JUDGMENT : B.N. Mahapatra, J. - This appeal has been filed by the State of Orissa challenging an Order Dated 22.3.2001 passed by a Learned Single Judge of this Court in O.J.C. No. 8379 of 1997 wherein the eligibility to receive the grant-in-aid has been held to be from the date of initial appointment of the Respondent and not from the date when he acquired the requisite qualification. By the impugned order the Learned Single Judge has issued direction to the Appellants to release the salary of the Respondent from 1.6.1985 to 31.5.1907 towards 1/3rd grant-in-aid, from 1.6.1987 to 31,5.1989 towards 2/3rds grant-in-aid and from 1.6.1989 to 23.9.1990 towards full salary cost within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order. 2. The facts of the case which give rise to the present appeal are as follows: Swarnachuda College, Mitrapur in the district of Balasore in which the Respondent was working as a lecturer in English during the relevant period, received concurrence of the Government and affiliation of Utkal University for opening of Intermediate of Arts with 128 seats from the academic session 1979-80. The first post of lecturer in English was admissible to the college from that year. The said post was occupied by qualified lecturers from 1.12,1979 to 31.5.1985. The said college was eligible to receive grant-in-aid from the State Government @ 1/3rd from 1.6.1985. The present Respondent joined as lecturer in English against the aforesaid post on 1.6.1985 on being appointed by the Governing Body of the said college. On the date of joining the Respondent did not possess requisite qualification as prescribed by the State Government vide its resolution dated 13.9.1983. The Respondent acquired higher research degree in M.Phil in the year 1990 which is in conformity with the Government resolution dated 13.9.1983. 3. The lis between the parties is with regard to the date from which the, Respondent is eligible to get grant-in-aid salary. According to the Appellants, the Respondent is eligible to get grant-in-aid salary from 25.9.1990 when he acquired the requisite qualification, i.e. M.Phil degree. But according to the Respondent he is entitled to get grant-in-aid salary from the date of his joining i.e. from 1.6.1985 from which date Swarnachuda College was eligible to receive grantrin-aid from the State Government. 4. According to the Appellants, the Respondent is eligible to get grant-in-aid salary from 25.9.1990 when he acquired the requisite qualification, i.e. M.Phil degree. But according to the Respondent he is entitled to get grant-in-aid salary from the date of his joining i.e. from 1.6.1985 from which date Swarnachuda College was eligible to receive grantrin-aid from the State Government. 4. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants submitted that the Learned Single Judge while disposing of the Writ Petition relied on the Judgments/orders passed in O.J.C. No. 2203 of 1996 in the case of Nimai Charan Sahoo and Ors. v. State and Ors. and O.J.C. No. 6102 of 1995 in the case of Bijaya Kumar Patra v. State of Orissa and Ors.. The State Government flied Special Leave Petitions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the orders passed in the above two Writ Petitions bearing SLP No. 4282 of 1998 and SLP(C) No. CC-1150-1151 of 1999. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Judgment dated 9.1.2001 set aside the order passed by the High Court of Orissa in the case of Nimai Charan Sahoo (supra) and remitted the matter-back to this Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law after examination of facts under the provisions contained in Orissa Education Act as amended from 4.7.1994 and Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994. S.L.P.(C) Nos. CC-1150-1151 of 1999 filed against the order passed in the cases of Bijaya Kumar Paira (supra) were dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground of delay. He vehemently argued that these facts were not brought to the notice of the Learned Single Judge of the Writ Court at the time of hearing of the Writ Petition for which the Learned Judge of the Writ Court passed the Order Dated 22.3.2001 relying on the earlier order passed by this Court in the case of Nimai Charan Sahoo (supra). Learned Counsel for the Appellants further submitted that in view of Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Order Dated 31st March, 1997 passed in C.A. No. 2666 of 1997 in the case of State of Orissa v. Damodar Nayak and Ors. an employee of an aided college will be eligible to the benefit of grant-in-ald from the date he acquires the requisite qualification. an employee of an aided college will be eligible to the benefit of grant-in-ald from the date he acquires the requisite qualification. This view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also been reiterated in a Full Bench decision of this Court passed in Civil Review No. 87 of 1996 disposed of on 5.5.1998 arising out of O.J.C. No. 1519 of 1994 in the case of State of Orissa v. Pranaya Kumar Mohapatra. In concluding his argument he submitted that since the Respondent did hot possess the requisite qualification on the date of his appointment i.e. on 1.6.1985 which he acquired on a subsequent date i.e. on 25.9.1990, the Learned single Judge was hot justified in directing the Appellants to release salary from 1.6.1985 and onwards as stated above. 