ORDER N. PRUSTY, CHAIRMAN, J. - The applicant, who was said to be working as Section Teacher (Class IX) in Indramani Uchha Bidyapitha in the district of Bhadrak, had filed this O.A. with a prayer to quash the order dated 21.11.1998 (Annexure-6), whereby pursuant to the order dated 12.1.1998 of the Hon'ble High Court in OJC 14864/1996 the prayer of the applicant as claimed in the said writ petition was considered and rejected and for a direction to the respondents to sanction the Additional Section in Class IX of Indramani Uchha Bidyapitha at Bisigadia in the district of Bhadrak and to give approval to the service of the applicant as section Teacher with effect from 7.6.1994 with all the consequential service and financial benefits to the applicant. 2. Heard Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. B.P. Tripathy, learned Standing Counsel, S & M.E. 3. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel submits that Indramani Uchha Bidyapitha at Bisigadia in the district of Bhadrak was an aided Educational Institution as defined under Section 3(b) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969. Due to increase in the roll strength of Class-IX in the school in question, the Managing Committee as per Article 285 (8) of the Orissa Education Code duplicated Class IX as per requirement and invited applications to fill up the post of Section Teacher. In a due process of selection the Managing Committee selected one Pratima Behera and appointed her against the post of Section Teacher of Class IX-B. The said Section Teacher Pratima Behera tendered her resignation on 17.9.1990 and thereafter the Managing Committee again invited applications to fill up the said post. The Secretary of the school vide letter dated 1.10.1990 appointed the applicant as Section Teacher of Class-IX (Annexure-1), with the terms and conditions that the service is purely temporary and can be terminated without assigning any reason thereof and also he cannot have his salary drawn until his post is approved. After appointment of the applicant the proposal was sent by the Headmaster of the School for approval of his services as Section Teacher against Class-IX of the school. Since the service of the applicant was not approved due to not acquiring the B. Ed. qualification, the applicant took shelter before the Hon'ble High Court by filing OJC. After appointment of the applicant the proposal was sent by the Headmaster of the School for approval of his services as Section Teacher against Class-IX of the school. Since the service of the applicant was not approved due to not acquiring the B. Ed. qualification, the applicant took shelter before the Hon'ble High Court by filing OJC. 14864/1996 and the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 12.1.1998 (Annexure-5) relying on the case of Bibekananda Das v. State of Orissa (1997 (II) OLR 22directed the Inspector of Schools, Bhadrak to consider the case of the applicant in the light of the said decision and the modification thereof. Pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble High Court the Inspector of Schools, Bhadrak Circle vide his office order No.4890 dated 21.11.1998 held that the case of the applicant is not covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Court given in Bibekananda Das's case in judgment dated 3.9.1997. Therefore, the prayer of the applicant as made in OJC No.14864/1996 was rejected. The Inspector of Schools without any authority rejected the claim of the applicant, which is quite illegal and contrary to law. Hence the said order is liable to be quashed. Since the managing committee is the sole authority ,to duplicate Class IX and to give appointment to a Section Teacher, as the roll strength is justified to open another section as an additional Section in the school as per the provision of Article 285 of the Orissa Education Code, there is no illegality and irregularity in opening of the additional section in Class IX in the school and in giving appointment to the applicant as Section Teacher as against the said Section. Therefore, the service of the applicant should be approved as against the additional section, on sanctioning the Section i.e. Class IX-B. 4. The applicant has filed M.P.96(c)/2008 under Section 21 (3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act with a prayer to condone the delay in filing the Original Application. It is stated in that petition that the applicant had filed OJC 8309/1999 challenging the order dated 21.11.1998 (Annexure-6) passed by the Inspector of Schools. Vide order dated 6.11.2007 the Hon'ble Court directed the applicant to approach the State Education Tribunal. Therefore the applicant filed Misc. It is stated in that petition that the applicant had filed OJC 8309/1999 challenging the order dated 21.11.1998 (Annexure-6) passed by the Inspector of Schools. Vide order dated 6.11.2007 the Hon'ble Court directed the applicant to approach the State Education Tribunal. Therefore the applicant filed Misc. Case No. 866/2007 for modification