JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - This is an appeal u/s 24(c) of the Orissa Education (Amendment) Act, 1998 assailing the order dated 10th August, 2007 (Annexure-9) passed by the learned Presiding Officer, State Education Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar in GIA Case No. 82 of 2005. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the short facts of the case are as under: Indira Gandhi Mahavidyalaya, Jajpur Road in the district of Jajpur was established in the month of June, 1986. After establishment of the said college an advertisement was issued for filling up different posts, both teaching and non-teaching, including the post of Lecturer in Oriya. Pursuant to that advertisement, the Appellant and others had submitted applications. An interview was held on 27th July, 1987. The Appellant and Respondent No. 1 along with other candidates were called to the said interview. The selection committee, it is asserted, duly selected the Appellant for the post of Lecturer in Oriya and an appointment letter was issued to her on 1st August, 1987. In response to that appointment order the Appellant joined as lecturer on 3rd August, 1987 and her joining report was duly accepted by the Principal and the Secretary of the Governing Body of the college. The college received concurrence from the State Government in the month of January, 1988 and also affiliation from the Council of Higher Secondary Education on 16th November, 1988. While matter stood thus, the Orissa (Non-Government Colleges, Junior Colleges and Higher Secondary Schools) Graot-in-Aid Order, 1994 was promulgated with effect from 1st June, 1999. In consonance with the provisions of the said Order, the Governing Body of the college submitted its proposal to the Director in respect of teaching and non-teaching staff of the college for approval of the appointments and release of Grant-in-Aid. The Governing Body submitted the said proposal on the basis of its Resolution dated 28th July, 1987 treating the Petitioner as holder of the second post of Lecturer in Oriya and Respondent No. 1 as holder of the first post of Lecturer in Oriya. Being aggrieved by the said Resolution which, according to the Appellant, was not only erroneous but was also based on certain fabricated documents, she filed a representation before the Governing Body of the college. Being aggrieved by the said Resolution which, according to the Appellant, was not only erroneous but was also based on certain fabricated documents, she filed a representation before the Governing Body of the college. The Governing Body considering the representation passed Resolution dated 26th September, 1995 as per Annexure-2 to refer the matter to the Director of Higher Education to decide the dispute as to inter se seniority between the Appellant and Respondent No. 1. It is alleged that despite such request of the Governing Body, no action was taken by the authority concerned and the Appellant moved this Court in OJC No. 8268 of 1996. The said Writ application was disposed of on 26.8.1996 directing the authority concerned to take a decision in the matter within four months of the date of communication of the order. It is further alleged that after receipt of the direction of this Court the Director of Higher Education called upon the Appellant, Respondent No. 1 and the Governing Body to appear before him in person along with their relevant documents so as to enable him to determine the inter se seniority between the Appellant and Respondent No. 1. All the parties appeared before the Director and produced the relevant documents available with them. The Director after hearing the parties in person and going through the relevant records came to the conclusion that the Appellant was holder of the first post of Lecturer in Oriya being senior to Respondent No. 1. The said decision of the Director was communicated to the Governing Body by letter dated 14th May, 1997, vide Annexure-4. The decision of the Director was unanimously accepted by the Governing Body in its meeting held on 23rd May, 1997. The said resolution of the Governing Body was duly forwarded to the State Government for approval of the appointment of the Appellant against the first post of Lecturer in Oriya. Once again there was inordinate delay in taking decision by the State Government. Therefore the Appellant was constrained to move this Court vide OJC No. 16184 of 1997 praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus. Once again there was inordinate delay in taking decision by the State Government. Therefore the Appellant was constrained to move this Court vide OJC No. 16184 of 1997 praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus. This Court by order dated 18th December, 1976 directed the Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department (Respondent No. 2) to consider the recommendation made by the Director of Higher Education for approval of appointment of the Appellant as Lecturer in Oriya against the first post within six months from the date of receipt of the order. It appears that after disposal of the Writ application, Respondent No. 1 filed two applications in the said disposed of Writ application which Were registered as Misc. Case No. 15416 of 1997 and Misc. Case No. 15217 of 1998 praying to recall the order. Both the Misc. Cases were heard together by a Division Bench of this Court and by order dated 5.12.1998 the same were rejected, but then this Court observed that the Secretary would consider the case of Respondent No. 1 along with that of the Appellant for approval. After receiving Rule, the Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, issued notice to the Appellant, Respondent No. 1 and the Principal of the College, and directed the Principal to produce the records. After hearing the parties, the State Government accorded approval to the appointment of the Appellant as Lecturer in Oriya against the first post, vide Annexure-7. Respondent No. 1 being aggrieved by the said decision filed OJC No. 9344 of 1997 before this Court with a prayer to declare her as the senior-most Lecturer in Oriya and to issue necessary direction to the State authorities for releasing Grant-in-Aid in her favour. After hearing, in view of clear provision of Section 24B of the Orissa Education (Amendment) Act, this Court disposed of the Writ application with observation that if the parties so liked they might move the Education Tribunal for effectual redress. Thereafter Respondent No. 1 filed application u/s 24B of the Orissa Education (Amendment) Act with a prayer to quash the order of approval made in favour of the Appellant and prayed for a declaration that she was holder of the first post of Lecturer in Oriya. After receiving notice from the Tribunal, the Appellant, the Governing Body and others appeared before the Tribunal and filed their respective objections and the relevant documents. After receiving notice from the Tribunal, the Appellant, the Governing Body and others appeared before the Tribunal and filed their respective objections and the relevant documents. The Tribunal after discussing the materials in extensocame to the conclusion that several manipulations were noticed in the selection list and it was not safe to rely on the same. It further observed that soon after the interview, as would be apparent, the list was produced before the Governing Body and the Governing Body in its resolution dated 28th July, 1987 considered the same