JUDGMENT L. MOHAPATRA, J. — The Managing Committee of the Maa Mangala Girls High School is the petitioner before this Court praying for a direction to quash the order in Annexure-8 wherein the Inspector of Schools, Keonjhar Circle, Keonjhar vide order dated 31.7.1993 has directed the petitioner to allow opposite party No.4 to discharge her duties in the school as a Classical Teacher as well as for a further direction to the opposite party No.3 to approve the appointment of one Sikhamanjari Bhuyan as the Classical Teacher in the school. 2. The case of the petitioner is that Maa Mangala Girls High School was established in the month of July, 1987 and is an unaided recognised private institution. As per the yardstick pre¬scribed by the State Government in 1981 for non-Government schools a post of Classical Teacher (Sanskrit Teacher) is admis¬sible. The qualification prescribed for the post is Sahityacha¬rya. The further case of the petitioner is that one Smt. Sabita Nanda had been appointed as Classical Teacher by the Managing Committee and after she acquired B.Ed. qualification, she was adjusted against the post of a Trained Graduate Teacher on 4.8.1988. The vacancy created was filled up by appointing one Smt. Kalyani Jena on 8.10.90 who continued to hold the post till June, 1992 whereafter she resigned and left the school. Smt. Kalyani Jena during her service in the school was frequently taking leave for her illness and, therefore, on the request of opposite party No.4 the petitioner allowed opposite party No.4 to teach during the absence of Smt. Kalyani Jena. The opposite party No.4 had given an impression to the petitioner that she is Sahi¬tyacharya. After resignation of Smt. Kalyani Jena was accepted, the petitioner notified for appointment to the post of Classical Teacher and invited applications for such appointment. Pursuant to such notice, four candidates appeared in the interview but the opposite party No.4 did not appear in the interview. Later on it came to the notice of the Managing Committee that opposite party No.4 not being a Sahityacharya, did not participate in the interview and she was only having Sashtri qualification. In the interview out of the four candidates one Sikhamanjari Bhuyan secured the highest mark and was selected for appointment. Later on it came to the notice of the Managing Committee that opposite party No.4 not being a Sahityacharya, did not participate in the interview and she was only having Sashtri qualification. In the interview out of the four candidates one Sikhamanjari Bhuyan secured the highest mark and was selected for appointment. As per the recommendation of the selection committee, appointment order was issued in favour of Sikhamanjari Bhuyan pursuant to the resolution of the managing committee on 29.8.92 and Smt. Bhuyan joined the post on 1.9.92. It is also the case of the petitioner that while sending the form for renewal of recognition of the school by the Board inadvert¬ently the Headmaster of the school mentioned the name of opposite party No.4 as Classical teacher working in the institution from 20th May,1992 though in fact she had never been appointed by the managing committee and worked in the school during absence of Smt. Kalyani Jena. It is the case of the petitioner that since the opposite party No.4 did not have the requisite qualification, she could not have been appointed in the post. In view of such mistake committed by the Headmaster, the Board intimated the Headmaster to fulfil the deficiency pointed out by the Board so far as the opposite party No.4 is concerned and in reply to the said letter of the Board, the Headmaster of the school intimated on 26.2.93 that Smt. Sikhamanjari Bhuyan a qualified teacher has already been appointed and deficiency pointed out by the Board has been rectified by the petitioner. However, taking advantage of such a mistake committed by the Headmaster, the opposite party No.4 approached this Court in O.J.C. No.91 of 1993 alleging therein that even though she had been appointed by the managing committee as Classical Teacher, she is not being allowed to dis¬charge her duties. The said writ application was disposed of at the stage of admission directing the opposite party No.4 to move either the Inspector of Schools, Keonjhar Circle or Director, Secondary Education, Orissa ventilating her grievance and further it was directed that if any such move is made, the authorities before whom such grievance are made shall deal with the same expeditiously. The said writ application was disposed of at the stage of admission directing the opposite party No.4 to move either the Inspector of Schools, Keonjhar Circle or Director, Secondary Education, Orissa ventilating her grievance and further it was directed that if any such move is made, the authorities before whom such grievance are made shall deal with the same expeditiously. After disposal of the said writ application on 11.1.93, the opposite party No.4 filed an application before the Inspector of Schools and an inspection was conducted by the Assistant Inspector of Schools on 23.3.93 and the school docu¬ments were verified. On the basis of Schools, the