of the order dated 6.11.2007 and the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 3.1.2008 directed the applicant to withdraw the writ petition and approach the Orissa Administrative Tribunal. It has also bee observed by the Hon'ble High Court that if the applicant files Original Application before the Orissa State Administrative Tribunal within a period of 2 weeks together with application under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act, then such application for condonation of delay be considered liberally and thereafter the O.A. be considered in accordance with law. Thereafter the applicant filed application for certified copy of the order and that was given to the applicant on 25.1.2008. After receiving the order, the Advocate for the applicant intimated the applicant for filing of the O.A. and receiving the message, the applicant came and filed this O.A. on 12.2.2008. 5. Mr. Tripathy, learned standing counsel, on the basis of the averments made in the counter, submitted that during 1994 the Government took over 2929 fully aided non-Government High Schools vide Resolution dated 16.12.1994. Accordingly the school in question was already declared as Govt. school by way of taken over w.e.f. 7.6.1994 and in the taken over resolution dated 16.12.1994, it was specifically stipulated that the Govt. would take over the liability of approved teaching and non-teaching staff by way of absorption in Govt. service, who were receiving full salary cost as grant-in-aid and they shall be taken as Govt. servants from 7.6.1994 and the Government would not be liable to clear any liability whatsoever relating to period prior to or as on and after 7.6.1994 incurred by that management. Accordingly after taken over, salary was paid w.e.f. 7.6.1994 in respect of the sanctioned post .i.e. in respect of the posts which were receiving full grant-in-aid before 7.6.1994. Accordingly the services of the approved staff were taken over by Government except the non-approved teaching staff like the applicant. Accordingly after taken over, salary was paid w.e.f. 7.6.1994 in respect of the sanctioned post .i.e. in respect of the posts which were receiving full grant-in-aid before 7.6.1994. Accordingly the services of the approved staff were taken over by Government except the non-approved teaching staff like the applicant. Since the school in question was taken over by Government w.e.f. 7.6.1994, filing of the present O.A. by the applicant after more than 14 years, claiming to be continuing in the school has no basis and liable to be rejected. The school in question where the applicant is claiming to have been appointed by the Managing Committee on 1.10.1990 as Addl. Section teacher with a condition/stipulation that his service is purely temporary- and can be terminated without assigning any reason thereof and he cannot claim his salary drawn until his post is approved, was an Aided Educational Institution within the meaning of Section-3(b) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 as on 6.6.1994 i.e. the date prior to taken over of the school by Government w.e.f. 7.6.1994 and as such the said institution and its employees were governed under the various provisions of the said Act of 1969 and the Rules framed thereunder till 6.6.1994 and on and after 7.6.1994 under the provisions of the Orissa Subordinate Education (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1993. As per the yardstick for the Non-Government Secondary Schools vide G.O. No.28465 dated 8.7.1981 for each of the additional section in Class-VIII, IX and X, one additional trained graduate teacher would be admissible. The Non-Government Private High Schools were/are only authorized to admit the maximum students i.e. 55 in a particular class. The Managing committee is not competent to admit more students than the maximum students in a class without so authorized/ without prior permission of the competent authorities. The aforesaid yardstick does not permit any managing committee to admit more students beyond 55 by opening additional sections by themselves without obtaining prior permission of the competent authority. So also as per the circular of the then Joint Director, Public Instructions, (Schools), Orissa issued during 1975 (Annexure-A), the Managing Committee was not authorized to open additional section without prior permission of the concerned Inspector of Schools. So also as per the circular of the then Joint Director, Public Instructions, (Schools), Orissa issued during 1975 (Annexure-A), the Managing Committee was not authorized to open additional section without prior permission of the concerned Inspector of Schools. In the present case since the Managing Committee had not obtained prior permission, before opening of the additional section, the opening of additional section is itself void and as such non-existence in the eye of law. The applicant was said to have been selected and appointed by the Managing Committee by creating the post of Addl. Section Teacher as per their sweet