5. Per contra, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent strenuously argued that the order passed by the Learned single Judge is in accordance with law and needs interference by this Court. He submitted that the post of lecturer in English became eligible to receive 1/3rd grant-iri-aid with effect from 1.6.1985 from which date the Respondent was working in the said college as a lecturer in English and therefore he was eligible to get 1/3rd grant-in-aid salary from the date of his joining. He further submitted that the Learned single Judge referring to the order of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bijay Kumar Patra v. State of Orissa and Ors. (supra) has passed the impugned order. In said case this Court clearly held that merely because a lecturer had secured less than the required percentage of marks in his Post-Graduate Examination, his services did not stand wiped out. Against the said order the State filed a review petition bearing Civil Review No. 326 of 1996 which was dismissed vide Order Dated 4.3.1998. Thereafter, the State moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C) Nos. CC-1150 and 1151 of 1999 which was also dismissed. He further submitted that ill the present case, the post Was created/admissible from 1979-80 and occupied by dlfferent lecturers till 1.6.1985 when the present Respondent was appointed and therefore, the Learned single Judge held that five years was to be calculated from the date of creation of the post and not from the date of appointment of the incumbent. He further submitted that ill the present case, the post Was created/admissible from 1979-80 and occupied by dlfferent lecturers till 1.6.1985 when the present Respondent was appointed and therefore, the Learned single Judge held that five years was to be calculated from the date of creation of the post and not from the date of appointment of the incumbent. He further submitted that the Learned single Judge in his order also referred to the case of Nimain Ch. Sahoo v. State of Orissa (supra). The said case was set aside in a batch of cases by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on a different ground i.e. with regard to the interpretation Of the Orissa Education (Amendment) Act 1994. But the Respondent's case was governed under an old set of grant-in-aid principle made vide circular dated 17.3.1983. He further argued that the two other Judgments i.e. State of Orissa and Anr. v. Damodar Nayak and Anr. (supra) and State of Orissa v. Pranaya Kumar Mohapatra, (supra) relied on by Appellants has no application to the present case since those were cases for release of grant-in-order under 1994 Grant-in-Aid Order. Besides, the point which has been decided in the case of Bijaya Kumar Patra (supra) and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has never been touched or referred to in any of the above two Judgments relied on by the Appellants. Concluding his argument, he submitted that only certain financial benefits accrued in favour of the Respondent by virtue of the Judgment of the Hon'ble single Judge from the date of his appointment till 1990 which should have been released by the Appellants in favour of the Respondent instead of filing this appeal which is otherwise not maintainable. On the above backdrop, the question which falls for consideration by this Court is as follows: Whether a lecturer in an aided college is entitled to the benefit of grant-in-aid salary with effect from the date of his initial appointment or from the date of his acquiring requisite qualification as prescribed by tine State Government? 6. The undisputed facts which are relevant for the present issues are that Swarnachuda College at Mitrapur in the district of Balasore received concurrence of the Government and affiliation of Utkal University for opening of Intermediate of Arts with 128 seats from the academic session 1979-80. 6. The undisputed facts which are relevant for the present issues are that Swarnachuda College at Mitrapur in the district of Balasore received concurrence of the Government and affiliation of Utkal University for opening of Intermediate of Arts with 128 seats from the academic session 1979-80. The first post of lecturer in English was admissible to the college from that year and the said college was eligible to receive grant-in-aid from the State Government @ 1/3rd with effect from 1.6.1985. The present Respondent joined as lecturer in English against the aforesaid post on 1.6.1985 being appointed by the Governing Body of the college. On the date of his appointment, the Respondent did not possess requisite qualification as prescribed by the Government vide its resolution dated 13.9.1983. As per qualification prescribed by the State Government vide its resolution dated 13.9.1983, a candidate should have the following qualification for appointment as a lecturer of an affiliated college: a) Should have an M.Phil Degree or a recognized Degree beyond Master's level with at least a Second Class Master's Degree; or b) Not holding an M.Phil. Degree, should possess a higher second class Master's Degree i.e. 54% of marks and a second class Honours/Pass (in the B.A./B.Sc/B.Com.examination); or c) Not holding an M.Phil degree but possessing a second class Master's degree should have obtained a First Class in the Honours/Pass in the B.A./B.Sc./B.Com.examihation. 