JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - Petitioner has filed petition this writ challenging the order, party Annexure-7 passed by opp. No. 2, i.e., the Director, Higher Education, Orissa in dismissing the appeal, which the Petitioner preferred against the order of his termination. 2. According to the case of the Petitioner, when Sudarsan Mahavidyalaya at Bayalish Mouza in the District of Cuttack was a +2 approved unaided educational institution, Petitioner joined that college on 13.07.1983 as Lecturer in History in the first post. He had 51.3% of marks in the Post-Graduation, which was less than the minimum qualifying marks of 54% for recruitment to the post of Lecturers, 'In 1988-89 Petitioner applied for admission into M.Phil course in History under the Sambalpur University. The Secretary of the +2 college on 4th May, 1988 granted "No Objection" to relieve the Petitioner for higher study. Petitioner was selected for admission to the M.Phil course, but before he took admission as per the resolution of the Governing Body of Sudarsan Mahavidyalaya the services of the Petitioner was terminated on 19.05.1988 on the ground of having less than the minimum qualifying marks. Thus, on 27.05.1989 Petitioner made a representation, Annexure-3/A, to the Secretary of the Governing Body to grant him study leave for one year instead of terminating his service,and accordingly the Secretary issued the certificate, Annexure-4. At the time of granting the relieve order, Secretary stipulated a condition to the Petitioner to submit his resignation so that the order of termination of the Governing Body would be fruitful as well as the Petitioner's admission to the M. Phil course as an in service candidate, and that, under such circumstances Petitioner submitted post-dated resignation letter on 10.07.1988. However, after taking admission in M. Phil course on 7.7.1988, he withdrew the resignation letter on 11.07.1988. Petitioner states that since the resignation letter had not been accepted by the Governing Body till 11.07.1988, he had a right to withdraw his resignation. In that respect he relies on the withdrawal letter, Annexure 5 and the receipt granted by the Secretary, Annexure-6. It is the further case of the Petitioner that after completion of the M. Phil course, he was relieved from the University on 29.08.1989 and when he wanted to join in the aforesaid course, he was directed by the Secretary to wait till publication of his result. The result was published on 24.03.1990. It is the further case of the Petitioner that after completion of the M. Phil course, he was relieved from the University on 29.08.1989 and when he wanted to join in the aforesaid course, he was directed by the Secretary to wait till publication of his result. The result was published on 24.03.1990. Then, Petitioner reported to the College on 28.03.1990, but the Secretary told him that he was No. more in service and that, his service had already been terminated. Petitioner further states that he challenged that action of the opp. party No. 3 by filing an appeal before opp. party No. 2, but that appeal being kept pending by opp. party No. 2, Petitioner filed O.J.C. No. 1303 of 1991. On 21. 03. 1991 that writ petition was disposed of with a direction to opp. party No. 2 to dispose of the appeal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. After that order, the matter was entrusted to the Addl. Director of Higher Education, Orissa, and the latter without affording an opportunity of hearing, without conducting proper enquiry and without due application of mind to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, illegally and unreasonably dismissed the appeal of the Petitioner. The appeal was disposed of behind the back of the Petitioner and copy of that order was never communicated to him. In that respect, repeated reminders issued by the Petitioner to opp. party No. 2 for early disposal of the appeal went in vain and that in the month of September, 1996 when Petitioner had gone to the office of the opp. party No. 2, on enquiry he could know that his appeal had been dismissed long back by the Addl. Director, Higher Education. Mentioning the aforesaid facts, Petitioner challenges the order of termination and the appellate order on the ground that: (i) In view of the direction in the order passed in O.J.C. No. 1303 of 1991, only the Director, Higher Education was competent to hear the appeal and not the Addl. Director and in addition to that under letter No. 13585 (2) EYS dated 27.3.1983 of the Government, appellate jurisdiction is vested only with the Director, Higher Education and not with the Addl. Director, and, therefore, on either count the appeal considered and disposed of by the Addl. Director and in addition to that under letter No. 13585 (2) EYS dated 27.3.1983 of the Government, appellate jurisdiction is vested only with the Director, Higher Education and not with the Addl. Director, and, therefore, on either count the appeal considered and disposed of by the Addl. Director is without jurisdiction; (ii) No. opportunity of hearing was provided to the Petitioner and the appellate order was passed in violation of the principle of natural justice, and, therefore, the order, Annexure-7 is illegal; and (iii) When the Petitioner had withdrawn his resignation before its acceptance by the Governing Body, Petitioner could not have been deemed as a terminated employee. 