will. As stated above the managing Committee was not suo motu entitled to create an additional section. The Managing Committee is only competent to admit students for a class, for which the recognition was accorded by the prescribed authority/ Board of Secondary Education, Orissa. Before opening an additional section, the Managing Committee is required to obtain prior approval of the concerned Inspector of Schools. Hon'ble High Court in OJC No.2568/ 93 in Bindulata Mohanta v. State of Orissa and others in order No.6 dated 1.2.1994 (Annexure-B) had observed that the Managing-Committee is not entitled to appoint sectional teacher by creating posts themselves and pass on the financial burden to the educational authorities. Further in the instant case the M.C. did not follow the statutory rules for appointment of the petitioner. The Government in the erstwhile Education Department had formulated the Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974. The State Government in exercise of the power conferred by Sub-Rule (7) of Rule 4 of the Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1,974 formulated the Selection Board (Conduct of Business and Discharge of Functions) Regulations, 1976 which came into force from 1.12.1976. After the Regulations, 1976 came into force w.e.f. 1.12.1976, the Selection Board was only competent authority to select candidates for appointments against vacancies in teaching posts of Aided Non-Govt. Educational Institutions prior to 1.10.1992, As per Para-4 of the aforesaid Regulation, the Managing Committee of an aided educational institution shall apply to the Board in Form 'B' in case of High School to sponsor teachers. Educational Institutions prior to 1.10.1992, As per Para-4 of the aforesaid Regulation, the Managing Committee of an aided educational institution shall apply to the Board in Form 'B' in case of High School to sponsor teachers. The said Regulations, 1976 was repealed w.e.f. 1.10.1992 on the date the Orissa Education (Selection Board for the State) Rules, 1992 came into force. The provisions contained in Rules 4, 4-A, 5, 6 and 7 of the Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974 were also repealed w.e.f 1.10.1992. That on and after 1.10.1992 the Managing Committee of an aided High School can make appointment on ad hoc basis for a period not exceeding three months against sanctioned vacant post only. Further the Orissa Selection Board (Education Circle) Recruitment Rules. 1994 came into force w.e.f. 23.8.1994 which was published under the provisions of Orissa Education Act. 1969 for recruitment of teachers in recognized or aided Educational Institutions. In that view of the matter appointments of Addl. Section Teachers made by the Managing Committee without following the statutory provisions were illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law. As such the so called order of appointment of the present applicant issued by the then M.C. was contrary to statutory provisions, keeping in view of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in order dated 7.11.2000 (Annexure-C) in case of Nazira Begum Lashkar and others v. State of Assam and others reported in 2001 (2) A./.S.L.J. 328, it has been held that persons appointed without following proper procedure/Rules Such appointment would not confer any right on the appointee nor such appointee can claim even an equitable relief from any Court. Since the applicant was appointed without following procedure and the applicant being appointed illegally, he has no vested right for claiming regularisation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3595-3612 of 1999 with C.A. No.1861-2063 and 3849 of 2001, 3520-3524 of 2002 and 1968 of 2006 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos.91 03-91 05 of 2001) decided on 10.4.2006 i.e. in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi and others reported in AIR 2006 SC 1806 have held that appointment dehors due process of selection envisaged by constitutional scheme Confers no right on appointee. Since the appointment of the applicant was contrary to statutory Rules. Since the appointment of the applicant was contrary to statutory Rules. so the appointment made by the M.C. cannot be treated as valid appointment.' The' government in erstwhile Education Department Resolution dated 12.3.1991 (Annexure-D) had clarified in Para-2 of the Resolution that the Secretary of the Managing Committee of an Aided Educational Institution shall apply to the Inspector of Schools for selection of candidates for appointment in the vacancy or vacancies in teaching posts. The concerned Inspector of Schools shall process the applications so received and ascertain the total number of vacancies in the Circle. He as the Secretary of the District Selection Board will issue advertisement inviting applications for the post/posts. As it appears from Annexure-1 to the O.A, that the applicant was appointed by the Managing Committee as an Additional Section Teacher subject to the condition that the applicant