impugned order in Annexure-8 was passed by the Inspector of Schools, the im¬pugned order in Annexure-8 was passed by the Inspector of Schools, Keonjhar Circle directing the petitioner to allow the opposite party No.4 to discharge her duties as a Classical Teach¬er in the school. It was observed in the letter that a candidate who has passed Acharya Degree in “Dharmasastra” from Shri Jagan¬nath Sanskrit Biswavidyalaya is eligible for appointment to the post of Classical Teacher in Aided High Schools and opposite party No.4 having obtained the Degree in “Dharmasastra” should be treated to have requisite qualification. the said order passed by the Inspector of Schools is challenged by the Managing Committee on the ground that opposite party No.4 had never been appointed by the Managing Committee at any point of time and on her request she was only allowed to take classes during the absence of Smt. Jena. The order in Annexure-8 is also challenged on the ground that the opposite party No.4 having not got the requisite quali¬fication could not have been directed to be appointed against the post of Classical Teacher and the Inspector of Schools had no jurisdiction to pass such order. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party Nos.1 to 3 wherein it is stated that after disposal of the writ application filed by the opposite party No.4 an inspection was conducted and the records of the school indicated that on the basis of verbal order issued in favour of opposite party No.4 she was working in the school. Reliance is placed by the opposite party Nos.1 to 3 on the report of the Assistant Inspector of Schools wherein it is indicated that in the form for renewal of recognition the name of opposite party No.4 appeared as a Classi¬cal Teacher and it was also stated therein that she had appeared at the Sahityacharya examination in 1992 and result had not been published. Similar is the stand taken by the opposite party No.4 in her counter. 4. Shri J.K. Rath, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the school being an unaided recognised private school, the opposite party No.4 could have only filed an appeal before the Director, Secondary Education, Orissa and the Inspector of Schools had absolutely no jurisdiction to hold an inquiry and pass orders directing the Managing Committee to allow the opposite party No.4 to work in the school. It was also sub¬mitted by Shri Rath that opposite party No.4 having not obtained requisite qualification of Sahityacharya, she did not appear in the inter¬view and, therefore, she was not eligible to be appointed against the post. The learned counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, submitted that since the records of the school indi¬cate appointment of opposite party No.4 as a Classical Teacher, the said report was accepted and the Inspector of Schools as per direction of this Court in O.J.C. No.91 of 1993 passed the order in Annexure-8 and, therefore, it cannot be said that the Inspec¬tor of Schools had neither any jurisdiction to pass such order nor was unjustified in passing the said order. 5. The averments made in the writ application that ini¬tially the post of Classical Teacher had been filled up by ap¬pointing one Sabita Nanda is not in dispute. There is also no dispute that after Sabita Nanda was adjusted against the post of Trained Graduate Teacher, one Smt. Kalyani Jena was appointed as Classical Teacher. It also appears that Smt. Kalyani Jena was remaining absent due to her illness and the opposite party No.4 was allowed to take classes during the absence of Smt. Jena. There is also no dispute that after the resignation of Smt. Kalyani Jena was accepted by the Managing committee, an interview was conducted for filling up the post and the Opposite party No.4 never appeared in the said interview. There is also no dispute that after the resignation of Smt. Kalyani Jena was accepted by the Managing committee, an interview was conducted for filling up the post and the Opposite party No.4 never appeared in the said interview. There is no dispute that in the said interview one Sikhamanjari Bhuyan was selected and was appointed against the post of Classical Teacher. From the aver¬ments made in the writ application as well as the counter affida¬vit, it appears that the name of opposite party No.4 was included in the form submitted by the Headmaster of the school before the Board for renewal of recognition. On the basis of such inclusion of the name of opposite party No.4 showing her to have been appointed as a Classical Teacher it was submitted by the learned counsel that if opposite party No.4 had not been appointed by the Managing Committee as a Classical Teacher, there was no occasion for the Headmaster to include her name in the list of teachers working in the school when the form was submitted for renewal of recognition. We are unable to accept this contention since not only the opposite party No.4 has failed to produce any appoint¬ment letter but also the opposite parties 1 to 3 have taken a stand in the counter affidavit that the appointment of opposite party No.4 was verbal one. We have already expressed that