JUDGMENT A.S. NAIDU, J. : Petitioner is working as a Lecturer in Baya Abadhut Mohavidyalaya, Kainmul in the district of Jagat¬singhpur. He was appointed against the 1st post in Oriya on 29.7.1987. The petitioner has approached the portals of this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 13.7.1998 (Annexure-3) passed by the Director, Higher Education rejecting the proposal sent by the Principal-in-charge of the aforesaid institution requesting to approve his appointment and for sanction of grant-in-aid, mainly on the ground that he had not secured 2nd Class Honours with minimum 45% of marks in the aggregate at the Degree Examination as per the resolution of the Government dated 13.9.1983. 2. Baya Abadhut Mohavidyalaya, Kainmul was established in the year 1986-87 and received concurrence from the Government during the academic session 1988-89 as a Junior College having +2 wings in Arts stream. The college also got affiliation from the Council of Higher Secondary Education during the same academic session 1988-89 and has been presenting students for appearing in +2 Examination conducted by the Council of Higher Secondary Education all these years. Petitioner, who secured Masters degree in Arts in Oriya from Utkal University and had secured 53.75% of marks, applied in the year 1987 for being appointed as a Lecturer in Oriya against the vacant post. The Governing Body of the college after observing all paraphernalia and conducting inter¬view, selected the petitioner and appointed him against the said post with effect from 24.7.1989 (Annexure-1). The appointment of the petitioner was confirmed by the Governing Body of the Col¬lege on 7.1.1990. Since the petitioner had secured more than 53.5% of marks, which is equivalent to 54% in conformity with the provisions of the Higher Secondary Regulation, 1992 and possessed all other requisite qualifications, proposal was sent by the Governing Body to approve his appointment and to bring the post within the fold of grant-in-aid with effect from 1.6.1994. The proposal, as stated earlier, was considered by the Director and the same was turned down vide Annexure-3 mainly on the ground that the petitioner had not secured 2nd Class Honours with mini¬mum 45% of marks in aggregate at Degree level as prescribed by the Government in resolution dated 13.9.1983. The reasons as¬signed by the Director, it is submitted, are contrary to Rules and otherwise illegal and unjustified and a prayer is made to quash the same. 3. The reasons as¬signed by the Director, it is submitted, are contrary to Rules and otherwise illegal and unjustified and a prayer is made to quash the same. 3. After receiving notice, counter affidavit has been filed by the Principal of the College more or less supporting the petitioner’s case. 4. Counter affidavit has also been filed by the Deputy Director, Higher Education, on behalf of opposite parties 1 and 2 repudiating the averments made in the writ application and taking a stand that the State Government in the department of Higher Education by notification dated 4.4.1991 prescribed the educa¬tional qualification to hold the post of Lecturer in a Junior college/Higher Secondary Schools in the year 1991. The petitioner joined the college in the year 1987 against the 1st post in the department of Oriya. The said post became admissible to the col¬lege with effect from 1.6.1988. In the year 1988, it is stated, the minimum educational qualification prescribed by the Govern¬ment to hold the post of Lecturer was :- (i) 48% of marks at P.G. level with M. Phil (ii) 54% of marks at P.G. Examination with 2nd Class Honours in Degree or 2nd class pass i.e. 45% of marks in aggregate in Degree stage; (iii) 48% of marks at P.G. Examination with 1st class Hons. at Degree stage. It is averred that as the petitioner did not possess the requi¬site educational qualification inasmuch as he had secured only 40% of marks at Degree Examination and 53.75% of marks at P.G. Examination, and as such, his appointment could not be approved. 5. In course of hearing, it appears that the State Govern¬ment in the Department of Higher Education, vide letter dated 10.6.1997 had decided that if a lecturer of Non-Government col¬leges of the State has secured 53.5% of marks or above, but below 54% of marks at Masters Degree, the same may be rounded up to 54%. The petitioner has secured 53.75% of marks at Masters Degree level and the same can be rounded up to 54%. 6. In the counter affidavit, the opposite parties relying upon the notification dated 4.4.1991, averred that the petitioner having not secured 2nd Class Hons. in Degree Examination or 2nd class with 45% of marks in aggregate in pass, he does not satisfy the eligibility criteria. 