shall not have his salary drawn until his post is approved. Since the appointment made the Managing Committee at their sweet will on 1.10.1990 was contrary to prescribed rules of the Government made under the Orissa Education Act, 1969, such appointment of the applicant was ab initio illegal and void. As it appears after the schools were taken over by Government on 7.6.1994. all the cases of so called Addl. Section Teacher suddenly surfaced which was apprehended to be the result of manipulation of records at the level of management of the school and ,Inspector of Schools for the purpose of grabbing government service. In support of his contention that requisitioning of names of candidates from the Employment Exchange and inviting names from all eligible candidates from the open market by advertising the vacancies in newspapers having wide circulation are mandatory to fill up a post in a recognized/an aided institution, Mr, Tripathy, learned Standing counsel cites a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa and another versus Mamata Mohanty, reported in (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 83 : (2011) 3 (SCC) 436 wherein in paragraph 35,36 and 37 the Hon'ble Court held as follows: "Appointment/employment without advertisement 35. At one time this Court had been of the view that calling the names from employment exchange would curb to certain extent the menace of nepotism and corruption in public employment. But later on it came to the conclusion that some appropriate method consistent with the requirements of Article 16 should be followed. At one time this Court had been of the view that calling the names from employment exchange would curb to certain extent the menace of nepotism and corruption in public employment. But later on it came to the conclusion that some appropriate method consistent with the requirements of Article 16 should be followed. In other words there must be a notice published in the appropriate manner calling for applications and all those who apply in response there to should be considered fairly. Even if the names of candidates are requisitioned from employment exchange, in addition thereto it is mandatory' on the part of the employer to invite applications from all eligible candidates from the open market by advertising the vacancies in newspapers having wide circulation or by announcement in radio and/television as merely calling the names from the employment exchange does not meet the requirement of the said article of the Constitution (vide Delhi Development Horticulture Employees" Union-vrs-Delhi Admn.), State of Haryana-vrs-Paira Singh, Excise Supdt.-vr-K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao, Arun Tewar-v-Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh, Binod Kumar Gupta-v-Ram Ashray Mahoto, National Fertilisers Ltd. v-Somvir Singh, Telecom District Manager -v-Keshab Deb, State of Bihar-v-Upendra Narayan Singh and State of M.P.-v- Mohd. Abrahim. 36. Therefore it is a settled legal proposition that no person can be appointed even on a temporary or ad hoc basis without inviting applications from all eligible candidates. If any appointment is made by merely inviting names from the employment exchange or putting a note on the notice board. etc. that will not meet the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Such a course violates the mandates of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as it deprives the candidates who are eligible for the post. from being considered. A person employed in violation of these provisions is not entitled to any relief including salary. For a valid and legal appointment mandatory compliance with the said constitutional requirement is to be fulfilled. The equality clause enshrined in Article 16 requires that every such appointment be made by an open advertisement as to enable all eligible persons to compete on merit. 37. It is a settled legal proposition that if an order is bad in its inception it does not get sanctified at a later stage. The equality clause enshrined in Article 16 requires that every such appointment be made by an open advertisement as to enable all eligible persons to compete on merit. 37. It is a settled legal proposition that if an order is bad in its inception it does not get sanctified at a later stage. A subsequent action/development cannot validate an action which was not lawful at its inception for the reason that the illegality strikes at the root of the order. It would be beyond the competence of any authority to validate such an order. It would be ironic to permit a person to rely upon a law, in violation of which he has obtained the benefits. If an order at the initial stage is bad in law, then all further proceedings consequent thereto will be non-est and have to be necessarily set aside. A right in law exists only and only when it has a lawful origin. Even though this case is relating to a Lecturer appointed in a College, but since the college in question was an aided educational institution and the