, dearly directed that in case of a vacancy in the school, the Petitioner is to get such past. The Petitioner therefore could not claim any benefit under Annexure-I, the order of Directar. It appears that the entire subsequent correspondences centres round the order of Directar for creation of the past and therefore the rejection of the proposal by the State Government far creation of a Trained Graduate Past in the school during the aforesaid period cannot be faulted. 6. In that view of the matter, we find no merit in the writ application and hence, the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost. P.C. Naik, J. 7. I agree. Writ application dismissed. Final Result : Allowed