6. In the counter affidavit, the opposite parties relying upon the notification dated 4.4.1991, averred that the petitioner having not secured 2nd Class Hons. in Degree Examination or 2nd class with 45% of marks in aggregate in pass, he does not satisfy the eligibility criteria. It is further stated that the appoint¬ment of the petitioner can be approved only with effect from 8.4.1991 and not from 29.9.1987 and he will be eligible to re¬ceive grant-in-aid beyond 1.6.1994 in consonance with 5, 7 and 9 years principle as per the GIA Order, 1994. In short, according to the opposite parties, on the date of appointment the petition¬er did not possess the requisite qualification and as such, his post can neither be approved nor he is entitled to receive the grant-in-aid from the said date. 7. Mr. B. Routray, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in course of hearing forcefully submitted that on the date when the petitioner was appointed i.e. 24.7.1987, the Orissa Education (Higher Secondary Regulation) Act, 1982 was in force. Under Regulation 90 read with Appendix I of the said Regulation, a lecturer in a Junior College (+2 College) was required to possess at least 54% of marks in the qualifying examination, i.e., in M.A. Examination. The said Regulation was in force till 8.4.1991. 8. In the year 1991 the Orissa Education Service (Higher Secondary Branch) Method of Recruitment and Condition of Service Rules, 1991 was introduced which came into force with effect from 8.4.1991. Sub-Rule (2)(d) of Rule 4 of the said Rules stipulates that the minimum educational requirement for appointment of lecturer in a Junior College was 48% in M.A. Examination. Accord¬ing to Mr. Routray, as the petitioner secured 53.5% of marks in M.A. Examination, which was rounded up to 54% as per the decision of this Hon’ble Court as well as the decision of the State Gov¬ernment and in conformity with the provisions provided in the Higher Secondary Regulation, 1992, it is not correct to say that the petitioner did not satisfy the requirement as per 1982 Regu¬lation as well as the provisions of 1991 Rules. The condition that a candidate must possess 2nd Class Honours in Degree Exami¬nation and 2nd class pass, i.e., 45% of marks in aggregate in Degree stage, according to Mr. Routray, is not applicable to +2 institutions and is only confined to +3 colleges. The condition that a candidate must possess 2nd Class Honours in Degree Exami¬nation and 2nd class pass, i.e., 45% of marks in aggregate in Degree stage, according to Mr. Routray, is not applicable to +2 institutions and is only confined to +3 colleges. It is further submitted that in the meanwhile the petitioner has also obtained M. Phil degree and thus satisfies all the criteria and there is no reason as to why his appointment in +2 wings of the college should not be approved. 9. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand took his Court through different paragraphs of the counter and insist¬ed that as the petitioner did not possess 2nd Class Honours in Degree Examination, i.e. 45% of marks in aggregate, it should be presumed that he did not have the requisite educational qualifi¬cation and rightly, the proposal sent by the college was turned down. 10. We heard learned counsel for the parties at length. We have also perused the pleadings as well as the documents annexed thereto meticulously. After giving a conscious thought, we find that the petitioner admittedly secured 53.7% of marks in Masters Degree and in consonance with the averments made in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit vis-a-vis the letter of the State Govern¬ment in the Department of Higher Education dated 16.6.1997, the same should be rounded up to 54% of marks. Thus, the first ground for not according approval to the petitioner’s appointment does not hold good. 11. The only other question, which needs to be decided in this case is as to whether the petitioner was required to possess 2nd Class Honours in Degree with 45% of marks in aggregate in the degree stage. Admittedly, the petitioner did not possess the said qualification. Thus, it is to be decided as to whether such qualification was mandatorily required for valid appointment. 12. According to Mr. Routray, there is no rule stipulating that a person appointed as a Lecturer in +2 stream is required to possess 2nd Class Honours degree or 2nd class pass with 45% of marks in aggregate in degree stage. 