educational institution in which the applicant is said to have been appointed is also an aided educational institution, the principle decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court shall also cover the fate of the applicant in this O.A. Learned counsel further submitted that in pursuance of the order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 12.1.1998 passed in OJC 14864/1996 the Inspector of Schools, Bhadrak Circle, Bhadrak has passed well reasoned order dated 21.11.1998 (Annexure-6) with the observation that: "The post of Additional Section in Class IX-B in Indramani Uchha Bidyapitha, Bisigadia in which the petitioner is demanding to be appointed has not been created/sanctioned by Govt. till, today. Hence, the case of the petitioner is not covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Court in Bibekananda Das-Vrs.-State of Orissa and others 1997 (II) OLR 122 and modification to the judgment dated 3.9.97. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioner as claimed in the O.J.C. No.14864/1996 is rejected." Since the applicant has been appointed as an Additional Section Teacher by the then Managing Committee as against a non-sanctioned post, there is no illegality or irregularity committed by the Inspector of Schools in the' order dated 21.11.1998, which would call for any interference by this Tribunal. So far as appointment is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel that for appointment of a teacher in a recognized-Aided educational institution it must be in conformity with the existing Rules and as against a sanctioned post. The Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 17.11.2005 passed in W.P. (C) No.5864/2004 and W.P.(C) 14895/2004 which were filed challenging the orders passed by this Tribunal dated 24.2.2003 in O.A. 1634(c)/2000 & batch (Manoj Kumar Sahoo v. State of Orissa and others) and order dated 17.7.2003 in O.A. 405(c)/2000 and batch (Smt. Bijaya Jena v. State and others have observed that: "As regards the opposite parties and/or the intervenor-opposite parties, who had already acquired B. Ed. qualification at the time of their initial appointment, there was no statutory impediment for their appointment. Therefore, there is no question of disapproving such appointments. They should be approved as T.G. Teachers and paid their salary in the scale of pay meant for such posts with effect from 7.6.1994. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgments and orders passed by the Tribunal as we have found no illegality, irregularity or manifest error in the same. The writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed. Since the judgments and orders were passed by the Tribunal in the year 2003, the petitioners should make compliance of the same and make available the consequential benefits to the opposite parties including the interveners within a period of three months. We make it clear that those opposite parties including the inter opposite parties, who were appointed without training qualification and have already achieved the said qualification (B. Ed.) in the meantime; should be categorized as trained graduate teachers from the date(s) of acquiring the said training and should be provided with all benefits attached in that post." The S.L.P. No.6880-6881/2009 filed by the State of Orissa challenging the order dated 17.11.2005 of the Hon'ble High Court was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 7.7.2009 (Annexure-6 in O.A.1997(c)/2011). 6. 6. At a later stage, the Hon'ble High Court in WP.(C) 14884/2007 (Manjulata Samantray v. State of Orissa and others) vide order dated 9.1.2008 (Annexure-F) have been pleased to clarify the above decision dated 17.11.2005 passed in W.P.(C) No.5864/2004 and W.P.(C) No, 14895/2004 and observed as follows: "Therefore, we dispose of this writ petition on the basis of the above quoted order with the direction that the benefits given in the above order shall only be available to the petitioner in the instant writ petition which was also applicable to opposite parties in W.P.(C) No.14895/2004 and the time limit granted in that case shall be applicable in the instant case which shall start from today provided she was appointed following the rules. because while passing the above quoted order we never meant that if any person was appointed against the rules he should also be dealt with in accordance with the above order. Therefore the opposite parties may note that in no case our judgment be interpreted in a manner so as to be made applicable in cases where the incumbents were appointed against the rules." The Hon'ble High Court while disposing of another similar case i.e. WP. (c) No. 17001/2007 (Gangadhar Paikaray v. State of Orissa and others) -vide their order dated 5.2.2008 (Annexure-E) have also observed that: "Therefore, we dispose of this writ petition on the basis of the above quoted order with the direction that the benefits given in the above order shall only be available to the petitioner in the instant writ petition which was also applicable to opposite parties in W.P.