7. On the date of application, the Respondent acquired only 48.6% of marks in the M.A. Examination without M.Phil degree. In lieu of M.Phil degree he also did not possess other requisite qualification as prescribed in Clause (b) and (c) of the State Government resolution dated 13.9.1983. Thus, on the date of his appointment i.e., on 1.6.1985 the Respondent did not have requisite qualification for appointment to the post of lecturer of an affiliated college as prescribed by the State Government vide its resolution dated 13.9.1983. The Respondent acquired a higher degree in M.Phil in the year 1990 and as per the aforesaid Government resolution he became qualified to hold the post of a lecturer from the date he acquired the M.Phil degree i.e. on 25.9.1990. 8. The Respondent acquired a higher degree in M.Phil in the year 1990 and as per the aforesaid Government resolution he became qualified to hold the post of a lecturer from the date he acquired the M.Phil degree i.e. on 25.9.1990. 8. The Learned single Judge has directed the present Appellants to release the salary of the Respondent from the date of his appointment i.e. from 1.6.1985, as stated above, relying on the orders passed in the case of Nimain Charan Sahoo (supra) and Bijay Kumar Patra (Supra). Special Leave Petitions were filed against the above two Judgment/orders of this Court by the State before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Judgment dated 9.1.2001 set aside the order passed in the case of Nimain Charan Sahoo (supra) and remitted the matter back to this Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law after examination of facts under the provisions contained in Orissa Education Act as amended from 4.7.1994 and Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994. S.LP. No. CC-1150-1151 of 1999 flied against the order passed in the case of Bijaya Kumar Patra (supra) was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground of delay. The Hon'ble Apex Court has not considered the case on merit, inasmuch as, the issue involved in the said case. Thus it cannot be said that the order of this Court in the case of Bijaya Kumar Patra (supra) has been upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court as contended by Respondent. These facts were not brought to the notice of the Learned Single Judge who passed the impugned order on 22.3.2001. 9. The other contention of the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent is that the case of the Respondent in receiving grant-in-aid salary was governed under an old circular dated 17.3.1983 and, therefore, the case of the Respondent should be considered under the said circular. The impugned order does not say anything about the circular dated 17.3.1983. Moreover, the said circular provides that the colleges, which have received Government concurrence with effect from academic session 1979-80 or thereafter, shall be governed by the new grant-in-aid principle as indicated in the said circular. But this circular does not say anything regarding payment of grant-in-aid salary to a lecturer for the period when he did not possess requisite qualification. It only says about the receipt of grant-in-aid by eligible colleges. But this circular does not say anything regarding payment of grant-in-aid salary to a lecturer for the period when he did not possess requisite qualification. It only says about the receipt of grant-in-aid by eligible colleges. Hence, this contention of the Learned Counsel does not merit consideration and hence falls. 10. The further contention of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent is that the post was created and became admissible from 1979- 80 and was occupied by different lecturers till 1.6.1985. The present Respondent was appointed from that date and, therefore, the Learned Single Judge has rightly held that the period of five year was to be calculated from the date of creation of the post and not from the date of appointment of the incumbent. When the eligibility of a post to receive grant-in-aid is considered, five years is to be calculated from the creation of the post. This does not mean that a lecturer without having requisite qualification, if appointed by the Governing Body to a post in which he is eligible to receive grant-in-aid, shall also be entitled to get the benefit of grant-in-aid. Appointment of a lecturer without having requisite qualification prescribed by the Government in an aided college by the Governing Body cannot be considered as a valid appointment to the said post. Therefore, we are of the view that a lecturer of an aided college without having requisite qualification as prescribed by the Government is not entitled to the benefit of grant-in-aid even though the post created in the college in which he joined is eligible to receive grant-in-aid from the Government. 