JUDGMENT : Pradip Mohanty, J. - The Petitioner in this writ application assails the validity of the order dated 1.6.1997. Annexure-7 by which the Headmaster of the Samanta Singhar High School, Balia, has communicated the decision of the inspector of Schools. Jaipur with regard to his designation as 4th Peon (Watchman-cum-Sweeper) 2. The Petitioner's case is that m pursuance of the resolution of the managing committee, he came to be appointed as 4th Peon on 11.8.1990 in the Samanta Singhar High School, Balia, in the district of Jaipur He joined the post and has been discharging his duty as such from that day without any break. The said school was notified to be an aided educational institution. By order dated 11.10.1991 in O.J.C. No. 4846 of 1991, this Court directed opposite party No. 2 the inspector of Schools, Jaipur Educational Circle, to consider the case of the Petitioner for approval. Therefore, on 17.12.1991 the Petitioner's post was approved with effect from 1.3.1991. As the Petitioner was not permitted to discharge his duty as Duftary by opposite party No. 1- the Headmaster of the School, he approached this Court in O.J.C. No. 7723 of 1995 for a direction to the opp. parties to allow him to discharge the duties as Duftry and to pay his arrear salary. After hearing the parties, this Court by order dated 30.8.1996 directed the opposite parties to permit me Petitioner to discharge the duties as 4th Peon (Duftry) and he was declared to be entitled to all his back wages. Subsequently, opposite party No. 2- the inspector of Schools filed misc. case No. 10326 of 1996 for modification of the above order. This Court after hearing the parties, modified the said order to the extent that, by regularisation of the services of the Petitioner against the post of 4th Peon, he would not be automatically treated as Duftry. The inspector of Schools, opposite party No. 2 has not filed any counter to the writ application inspite of repeated order. The appointment of the Petitioner on 11.8.1990 and his subsequent approval vide order dated 17.12.1991 has not been disputed by the opposite parties in any manner. 3. Mr. The inspector of Schools, opposite party No. 2 has not filed any counter to the writ application inspite of repeated order. The appointment of the Petitioner on 11.8.1990 and his subsequent approval vide order dated 17.12.1991 has not been disputed by the opposite parties in any manner. 3. Mr. Jena, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that, Rule 30(k) of the Orissa Education (Establishment Recognition and Management of Private Schools) Rules, 1991 corresponding to Rule 9(a) of the Orissa Education (Management of Private Schools) Rules, 1980 (since repealed) provides that the Managing Committee snail exercise the powers and discharge the functions like appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act the Rules and the Instructions of the Department. At the time of appointment of the Petitioner in the school as 4th Peon, the yardstick prescribed by the Government in the Educational and Youth Services Department letter No. 28465/EYS dated 8.7.1981 was in force which provided that if the roll strength of the school exceeded 100, one post of 4th Peon was admissible As the managing committee was required to make appointment as per the aforesaid yardstick, the Petitioner was appointment as 4th Peon and the roll strength of the school justified such appointment. The opposite party No. 2 the Inspector of Schools has also appointed the said post with effect from 1.3.1991. The learned Counsel for the opposite parties on the other hand, submitted that the Government letter No. 28465/EYS dated 8.7.1981 provides for admissibility of the post of Duftry and the said post being a promotional post, the Petitioner could not have been appointed straight way as Duftry. 4. In support of his case the learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the cases of Kamalakanta Kar. Vol. 88 (1999) C.L.T. 75 and Dipak Kumar Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa and Others Rule 30(k) of the Orissa Education (Establishment, Recognition and Management of Private Schools) Rules. 4. In support of his case the learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the cases of Kamalakanta Kar. Vol. 88 (1999) C.L.T. 75 and Dipak Kumar Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa and Others Rule 30(k) of the Orissa Education (Establishment, Recognition and Management of Private Schools) Rules. 1991 (corresponding to Rule 9(a) of the replaced Rules) prescribes that the managing committee shall exercise the power and discharge the functions like appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act; the Rules and the Instructions of the Department The relevant instructions issued by the Department with regard to fixation of the standard staff for non-Government Secondary Schools are contained in the Government of Orissa Education and Youth Services Department letter No. 28465/EYS dated 8.7.1981. From this letter a may be seen that sub-head (A), Serial No. 9, deals with Peon like. Office Peon Science Attendant, Night Watcher-cum-Sweeper. It seems that Science Attendant and Night Watcher-cum-Sweeper comes under Peon Similarly, under sub-head (C) additional posts or Clerks and Peons has been mentioned. It provides that it the roll strength of the school exceeds 100 one post of Duftry is admissible. 5. At this stage, we may notice the contention of the State counsel that the post of Duftry is a promotional post. He placed reliance in Government letter No. 36118/SME dated 13.11.1996 at Annexure-8. The effect of the said letter was considered by this Court in Dipak Kumar Sahoo (supra) and it was held that the norm for filling up of the post of Duftry in Government offices has been made applicable to High Schools (non-Government Aided Schools) for the first time under Annexure-8. By virtue of the said decision in Annexure-6 the post of Duftry in non-Government aided schools is to be filed up by way of promotion from among the peons etc Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no dispute that at the time of joining of the Petitioner the yardstick prescribed by the Government on letter No. 28465/EYS dated 8.7.1981 was in force which provided for admissibility of a 4th Peon (Duftry) if the roll strength of the school exceeded 100 On going through the materials on record we find that at the relevant time the roll strength of the school was more than 100. Therefore, the yardstick prescribed justifies appointment of a 4th Peon (Duftry) in the school 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the order in Annexure-7 is modified to the extent that the appointment of the Petitioner is to be treated as Duftry instead of Night Watchman-cum-Sweeper in the post of 4th Peon. The writ petition is accordingly allowed, but in the circumstance there will be no order as to cost. R.K. Patra, J. 7. I agree