JUDGMENT B.K. PATEL, J. : This appeal under Section 24-C of the Orissa Education Act (for short ‘the Act’) is directed against the judgment dated 31.10.2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, State Education Tribunal, Orissa Bhubaneswar (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in G.I.A. Case No.19 of 2005. 2.Present appellants, who were opposite party Nos.4 and 5 respectively before the Tribunal, represent the Managing Committee of Jawahar Uchha Vidyapitha, Balsi(A) (for short ‘the School’). G.I.A. Case No.19 of 2005 was filed by present respondent No.4 with a prayer to direct the present respondent Nos.1 to 3, who represent State Government in the Department of School and Mass Education and were opposite party Nos.1 to 3 respectively before the Tribunal, to approve his service against first post of Peon and to release block grant in his favour. 3.The case of respondent No.4-Kubera Sahu before the Tribunal was that the School was established and recognized in the year 1989. Respondent No.4 was appointed as the first Peon, vide appointment letter dated 18.10.1989, and joined as such on 20.10.1989. As early as in the year 1994, the Headmaster of the School issued a certificate dated 21.12.1994 in favour of respondent No.4 showing him as the first Peon. The Managing Committee of the School on 9.2.1996 passed a resolution in favour of all the staff including respondent No.4 as first Peon to be eligible to receive grant-in-aid. The Inspector of Schools accorded provisional approval on 1.6.1996 in favour of the said staff including respondent No.4 as first Peon. However, the School was not found eligible to receive grant-in-aid in 1995 and it became eligible to receive block grant under the Orissa Education (Payment of Grant-in-Aid) to High Schools, Upper Primary Schools etc.) Grant-in-Aid Order, 2004. Though respondent No.4 being the first peon of the School is entitled to receive block grant, the Managing Committee manufactured documents showing present respondent No.5-Purohit Sahoo who was opposite party No.6 before the Tribunal and happened to be son of the Secretary of the School, as first Peon of the School. It was averred by respondent No.4 before the Tribunal that respondent No.5 was appointed as Peon five years after the date of his appointment. Successive representations having not yielded any result, respondent No.4 field G.I.A. Case No.19 of 2005 before the Tribunal. It was averred by respondent No.4 before the Tribunal that respondent No.5 was appointed as Peon five years after the date of his appointment. Successive representations having not yielded any result, respondent No.4 field G.I.A. Case No.19 of 2005 before the Tribunal. 4.Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in their counter filed before the Tribunal did not dispute that respondent No.4 joined in the School as Peon on 20.10.1989 on the basis of appointment Letter No.10 dated 18.10.1989 issued by the Secretary of the School. However, it was asserted that Secretary of the School submitted proposal for approval of appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff on 19.7.2005 and 1.8.2005 in which respondent No.5 was recommended as first Peon of the School so as to receive block grant w.e.f. 1.1.2004 as per the Grant-in-Order, 2004. Nonetheless, approval of appointment of respondent No.5 despite recommendation of the Secretary of the School was held up as the appointment letter of Purohit Sahoo issued by the Secretary was found to be a forged one and also he was found to be below eighteen years of age when the alleged appointment was made. It appeared from the transfer certificate issued to Purohit Sahoo that he was continuing his studies in the school from 25.10.1990 to 2.5.1991 which raised doubt regarding his claim to be working as Peon in the same school during that period. A formal objection was raised in the counter filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 regarding maintainability of the application due to non-service of statutory notice as required under Section 24-B of the Act. 5.Respondent No.5 filed counter claiming that he was appointed as first Peon of the School on 12.8.1989 and he joined as such on 16.8.1989 before appointment of respondent No.4. In such circumstances, respondent No.4-Kubera Sahu is not entitled for approval to the first Peon. 6.The present appellants, who were opposite party Nos.4 and 5, alleged in their counter that respondent No.4 forged his appointment letter. Though he was appointed by order No.14 dated 18.10.1989, he falsely claimed to have been appointed by order No.10 dated 18.10.1989. Moreover, he was under eighteen years of age and was prosecuting his studies in the same school. 6.The present appellants, who were opposite party Nos.4 and 5, alleged in their counter that respondent No.4 forged his appointment letter. Though he was appointed by order No.14 dated 18.10.1989, he falsely claimed to have been appointed by order No.10 dated 18.10.1989. Moreover, he was under eighteen years of age and was prosecuting his studies in the same school. While assailing the appointment of respondent No.4 on such assertions, it was averred that as respondent No.5-Purohit Sahoo was found to be below eighteen years of age when he was appointed by order No.13 dated 12.8.1989, he was allowed to work honourabily initially and on the basis of an undertaking produced by him his joining report was accepted on 26.10.1989. Thus, present appellants supported the appointment of respondent No.5-Purohit Sahoo. 