and categorically mentioned that Respondent No. 1 had secured First position and the Appellant had been placed in the Second position. The said resolution further revealed that in view of the fact that MIL and Oriya were two subjects, both Respondent No. 1 and the Appellant were to be appointed. On the basis of such document, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that in the interview Respondent No. 1 had secured the first post and was appointed against that post and the Appellant had secured the second post and was appointed against that post. Relying upon the representation filed by the Appellant, vide Annexure-10, the Tribunal observed that she had prayed to step into the first post on the ground that she had better marks in the Master Degree examination. In other words, she had accepted her position as 'Second' in the interview and therefore had made the representation to be treated as holder of the first post for having secured better marks. The Tribunal further observed that if she was treated all along to be holder of first post, there was no necessity for her to make such a representation. On the basis of such discussion the Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the Government and held that Respondent No. 1 was entitled to Grand-in-Aid as due and admissible to her. The said order, as stated earlier, is assailed in this Writ Petition. 3. In course of hearing, Mr. Misra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Appellant, forcefully submitted that the minimum eligibility required for appointment as Lecturer was 55% of marks in P.G. Degree Examination. Thus Respondent No. 1 who had secured 54% was not eligible. The said order, as stated earlier, is assailed in this Writ Petition. 3. In course of hearing, Mr. Misra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Appellant, forcefully submitted that the minimum eligibility required for appointment as Lecturer was 55% of marks in P.G. Degree Examination. Thus Respondent No. 1 who had secured 54% was not eligible. Further it is submitted that the Governing Body after considering the representation filed by the Appellant had varied its earlier resolution placing Respondent No. 1 in the first post and had referred the matter to the Director. The Director, after scrutinizing all the documents and hearing the parties, had arrived at the conclusion that the Appellant ought to have been appointed against the first post. The said decision of the Director had been approved by the Governing Body and the State Government. As such, the Tribunal acted illegally and with material irregularity in unsettling a settled position. According to Mr. Misra, the Appellant being a better qualified and more meritorious candidate ought to have been absorbed against the first post and Respondent No. 1 against the second post. 4. The submissions of Mr. Misra are strongly repudiated by Miss Panda, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1. According to her, the minimum eligibility of mark for being appointed as a Lecturer was 54% as decided by the State Government. Respondent No. 1 had secured such mark in the P.G. Degree Examination and it cannot said that she was not eligible. She further submitted that as Respondent No. 1 had satisfied the eligibility criteria she was called to the interview along with the Appellant and other candidates. In the interview her performance being better than the Appellant she was placed at S.I. No. 1 in the select list. Thus for determining seniority of the candidates what was material was the position secured in the interview and not the marks secured in P.G. Degree Examination. She further submitted that the Governing Body after appointing Respondent No. 1 against the first post had committed an error in referring the matter to the Director who had absolutely no jurisdiction to change the position in the select list. The Tribunal considered all the facts and submissions and the conclusions arrived at by it are just and proper and call for interference of this Court. 4. This Court heard learned Counsel for all the parties. The Tribunal considered all the facts and submissions and the conclusions arrived at by it are just and proper and call for interference of this Court. 4. This Court heard learned Counsel for all the parties. A perusal of the select list and other documents reveals that there was in fact some over-writings and manipulations and the same cannot be safely relied upon. To be sure as to what was the required percentage of marks as decided by the State Government for the post of Lecturer in an Aided +2 College, this Court had directed the State counsel to obtain instructions. On instruction Mr. Das, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate submitted that 54% marks in the P.G. Degree Examination was the eligibility criteria. Thus there is no controversy that both Appellant and Respondent No. 1 were eligible. The only point that needs determination is as to who stood first in the interview. The Tribunal after verifying the records and being satisfied that the same had been tampered with at later stage, basing upon the decision of the Governing Body soon after the interview and the Resolution dated 28th July, 1997 held that Respondent No. 1 was placed at Sl. No. 1 of the select list and Appellant at Sl. No. 2. This conclusion was fortified by the representation filed by the Appellant (Annexure-10) wherein she had clearly stated that she having better marks in P.G. Degree Examination ought to have been placed at Sl. No. 1. In other words, she had admitted that she had been placed at Sl. No. 2 in the select list. This Court further finds that the Governing Body of the college being the appointing authority was competent to decide the inter se seniority of its staff. The Director had absolutely no role to play in the matter. Therefore after taking a decision and passing a Resolution on 28th July, 1997, there was absolutely no reason for the Governing Body to refer the matter to the Director to decide the dispute of inter se seniority. Even otherwise the Director having no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute the decision taken by him was a nullity in the eye of law. Before parting, this Court observes that after completion of interview, the Governing Body took a decision and passed a Resolution on 28th July, 1997 placing Respondent No. 1 at Sl. No. 1. Even otherwise the Director having no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute the decision taken by him was a nullity in the eye of law. Before parting, this Court observes that after completion of interview, the Governing Body took a decision and passed a Resolution on 28th July, 1997 placing Respondent No. 1 at Sl. No. 1. Thereafter for reasons best known, endeavour was made to manipulate the selection records and select list. Such fact coupled with the representation filed by the Appellant to place her at Sl. No. 1 in the select list she having secured higher marks in P.G. Degree Examination conclusively leads this Court to believe that she had been placed at Sl. No. 2. 5. Looking at the matter from any angle, this Court finds that the finding of the Tribunal that Respondent No. 1 was placed at Sl. No. 1 in the select list and Appellant at Sl. No. 2 suffers from no error apparent on the face of records calling for any interference of this Court. This Court therefore declines to interfere in the matter and dismisses the Writ Petition. Final Result : Dismissed