(C) No.14895 of 2004 and the time limit granted in that case shall be applicable in the instant case which shall start from today provided the petitioner was appointed against a sanctioned post following the rules. If he was not appointed against a sanctioned post the benefit of this order shall not be available to him." The above decision has also been followed by the Hon'ble Court in letter and spirit while disposing of WP.(c) 236/2008 Rajendranath Dey v. State of Orissa and others) vide order 5.2.2008 (Annexure-G) and W.P. (c) 13868/2007 (Santosh Kumar Prusty v. State of Orissa and others) vide order dated 11.3.2008 (Annexure-H). As such in all these cases the Hon'ble Court have specifically observed that the applicants must be appointed as against sanctioned post following the rules and in case they were not appointed as against sanctioned posts following the rules then they will not be entitled for the benefit of the order dated 17.11.2005 of the Hon'ble High Court passed in W.P.(C) No.14895/2004. The appointment of the applicant made by the Managing Committee on 1.10.1990 with a condition that the applicant shall not have his salary drawn until his post is approved. As such the applicant was neither appointed against any sanctioned post (GIA linked) nor recruited following statutory Rules made under the Orissa Education Act, 1969. In that view of the matter the so called appointment of the applicant was ab initio illegal and void. Learned counsel further submit that since the applicant was appointed by the managing committee as against the non-sectioned/non-existent post and without prior approval of the competent authority, the prayer of the applicant as has been made in this O.A. cannot be entertained keeping in view of the recent decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of State of Orissa and others v. Nabin Kumar Beura reported in 2011 (I) OLR 149 wherein the Hon'ble Court in paragraph 12 and 13 held that: "12 On a detailed analysis of the case of Majhipada M.E. School (supra), the facts of that case are distinct from the facts of the present case as noted herein above. In so far as the issue of "prior approval" is concerned, it would be pertinent also to take note of the amendment brought by the State by-the Orissa Act No.13 of 1994. requiring "prior permission" for establishment of educational institutions, since the State wanted to stop the mushroom growth of the educational institutions. Obviously, Orissa Act No.13 of 1994 was not available for consideration in the case of Majhipada M.E. School (supra) which was decided on 21.02.1992. We are of the view that the learned Single Judge failed to consider the legal requirements "prior to creation of the post". Whenever an additional section teacher post is required 1974 Rules itself required prior sanction of the post" itself where-after only consideration for filling up the post would arise. We are of the view that the learned Single Judge failed to consider the legal requirements "prior to creation of the post". Whenever an additional section teacher post is required 1974 Rules itself required prior sanction of the post" itself where-after only consideration for filling up the post would arise. In the present case admittedly the institution had never sought for any approval or creation of any Additional post and consequently, it had no right to fill up the said post and that too by appointing the respondent without prior approval and whose name does not find place in the Select list prepared by the Selection Board. 13. What is most important to note here that the respondent was appointed in the year 1992 as an Additional Section teacher much after the school in question had already come to the fold of Grant-in-aid and therefore, the institution was receiving aid prior to the date of appointment of the respondent. Admittedly, therefore 1974 Rules would apply to the respondent. In the present case, it is the admitted case of the parties that no approval either for "creation of the post" or for "appointment of Additional teacher" was ever sought for nor approved. Rule-5 (8) clearly mandates that all appointments in aided Institutions shall be made from the list provided by the Selection Board. The Managing Committee could make temporary appointme'l1Uor a maximum period of six months but that too, after approval of the Inspector of Schools. In the present case, no such approval was granted and subsequent to the disposal of the earlier writ application i.e., OJC No.7213 of 1997 on 14.7.1997, the Inspector of Schools came to reject the representation of the respondent. Therefore, while the facts of the present case is clearly distinct from the facts dealt with in Majhipada M.E. School's case, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge erred in misconstruing the judgment of this Court in, the aforesaid case by holding that post facto approval would be obtained as a matter of right. Therefore, while the facts of the present