ORDER CA No. 4890 of 2002 1. Aggrieved against the order of the High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent 1") and directing the State of Orissa, the appellants herein, to approve the appointment of Respondent 1 as Headmaster of Bhagabati High School (Respondent 2) and allow him the Headmasters scale of pay w.e.f. the date he is entitled to the said scale, the present appeal has been filed. 2. The brief facts are: Respondent 2 Bhagabati High School was established in the year 1981-82. Respondent 1 was appointed as Assistant Teacher in that School although he did not have the requisite qualification of BEd. He was promoted to the post of Headmaster by the management of the School on 11-11-1984. 3. At that point of time, the School was not a recognised institution. The School was recognised by the appellant State on 10-12-1984. The Board recognised the School on 3-10-1985. Regulation 17 of Chapter IX of the Regulations of the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa provided that only a trained graduate in Arts or Science with minimum seven years of experience after training could be appointed as a Headmaster. On 9-3-1990, Respondent 1 completed seven years of experience as a trained teacher. On 22-5-1995, the respondent was appointed by the management of the School again as Headmaster w.e.f. 9-3~1990. The School was given the grant-in-aid on 29-9-1995 w.e.f. 1-6-1994. 4. Before the School came into the fold of grant-in-aid in the year 1994, the staffing pattern of the School was approved by the appellant State. Respondent 1 was not given the pay scale of the Headmaster as he did not comply with the requirements of the Grant-in-Aid Scheme. Respondent 1, therefore, filed OIC No. 7999 of 1996 in the Orissa High Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the State to grant him the Headmasters pay scale. 5. The appellant State did not file its written statement. Relying upon a judgment of this Court in Pabitra Mohan Dash v. State of Orissa1 the case projected by the appellants was that the respondent was not qualified to be given the pay scale of Headmaster as he had not completed seven years of training as a teacher before his appointment as Headmaster. Relying upon a judgment of this Court in Pabitra Mohan Dash v. State of Orissa1 the case projected by the appellants was that the respondent was not qualified to be given the pay scale of Headmaster as he had not completed seven years of training as a teacher before his appointment as Headmaster. Further, without having regard to Rule 8(3) of the Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Services of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974 (for short "the Rules"), he could not be appointed as Headmaster because vacancies in the posts of Headmasters of aided boys high schools and Headmistresses of girls high schools and Readers, including Principals of aided colleges under the fold of the "system of direct payment of full salary cost", were to be filled up by the eligible trained graduates of respective categories of schools as Headmasters and Headmistresses of the respective categories of schools belonging to the common cadre of the aided school teachers as per seniority. This rule provided that a common-cadre seniority list will be maintained of all the eligible teachers and they would be appointed as Headmasters on their turn according to their seniority. The respondent was at Serial No.9 of the seniority list of the common cadre. Therefore, he could not be appointed as Headmaster out of turn and would be appointed only on his turn as per his seniority in the common cadre. 6. In Pabitra Mohan Dash casel it was held that it was obligatory for every institution to have a Headmaster who must be a trained graduate and must have seven years teaching experience as a trained teacher before his appointment as Headmaster and if any appointment is made contrary to the aforesaid provisions of the Regulations, subsequent to 29-5-1977, then, the said appointment would be invalid appointment and would not confer any right on the appointee. 7. The High Court held that the decision of this Court in Pabitra Mohan a Dash casel was not applicable to the facts of the present case as the respondent was promoted to the post of Headmaster by the institution on 11-11-1984 when the institution was a private, unrecognised and unaided institution. Since it was an unrecognised institution, it was lawful for the management to appoint even an untrained teacher as the Headmaster. Since it was an unrecognised institution, it was lawful for the management to appoint even an untrained teacher as the Headmaster. The institution came within the fold of grant-in-aid in the year 1995 (the year in which the order was passed) and the Managing Committee confirmed the status of the respondent as a regular Headmaster on 22-5-1995 w.e.f. the date he had completed seven years of experience as a trained teacher i.e. in the year 1990. 