7.On consideration of contentions raised on behalf of the parties and upon reference to materials on record, the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment allowing G.I.A. Case No.19 of 2005 and directing respondents Nos.1 to 3 to approve the appointment of respondent No.4 as first peon of the School and to release the block grant in his favour with effect from 1.1.2004. 8.In assailing the impugned judgment, it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal committed gross error in directing approval of appointment of respondent No.4 in view of the fact that he was also below 18 years of age on 20.10.1989 when he is asserted to have joined the School as a Peon. It was contended that as respondent No.4 also was on the date of his joining was below 18 years of age, the Tribunal should not have taken exception to the fact that respondent No.5 was below 18 years of age when respondent No.4 was below 18 years of age on the date of his appointment. 9.On a close reading of the impugned judgment, it is obvious that claim of respondent No.4 to have been appointed as first Peon of the School has been upheld and the claim of respondent No.5 to have been appointed to the said post has been rejected not only on the sole ground that respondent No.5 was below 18 years of age on the date he claims to have been appointed. Tribunal has come to a categorical finding that claim of respondent No.5 to have joined as first Peon of the School pursuant to the appointment order under Letter No.13 dated 12.8.1989 is not acceptable. Tribunal has also held that assertion of the appellants that respondent No.4 was appointed pursuant to order under Letter No.14 dated 18.10.1989 is also not tenable. In coming to such conclusion, Tribunal has rightly observed that respondent Nos.1 to 3 have supported the case of respondent No.4 to have been appointed pursuant to order under Letter No.10 dated 18.10.1989. Apart from Letter No.10 dated 18.10.1989, respondent No.4 placed reliance also on the certificate issued by the Inspector of Schools in favour of respondent No.4. The Inspector of Schools has endorsed the copy of the appointment letter filed by respondent No.4 before the Tribunal as the true copy of appointment order under Letter No.10 dated 18.10.1989. On the basis of materials on record, Tribunal has come to the finding that respondent No.4 was appointed pursuant to order under Letter No.10 dated 18.10.1989 whereas respondent No.5 claims to have been appointed pursuant to order under Letter No.13 dated 12.8.1989 for which it is obvious that Letter No.13 dated 12.8.1989 relied upon by respondent No.5 was antedated. When Letter No.10 was issued on 18.10.1989, letter No.13 could not have been issued on 18.10.1989. Though it was asserted that respondent No.5 being below 16 years of age on the date of his appointment was allowed to work honorarily initially and was provided appointment from 26.10.1989 upon furnishing an undertaking to that effect before the Managing Committee, the undertaking was neither produced before the Tribunal nor respondent No.5 whispered a word regarding any such undertaking in his counter. It is also not disputed that respondent No.5 was continuing as a student of the School from 25.10.1990 to 2.5.1991. Not only the Headmaster of the School issued a certificate on 21.12.1994 in favour of respondent No.4 to have been appointed as first Peon of the School, but also a resolution was passed by the Managing Committee on 9.2.1996 showing respondent No.4 as the first Peon of the School. Moreover, on the recommendation of the Secretary of the School, appointment of respondent No.4 as first Peon was approved by the Inspector of Schools on 1.6.1996. Staff Attendance Register also indicated working of respondent No.4 as first Peon from 20.10.1989. Moreover, on the recommendation of the Secretary of the School, appointment of respondent No.4 as first Peon was approved by the Inspector of Schools on 1.6.1996. Staff Attendance Register also indicated working of respondent No.4 as first Peon from 20.10.1989. Thus, there is no material on record supporting the case of respondent No.5 to have been appointed as the first Peon of the School. In such circumstances, there appears no infirmity in the impugned judgment so as to warrant interference. The appeal is devoid of merit. 10.In course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants made an alternative suggestion that as two more posts of Peon are available in the School, respondent Nos.1 to 3 may be directed to adjust respondent No.5 as one of the approved Peons to be eligible for grant-in-aid with effect from 1.4.2008. If that be so, respondent No.5 is at liberty to move the authorities, in case he is otherwise eligible, for approval of his appointment as a Peon of the School. 11.With the aforesaid observation, the appeal is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own cost. Appeal dismissed.