case is clearly distinct from the facts dealt with in Majhipada M.E. School's case, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge erred in misconstruing the judgment of this Court in, the aforesaid case by holding that post facto approval would be obtained as a matter of right. We are further of the view that the learned Single Judge also erred in directing the "creation of a post" since the competency for creation of a post lies only with the authority vested with such authority under the Act and such a direction in the absence of any application being made by the institution for creation of the post was clearly opposed the stipulation contained in the 1974 Rules." As such since 1974 Rules is applicable to all Educational Institutions i.e. both High Schools and M.E. Schools, the ratio of this decision shall also be applicable to the case of the applicant. Learned counsel also submits that even though the school in question was taken over by Government w.e.f. 7.6.1994, the applicant had filed OJC 14864/96 before the Hon'ble High Court i.e. 2 years after the school was taken over. The applicant has also not filed the present O.A. within a period of two weeks as directed by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 3.1.2008 in Misc. Case No.866/2007 arising out of OJC 8309/ 1999, since this O.A. was filed on 12.2.2008 after 40 days i.e. 26 days after the time stipulated by the Hon'ble Court, as such the present O.A. is hopelessly barred by limitation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C. Jacob versus-Director of Geology and Mining reported in (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 961 : (2008) 10 see 115 has been pleased to hold that any claim made by an applicant beyond the prescribed period of limitation cannot be entertained by the Tribunal. Any relief to a stale/belated claim made by the applicant, even if disposed of with a direction for consideration of representation and disposal of such representation by the authority concerned, shall not give rise to a fresh cause of action. This decision has also been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & others v. M.K. Sarkar, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 59. This decision has also been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & others v. M.K. Sarkar, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 59. As such on that count also the relief sought for by the applicant is liable to rejected. , Learned counsel further submits that as it appears the applicant has not acquired B. Ed. training qualification. In that view of the matter the erstwhile Managing Committee appointed the applicant without having requisite training qualification to be appointed as against Trained Graduate Teacher post and in support of his contention that lacking eligibility as per the rules/advertisement cannot be cured at any stage and making appointment of such a person tantamounts to an illegality and not an irregularity, thus cannot be cured, he has drawn my attention to paragraph 40 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mamata Mohanty (supra), wherein it has been held : "40. In Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Ors., this Court examined the issue as to whether a person lacking eligibility can be appointed and .if so, whether such irregularity/illegality can be cured/condoned. After considering the provisions of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1983 & U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, this Court came to a conclusion that lacking eligibility as per the rules/advertisement cannot be cured at any stage and making appointment of such a person tantamounts to an illegality and not an irregularity thus cannot be cured. A person lacking the eligibility cannot approach the Court for the reason that he does not have a right which can be enforced through Court. "41. This Court in Pramod Kumar further held as under (SCC p.160, para (8) (2008) 7 SCC 153 . If the essential educational qualification for recruitment to a post is not satisfied. ordinarily the same cannot be condoned. Such an act cannot be ratified. An appointment which is contrary to the statute/statutory rules would be void in law. An illegality cannot be regularized particularly when the statute in no unmistakable term says so. Only an irregularity can be. (See Secy., State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, National Fertilizers Ltd. v. Somvir Singh, and Post Master General, Kolkata v. Tutu Das (Dutta)." 7. An appointment which is contrary to the statute/statutory rules would be void in law. An illegality cannot be regularized particularly when the statute in no unmistakable term says so. Only an irregularity can be. (See Secy., State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, National Fertilizers Ltd. v. Somvir Singh, and Post Master General, Kolkata v. Tutu Das (Dutta)." 