3. Alternatively, he states that according to the Syndicate's Resolution and the Government's decision in Letter No. 34373/EYS dated 5.8.1989 (Annexure-A/4), relaxation has been granted in minimum qualifying mark for the lecturers appointed between 1980 to 1984, and, therefore, Petitioner could not have been terminated for possessing 51.3% of marks and on that score also the order of termination by the Governing Body is motivated and illegal. 4. In the impugned order, Annexure-7 as well as in the counter of the opp. party No. 2, the plea, which has been advanced, is that though Petitioner filed O.J.C. No. 1303 of 1991 with the assertion that he had filed an appeal before the Director, Higher Education, but No. such appeal/representation was ever received in the office of the Director, Higher Education. It is only after receipt of the order from the High Court with the copy of' the representation/appeal the Director could be able to know about the ground in the appeal. Opposite party No. 2 has denied about disposal of the appeal behind the back of the Petitioner and states that opportunity of hearing was provided to the Petitioner and Petitioner had participated in the enquiry. So far as the question of jurisdiction is concerned, opp. party No. 2 relies on the Circular, Annexure-A/2 to state that the Director includes Addl. Director for hearing and disposal of the appeal. It goes without saying that opp. party No. 2 supports the impugned order, Annexure-7. At the same time, it challenges the belated action of the Petitioner to challenge that order after lapse of about six years and further states that copy of the order, Annexure-7 was communicated to the Petitioner as well as opp. party No. 3 in the year, 1991. 5. party No. 2 supports the impugned order, Annexure-7. At the same time, it challenges the belated action of the Petitioner to challenge that order after lapse of about six years and further states that copy of the order, Annexure-7 was communicated to the Petitioner as well as opp. party No. 3 in the year, 1991. 5. Opposite party No. 3 while reiterating the resolution of the Governing Body on terminating services of the Petitioner in May, 1988 for having secured less than the minimum qualifying marks and the inaction of the Petitioner for five years in not improving his percentage in spite of repeated opportunities granted, also states that on the request of the Petitioner so as to facilitate him to take admission in the M.Phil course, the Secretary granted the receipts, i. e., the Relieve Order and certificate, but such documents were issued by him without the approval or resolution of the Governing Body. In the same process, opp. party No. 3 also challenges inaction of the Petitioner, his mischievous design and character of fence-sitter. 6. In addition to the aforesaid pleas, both opp. party Nos. 2 and 3 state that in 1991 Petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer in Hingula College, Talcher and having been selected he has been serving in that College, and, therefore, his attempt to challenge the order, Annexure-7 is with a view to avail grant-in-aid from opp.party No. 3's institution after it came to the grant-in-aid fold in the year, 1994. 7. The intervenor, Shri Bijay Kumar Patra, in his counter affidavit stated that pursuant to the advertisement dated 1.7.1988 issued by the Governing Body of Sudarshana Mahavidyalaya, Bayalish Mouza, Cuttack, he applied for the post of Lecturer in History (first post) and on being selected joined in the post on 2.4.1988 on adhoc basis. Subsequently, the Director, Higher Education, Orissa approved his service with effect from 2.4.1988. The first post of History was opened on 18.12.1982 and was approved by the Director, Higher Education with effect from 1.6.1983. Grant-in-aid was released in respect thereof on 1.6.1994. The intervenor has been continuing as lecturer in History (first post) since the date of his joining and has been receiving full grant-in-aid with effect from 1.6.1994. The first post of History was opened on 18.12.1982 and was approved by the Director, Higher Education with effect from 1.6.1983. Grant-in-aid was released in respect thereof on 1.6.1994. The intervenor has been continuing as lecturer in History (first post) since the date of his joining and has been receiving full grant-in-aid with effect from 1.6.1994. After his termination, the Petitioner