13. To appreciate such argument, it would be prudent to refer to the Orissa Higher Secondary Education Act, 1982. The said Regulation deals with the procedure for recruitment to be adopted in different +2 colleges of the State. 13. To appreciate such argument, it would be prudent to refer to the Orissa Higher Secondary Education Act, 1982. The said Regulation deals with the procedure for recruitment to be adopted in different +2 colleges of the State. Appendix-I of the said Regulation deals with Higher Secondary Schools with Arts, Science, Commerce and Vocational subjects in junior colleges. Clause 6 of the Appendix, which deals with teaching staff of the said institutions, reads as follows : “6. Teaching Staff. (a) Teachers to be appointed in junior college/higher secondary schools shall have at least 2nd Class Master’s Degree in the subject concerned with a minimum of 54 per cent of marks. For teaches in vocational subjects, the qualification can be relaxed in exceptional cases. Provided that qualification prescribed by Government for college teachers from time to time will be applicable. For vocational courses graduate degree holders in technical subjects may be appointed as teach¬ers.” It is clear from the above provision that the only require¬ment for being appointed as Lecturer in a Junior College is 2nd Class Master’s degree with 54% of marks. The said rule neither provides nor stipulates any other educational requirement. The aforesaid rule was substituted on 8.4.1991 by the Orissa Educa¬tion Service (Higher Secondary Branch) Method of Recruitment and Condition of Service Rules, 1991. Rule 4(2)(d) of the said Rules reads as follows : “He/she should possess a Masters Degree in the concerned subject from a recognized University with at least 48% of marks or it’s equivalent grade and a consistently good academic record.” Perusal of the entire 1991 Rules also reveals that for being appointed in a Junior College, i.e., +2 stream, the only require¬ment is to acquire Masters degree with 48% of marks. The Rule is completely silent with regard to the educational qualification so far as degree stage is concerned. 14. To countenance such submission, learned counsel for the State drew the attention of this Court to the resolution dated 13.4.1983 issued by the Government of Orissa, Education and Youth Services Department. The said resolution deals with qualification for recruitment of lecturers in affiliated colleges of the State of Orissa. Perusal of the said resolution, however, does not reveal that the same is applicable to junior colleges. Even otherwise, by issuing a resolution, a statutory rule cannot be made nugatory. The said resolution deals with qualification for recruitment of lecturers in affiliated colleges of the State of Orissa. Perusal of the said resolution, however, does not reveal that the same is applicable to junior colleges. Even otherwise, by issuing a resolution, a statutory rule cannot be made nugatory. Admittedly, the Orissa Higher Secondary Education Act, 1982 and the Appendix appended thereto vis-a-vis the Orissa Education Service (Higher Secondary Branch) Method of Recruitment and Condition of Service Rules, 1991 specifically stipulate the qualification for appointment as lecturer in a junior college. The petitioner, who was appointed in the year 1987 i.e. when the aforesaid Rule was in vogue in a junior college satisfies the criteria fixed therein. Thus, any resolution issued at a later date cannot affect the appointment of the petitioner, which was according to the Rules prevalent at the relevant time. That apart, in course of hearing, it appears that the petitioner in the meanwhile has acquired M. Phil degree and he possess 2nd Class Honours in Masters degree with 54% of marks, which was the basic requirement according to the rules prevalent when the petitioner was appointed as a lecturer in a +2 college (Junior College). 15. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we feel the Director was not correct in turning down the proposal sent by the College vide Annexure-3. It appears that while pass¬ing the impugned order, the Director did not keep in mind that the petitioner is appointed in a junior college (+2 wings) and not in a regular +3 college. Consequently, the impugned order dated 13.5.1998 (Annexure-3) passed by the Director, Higher Education is set aside. The opposite parties are directed to accord approval to the appointment of the petitioner from the date when the college satisfied the post, which the petitioner is holding. 16. The writ application is accordingly allowed. B.N. MAHAPATRA, J. I agree. Application allowed.