7. When this matter was taken up on 12.8.2011 along with O.A. 1199 (c)/2011 this Tribunal, has directed learned counsel for both the parties to file a date chart in respect of individual cases/applicant with detail particulars along with supporting documents: (1) Whether permission was obtained for opening of the school and for how many classes, with date. (2) Date of recognition granted in favour of the school. (3) The date of which school became an aided educational institution, with how many classes. (4) When the respective additional sections were opened in the school with detail particulars. (5) As to whether prior to the opening of the additional sections, required permission of competent authority was obtained and if answer is positive, then the date of such permission, as per Rules. (6) As to whether the Inspector of Schools was requested to sponsor the names of selection Board candidates before any selection test was conducted by the Managing Committee. (7) As to whether proper procedure has been followed for selection and appointment of additional section teachers as per Rules. (8) The date on which the school was taken over by the Government. (9) When the concerned teacher was appointed, on the prior approval of the Government or otherwise, what was the required qualification for those additional section teacher and what was the qualification of the concerned teacher at the time of appointment. (10) And also furnish information as to which category the applicants belong i.e (1) additional section teacher to be approved and salary to be paid (2) Teachers appointed prior to 18.12.1993 before the Rule 1993 came into operation and (3) persons, having Trained Graduate qualification appointed against Trained Intermediate post and those posts were later on upgraded by the circular/order of the Government and hence as to whether those teachers are entitled for B.A. B. Ed. scale of pay w.e.f the up-gradation of the post. But the learned counsel did not bother to furnish those particulars in spite of repeated adjournments. scale of pay w.e.f the up-gradation of the post. But the learned counsel did not bother to furnish those particulars in spite of repeated adjournments. As such as it appears the applicant does not possess required, document in support of his claim, as has been directed by this Tribunal. It may not be out of place to mention here that even though after the' hearing of the case was concluded on 23.9.2011 and liberty was given to the learned counsel for both the parties to file their notes of argument, no such notes of argument has been filed by the learned counsel. 8. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties, as it appears that the applicant was said to have been appointed as an Assistant Teacher/Additional Section Teacher by the Secretary/Headmaster of Indramani Ucha Bidyapitha, Bisigadia in the district of Balasore vide order dated 1.10.1990 (Annexure-1) as against a non-sanctioned post/unapproved post. Since there was no substantive/ sanctioned post available for engagement of the applicant as an Assistant Teacher/Additional Section Teacher in the said school and no permission was granted by the competent authority for such engagement of the applicant prior to the date of her appointment, nor proper procedure has been followed by the concerned authority for selection and appointment of the applicant and as such the appointment of the applicant was bad from its inception, so also since the applicant not being an approved teacher of the school in question and he was not appointed by the Secretary as against any sanctioned post, her services was not taken over by the Government when the school in which the applicant was said to be working was taken over. As such keeping in .view the recent decision of the Hon'ble Court in the case of State of orissa and others v. Nabin Kumar Beura reported in 2011 (I) OLR 149 , and other decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as stated above, so also the Hon'ble High Court, in a good number cases have already held that for approval of a post in a recognized/Aided educational institution, there must be a sanctioned post and appointment ought to have been made following due procedure as per rules (order dated 9.1.2008 in W.P.(c) No.14884/2007, order dated 5.2.2008 in W.P.(c) No.17001/2007 and other cases of similar nature, no direction can be issued to the concerned authority to approve the appointment of the applicant with effect from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 1.10.1990 when the school was in Grant-in-Aid system nor from 7.6.1994 wh!3n the school was taken over by the Government. 9. In view of the above, I am of the considered view, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the Inspector of Schools, Bhadrak Circle in his order dated 21.11.1998 (Annexure-6), which would call for any interference by this Tribunal. As such I am not inclined to entertain the relief as has been sought for by the applicant in this O.A. both on merit as well as on the ground of limitation. The O.A. and M.P. are accordingly disposed of. Send copies. O.A. & M.P. disposed of.