did not challenge the termination order and applied for the post of Lecturer in History for the second post on 2.7.1991 and 25.10.91 in the same college. Being unsuccessful, he applied for the post of lecturer in History in Hingula College and after being selected, joined there as such on 23.8.1991, where he has been continuing till date. Under such circumstances, the intervenor prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner joined as lecturer in History (first post) on 13.7.1983. While working as such, he applied for admission into M. Phil course in History for the session 1988-89. He made a request to the Governing Body to issue him "No Objection Certificate" for higher study. Accordingly, the Governing Body vide letter dated 4th May, 1988, granted him "No Objection Certificate", and, thereafter, he joined the course and became successful. The Principal/Secretary terminated him from service vide order dated 19.5.1988 in Annexure-1 since he had secured 51% marks in the Post Graduation According to learned Counsel for the Petitioner, as per the Circular dated 5.8.1989 of Government in Education and Youth Services Department, Annexure-A/4 the under qualified teachers appointed during the period from 1.4.1982 to 31.12.1984 in Non-Government Colleges by the respective managements before the Colleges became aided were made eligible to receive grants-in-aid notwithstanding their under qualification, subject to the condition that the posts held by them otherwise qualified for release of grants-in-aid. Since the Petitioner had joined on 13.7.1983, the Principal/Secretary ought not have terminated his services. Learned Counsel for the opp. parties, on the other hand, contented that the Government Circular dated 5.8.1989 related to Degree Colleges. Since the College in question is a +2 College, the said Circular would not be applicable to it. He further contended that the Petitioner was terminated from service on 19.5.1988 and the aforesaid Circular having been issued on 5.8.1989, the Petitioner cannot avail the benefit of the said Circular. 9. Since the College in question is a +2 College, the said Circular would not be applicable to it. He further contended that the Petitioner was terminated from service on 19.5.1988 and the aforesaid Circular having been issued on 5.8.1989, the Petitioner cannot avail the benefit of the said Circular. 9. The Circular dated 5.8.1989 under Annexure-A/4 indicates that it refers to Non-Government College. As defined u/s 3 (d) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "Education Act") college means an Educational Institution imparting instructions in higher general education leading to any degree conferred by any of the Universities established under the Orissa Universities Act, Act 5 of 1989. As per Clause J-1 of the said Section, Junior College means an educational institution imparting instructions in Higher Secondary courses as defined in the Orissa Higher Secondary Act, 19 of 1982. Again, Higher Secondary Course as defined u/s 2 (i) of Orissa Higher, Secondary Education Act, 1982 means course immediately following the High School Certificate Course covering a period of two academic years which is provided for either in a College or a Higher Secondary School and includes Arts, Science, Commerce and Vocational Courses. In the present case, the College in question is a +2 college which imparts education for two years immediately after H.S. C. course and not a Degree College. So the Circular under Annexure-A/4 is not applicable to a +2 College. Furthermore, Since the said Circular was issued after the termination of the Petitioner from service, as rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the opp. parties, the Petitioner cannot avail the benefit of that Circular. 10. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that Petitioner tendered his resignation on 10.7.1988 vide Annexure-5 and before it was accepted, he withdrew the same on 11.7.1988 in token of receipt of which he obtained receipt, Annexure-6 from the Secretary of the College, thus, the Governing Body ought not have terminated his service. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the opp. parties contended that at the time of enquiry made by the Addl. Director, Higher Education, the Petitioner, who was very much present there would have produced Annexure-6, had such a document been there with him, but he did not do so. Thus, it appears that Annexure-6 was a fabricated one. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the opp. parties contended that at the time of enquiry made by the Addl. Director, Higher Education, the Petitioner, who was very much present there would have produced Annexure-6, had such a document been there with him, but he did not do so. Thus, it appears that Annexure-6 was a fabricated one. At such stage, learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that since the enquiry was made behind the back of Petitioner, there was No. scope for him to file Annexure-6 or to bring the same to the notice of Addl. Director, Higher Education. 