8. We have heard the counsel for the parties at length. 9. This Court in Pabitra Mohan Dash easel categorically held that: (SCC pp. 486-87, para 3) "3. ... It is to be noticed that schools whether private or aided or government will have to get recognition from the Board of Secondary Education without which it would not be permissible for the institution to present its candidates at the annual High School Certificate Examination and necessarily, therefore, the institution will be entitled to get recognition only if it has the required number of staff with the prescribed qualification and consequently a Headmaster will have to be a Trained Graduate in Arts or Science with 7 years teaching experience after becoming such a Trained Graduate. Though the Regulations framed under the Board of Secondary Education Act prescribed the qualification for the post of a Headmaster neither the Education Act nor the Recruitment Rules of 1974 framed in exercise of powers under the Act of 1969 deal with or prescribe the qualification for the appointment of the Headmaster of a high school. Rule 8 of the Recruitment Rules, however, provides exception to the selection by the Board and Rule 8(3) of the said Rules provides the procedure for filling up of the vacancies in the post of Headmaster and the aforesaid Rule 8(3) came on 3-6-1988. As has been stated earlier, under the Orissa Education Code the prescribed qualification for the post of Headmaster of a school was merely a Trained Graduate whereas with effect from 29-5-1977 the prescribed qualification for the post of Headmaster under the regulations framed under the Board of Secondary Education Act became a trained Science or Arts graduate with 7 years of teaching experience after becoming a Trained Graduate. Since the provisions of the Regulations, Act and the Rules are complementary to each other, it must necessarily be held that no school can have a Headmaster after 29-5-1977 who does not possess the qualification of 7 years of teaching experience as a Trained Graduate Teacher." and again in para 7, it was observed: (SCC p. 491) "It is not disputed that with effect from 29-5-1977 Regulation 17 in the Board of Secondary Education has been brought into force which makes it obligatory for every institution to have a Headmaster who must be a Trained Graduate and must have 7 years of teaching experience as a Trained Graduate Teacher. If subsequent to 29-5-1977 any appointment has been made to the post of Headmaster contrary to the aforesaid provisions of the regulation then the said appointment would be invalid appointment and would not confer any right on the appointee. The expression approval used in the second direction in Golakh Chandra Mohanty case2 is referable to the approval contemplated under Rule 8(2)(b) of the Recruitment Rules and, therefore, if there has been an approval by the Director then in such a case the appointment made after the prior approval would not be invalidated." 10. The point in issue in the present case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Pabitra Mohan Dash easel and, therefore the High Court erred in taking a view contrary to the law laid down by this Court. 11. Counsel for Respondent 1 contended that he was reappointed by the management on 22-5-1995 w.e.f. the year 1990, whereas the order of grant-in-aid is dated 29-9-1995 when the respondent was already in position and working as Headmaster and, therefore, Rule 8(3) of the Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974 would not be applicable. We do not find any merit in this submission. The order of grant-in-aid dated 29-9-1995 was to come into effect w.e.f. 1-6-1994. Rule 8(3) of the 1974 Rules would be made applicable to Respondent 1 as well as Respondent 2 School w.e.f. 1-6-1994 and, therefore, his reappointment on 22-5-1995 would not be in accordance with the Rules applicable to the School as on that date. The order of grant-in-aid dated 29-9-1995 was to come into effect w.e.f. 1-6-1994. Rule 8(3) of the 1974 Rules would be made applicable to Respondent 1 as well as Respondent 2 School w.e.f. 1-6-1994 and, therefore, his reappointment on 22-5-1995 would not be in accordance with the Rules applicable to the School as on that date. His initial appointment as Headmaster in the year 1984 was also bad in law as he had not completed seven years of teaching experience as on that date. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed and the order under challenge is set aside. 13. No costs. CA No. 5919 of 2002 14. For the reasons stated in CA No. 4890 of 2002, this appeal is also allowed and the order under challenge is set aside. No costs.