no appointment can ever be made verbally. Rather the stand of the petitioner that a mistake was committed by the Headmaster by including opposite party No.4 appears to be more probable as the opposite party No.4 according to the petitioner had been allowed to take classes during absence of Smt. Kalyani Jena and no order of appointment had ever been issued in her favour. Apart from above, it appears that the opposite party No.4 did not have the requisite qualification of Sahityacharya. In Annexure-8 the Inspector of Schools has observed that a person who has obtained a Degree in Dharmasastra from Shri Jagannath Sanskrit Biswavidya¬laya is eligible for appointment to the post of Classical Teacher in aided schools and therefore, the said qualification should be treated as the requisite qualification for appointment as Classi¬cal Teacher. No material is placed before the Court either by the State Government or by the opposite party No.4 to show that a Degree in ‘Sahityacharya’ is equivalent to a Degree in ‘Dharma¬sastra’. No material is placed before the Court either by the State Government or by the opposite party No.4 to show that a Degree in ‘Sahityacharya’ is equivalent to a Degree in ‘Dharma¬sastra’. In absence of any such document or material, it is difficult for us to accept the contention of the opposite parties that a person holding Degree in Dharmasastra is also eligible to be appointed as Classical Teacher. Admittedly the opposite party No.4 does not have the requisite qualification of Sahityacharya for appointment as a Classical Teacher and therefore, she could not have been appointed as a Classical Teacher in the school. The ques¬tion with regard to the jurisdiction of the Inspector in passing the impugned order is not considered as this Court had given liberty to the opposite party No.4 to either approach the Inspec¬tor or Director, Secondary Education, Orissa and, therefore, no fault can be found with the opp.party No.4 in approaching the Inspector. Though we agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Inspector is not the proper authority and an appeal should have been filed before the Director, Secondary Education, Orissa in view of the earlier direction of this Court directing the opposite party No.4 to approach the either forum, we do not find any fault with the opposite party No.4 in ap¬proaching the Inspector of Schools. However, in view of our finding that the opposite party No.4 did not have the requisite qualification for appointment as a Classical Teacher and that inclu¬sion of her name as a Classical Teacher in the form submitted before the Board for renewal of recognition does not give her a right to contend that she had been validly appointed by the Managing Committee as a Classical Teacher, we find no reason to sustain the order passed by the Inspector of Schools in Annexure-8. Accordingly, we allow the writ application and quash Annexure-8. 6. It appears from the order-sheet that along with the writ application Misc. Case No.5426 of 1993 had been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to stay operation of the order in Annexure-8 and it was contended before the Court that one Sikhamanjari Bhuyan has been appointed against the post of a Classical Teacher and therefore there is no vacancy against which opposite party No.4 could be permitted to discharge her duties. Case No.5426 of 1993 had been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to stay operation of the order in Annexure-8 and it was contended before the Court that one Sikhamanjari Bhuyan has been appointed against the post of a Classical Teacher and therefore there is no vacancy against which opposite party No.4 could be permitted to discharge her duties. This Court had not accepted the contention for stay operation of Annexure-8, but on the other hand directed that neither Sikhamanjari Bhuyan nor opposite party No.4 would be paid any salary until disposal of the writ application. The order passed by the Court on 27.9.93 continued till today. Since there was no order directing stay operation of Annexure-8 and no material was placed before us to show as to whether Sikhamanjari Bhuyan or the opposite party No.4 is continuing against the post of a Classical Teacher, we direct that the salary for the period from 27.9.93 till the delivery of judgment shall be paid to the teacher who was in fact discharging the duties of a Classical Teacher during the period. It is found that all through this period Sikhamanjari Bhuyan was working as Classical Teacher or for any part of the period, between 27.9.93 till the date of delivery of judgment, she shall be paid salary for the period she worked and it also equally applies to the opposite party No.4 provided she has worked in the school as Classical Teacher pursuant to Annexure-8 in between 27.9.93 till the date of delivery of judgment. The petitioner on the basis of records available before it shall take a decision with regard to payment of the salary and pay the salary in accordance with the direction of this Court within a period of six months from the date such decision is taken. P. K. MOHANTY, J. I agree. Application allowed.