11. In the present context, it will be useful to refer to the decisions 61 the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 31.3.1997 in the case of State of Orissa and Anr. v. Damodar Nayak and Anr. (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down that a lecturer shall be entitled to get grant-in-aid with effect from the date he acquires the requisite qualification and not from the date of his appointment when admittedly he did not have the requisite qualification. It has been observed as follows: The question limited to the notice is: Whether the Respondent would be entitled to payment of salary under the Grant-in-Aid Scheme from the date of initial appointment till he improved his qualification or from the date of his acquiring the qualification? It has been observed as follows: The question limited to the notice is: Whether the Respondent would be entitled to payment of salary under the Grant-in-Aid Scheme from the date of initial appointment till he improved his qualification or from the date of his acquiring the qualification? The admitted position is that Respondent No. 1 came to be appointed as a Lecturer in 1978. The Government issued clarification on January 5, 1987 that unqualified Lecturers having minimum second class, i.e. 48% or above and below 54% of marks in P.G. examination and appointed on or after 1.8.1977 in recognized non-Government Colleges would be eligible to receive grant-in-aid. The Resolution dated September 13, 1983 issued by the Government prescribes the qualification for recruitment of Lecturers of affiliated Colleges which indicates that 'candidate not holding an M.Phil, degree should possess a high second class Master's degree i.e. 54% marks and a second class Honours/Pass in B.A./B.Com./B.Sc. examination'. Respondent No. 1 secured 53.9% marks, which is almost equivalent of 54% marks, on July 10, 1987. Therefore, the question arises: whether the second Respondent is entitled to receive grant-in-aid for payment of salary to the first Respondent from the date of his acquiring qualification or from the date of initial appointment? Admittedly, since the first Respondent on the date of his appointment was not possessing the requisite qualification and acquired the same only on July 10, 1987, he will be eligible to the benefit of the grant-in-aid w.e.f. August 1, 1987 and onwards. In the above case the resolution dated 13.9.1983 was under consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is squarely applicable to the case of the Respondent. 12. This Court also in a Full Bench decision rendered in the case of State of Orissa v. Pranaya Kumar Mohapatra (supra) has reiterated the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The question referred to the Full Bench was regarding the date from which a lecturer in an aided college is entitled to salary under the Grant-in-Aid Scheme, i.e., whether it is the date of appointment or the date of acquiring the requisite qualification. The Hon'ble Full Bench answered the said question in the following words: A lecturer in an aided college shall be eligible to the benefits of grant-in-aid with effect from the date he possesses the requisite qualification, as prescribed by the State Government. 13. The Hon'ble Full Bench answered the said question in the following words: A lecturer in an aided college shall be eligible to the benefits of grant-in-aid with effect from the date he possesses the requisite qualification, as prescribed by the State Government. 13. These two decisions, i.e., decision of Hon'bie Supreme Court dated 31.3.1997 in the case of State of Orissa v. Damodar Nayak and Anr. (supra) and the Full Bench decision of this Court dated 5.5.1998 in the case of State of Orissa v. Pranaya Kumar Mohapatra (supra) were never placed before the Learned Single Judge and were not considered. Thus, ill absence of consideration of the above two decisions the impugned order was delivered. 14. As the point raised here is no longer res integra, we are of the "View that a lecturer in an aided college is entitled to the benefit of grant-in-aid salary with effect from the date of his acquiring requisite qualification as prescribed by the State Government and not from the date of his initial appointment when he did not possess the requisite qualification. Accordingly, in the present case, the Respondent is entitled to the benefit of grant-in-aid with effect from the date of his acquiring requisite qualification i.e. from 25.9.1990 and not from the date of his joining i.e. 1.6.1985. 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the Order Dated 22.3.2001 passed by the Learned Judge of the Writ Court in O.J.C. No. 8379 of 1997 is set aside. There will be no order as to cost. A.K. Ganguly, C.J. 20. I agree. Final Result : Allowed