11. On perusal of Annexure-7, it is found that in presence of the Petitioner, the Addl. Director, Higher Education made the enquiry. So, we loath to accept that even though the Petitioner was absent at the time of enquiry, the Addl. Director, Higher Education in the impugned order recorded that the enquiry was conducted in presence of the Petitioner. There is No. reason why a senior officer of the level of Addl. Secretary would record such falsehood particularly when, he had No. axe to grind against the Petitioner. So, the plea advanced by the Petitioner cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the plea of withdrawal of resignation letter also falls to the ground. 12. Learned Counsel for the opp. parties further submitted that since the impugned order under Annexure-7 was passed as back as 22.10.1991 and the writ petition was filed in a very belated stage on 2nd July, 1996, it should be dismissed for undue delay and latches on the part of the Petitioner. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the impugned order under Annexure-7 was not communicated to him. After he came to know about it in September, 1996 that he filed the writ petition on 4th November 1996, so, there is No. delay. As against this, learned Counsel for the opposite party submitted that as found from Annexure-C/3, a copy of the impugned order (Annexure-7) was communicated to the Petitioner on 2.10.1991. Furthermore, the Petitioner filed OJC No. 1303 of 1991 before this Court wherein it was directed that the Director, Higher Education would dispose of the appeal/representation of the Petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order dated 21.3.1991. Furthermore, the Petitioner filed OJC No. 1303 of 1991 before this Court wherein it was directed that the Director, Higher Education would dispose of the appeal/representation of the Petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order dated 21.3.1991. When such a direction was made and the Petitioner participated in hearing, it was the duty of Petitioner to enquire as to whether the appeal was disposed of or not. He was not expected to wait till September, 1996. Be that as it may, from the official records of the opposite parties, it is proved that the order was communicated to him on 22.10.1991. So, the writ petition suffers from delay and latches for which it also deserves to be dismissed. 13. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that it was specifically directed by this Court in OJC No. 1303 of 1991 that the Director, Higher Education would dispose of the appeal/representation of the Petitioner, but it having been disposed of by the Addl. Director, Higher Education, Annexure-7 ought to be quashed, particularly when the Circular dated 5.8.1989, specifically stipulated that such appeal would lie before the Director, Higher Education. As defined u/s 3(e) of the Education Act, Director includes any other officer not below the rank of a Deputy Director, who may be authorized by the State Government from time to time by general or special order to perform all or any of the functions and exercise all or any of the powers of the Director, as the State Government by notification specify on that behalf. As per the Circular dated 8. l.1991 of the Govt. of Orissa Education and Youth Services Department (Annexure-A/2) the Addl. Director would remain in exclusive charge of the private colleges including the administration etc. under the supervision of the Director, Higher Education. So, it cannot be said that Addl. Director, Higher Education had No. authority to entertain the appeal/representation of the Petitioner. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the Addl. Director, Higher Education dismissed the appeal solely on the ground that the Petitioner voluntarily tendered his resignation from his service under Annexure-5, But the fact that he had withdrawn it on the next date of tendering the resignation was not taken into consideration. So, Annexure -7 deserve to be quashed. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the Addl. Director, Higher Education dismissed the appeal solely on the ground that the Petitioner voluntarily tendered his resignation from his service under Annexure-5, But the fact that he had withdrawn it on the next date of tendering the resignation was not taken into consideration. So, Annexure -7 deserve to be quashed. As we have held earlier the plea of withdrawal of resignation is after thought and as such it cannot be quashed. 14. Under the given facts and circumstances, we do not find illegality or perversity in the impugned order and therefore the writ petition stands dismissed being devoid of merit R.N. Biswal, J. 15. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed