JUDGMENT : B.N. Mahapatra, J. - The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers: "It is therefore, humbly prayed this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the case, call for the records and after hearing both the parties pass the following relief; (i) To direct the opposite parties to appoint the petitioner as regular primary school teacher from the date when other persons like petitioner have been appointed as Asst. Teacher; (ii) To direct the opposite parties to grant all financial and consequential benefits flowing from the appointment of the petitioner as regular Primary School teacher. (iii) To declare para-4 of the Resolution dated 1.8.2011 is inapplicable to the petitioner; (iv) And to pass such other order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper for the interest of justice." 2. Petitioner's case in a nutshell is that after being duly selected she was engaged as Swechha Sevi Sikshya Sahayak on 9.3.2005. Since the date of her engagement, the petitioner has been discharging her duty to the utmost satisfaction of all concerned. She belongs to S.T. category. An untrained candidate belonging to S.T. category was engaged as Swechha Sevi Sikshya Sahayak in relaxation of her qualification as per the resolution dated 10.1.2008 issued by the Government of Odisha in Department of School and Mass Education laying down certain conditions of service for engagement of Swechha Sevi Sikshya Sahayak and the recruitment procedure. From 10.1.2008, 'Swechha Sevi Sikshya Sahayaks' were called as 'Sikshya Sahayaks'. As per Clause-10 of the said resolution, Sikshya Sahayaks, after completion of three years of continuous satisfactory engagement, will be appointed as Junior Teachers by the Zilla Parishad on contractual basis. Further, as per Clause- 12.1 of the said resolution, a Junior Teacher after completion of three years of continuous satisfactory engagement, will be eligible for appointment as regular Primary School teacher. Accordingly, after completion of three years of satisfactory service, the petitioner was engaged as Junior Teacher. On 09.11.2009, the Government in School and Mass Education Department passed a resolution laying down certain service conditions for appointment of regular Primary School teachers from among the eligible Junior Teachers. As per Clause- 2.1 of the said resolution, a Sikshya Sahayak, after completion of six years satisfactory engagement as Sikshya Sahayak and Junior Teacher taken together, shall be eligible for appointment as regular Primary School teacher under Zilla Parishad. As per Clause- 2.1 of the said resolution, a Sikshya Sahayak, after completion of six years satisfactory engagement as Sikshya Sahayak and Junior Teacher taken together, shall be eligible for appointment as regular Primary School teacher under Zilla Parishad. The petitioner completed six years of service as Sikshya Sahayak and Junior Teacher taken together on 5.3.2011. As per the policy decision of the Government, the petitioner is eligible for appointment as regular Primary School teacher on or after 9.3.2011. However, the Government by another resolution dated 1.8.2011 provided for career advancement policy of Sikshya Sahayak/Junior Teacher. As per Clause-4 of the said resolution the trained Junior Teachers after completion of three years of continuous satisfactory engagement as such under Zilla Parishad may be eligible for appointment as regular Primary School teacher by the Zilla Parishad on the basis of the number of vacancy to be transferred from the existing District Cadre to the Zilla Parishad cadre and subject to fulfilling the conditions mentioned in the said resolution. Further as per Clause-4.1 of the said resolution, a Sikshya Sahayak/Junior Teacher having training qualification after completion of six years of continuous satisfactory engagement as Sikshya Sahayak and Junior Teacher taken together, shall be eligible for appointment as regular Primary School Teacher. From 19.10.2011 the Government clarified the position that the Sikshya Sahayaks/Junior Teachers, who are eligible as per the conditions laid down in Annexures- 4 and 5, are eligible for appointment as Primary School Teachers under the Zilla Parishad. In-so-far-as the Ganjam District is concerned, 1300 Primary School Teachers were transferred from School and Mass Education Department to Zilla Parishad for appointment as regular Primary School Teachers from among the eligible Sikshya Sahayaks/Junior Teachers. Resolution dated 10.1.2008 under Annexure-2 was issued in supercession of earlier resolutions dated 31.5.2006, 12.10.2006 and 14.11.2007. According to the petitioner, for appointment as Sikshya Sahayak the eligibility criteria is that a candidate must have passed HSC/ +2 Examination and C.T. Examination and B.A./B.Sc./B.Com and B.Ed. Examination for B.Ed. candidates. But there was a relaxation for SC & ST candidates that untrained +2 candidates can be engaged as Sikshya Sahayak in case of unavailability of CT/B.Ed. trained candidate of that category. Since the petitioner belongs to ST category, she was engaged as Sikshya Sahayak though she was untrained. Examination for B.Ed. candidates. But there was a relaxation for SC & ST candidates that untrained +2 candidates can be engaged as Sikshya Sahayak in case of unavailability of CT/B.Ed. trained candidate of that category. Since the petitioner belongs to ST category, she was engaged as Sikshya Sahayak though she was untrained. As per notification under Annexure-2, the petitioner deserves for appointment as regular Primary School Teacher on completion of six years of satisfactory service as Sikshya Sahayak and Junior Teacher. But when the case of Junior Teachers of Ganjam District were taken into consideration for appointment as regular Primary School Teachers, case of the petitioner was not taken into account, by misrepresenting Resolutions dated 19.10.2011 and 26.12.2011 passed under Annexures-5 and 6 respectively. The only ground for non-consideration of the petitioner's case for appointment as regular Primary School Teacher is that she being an untrained candidate cannot be appointed as regular Primary School Teacher. 3. Mr. M.K. Khuntia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that action of opposite parties in not engaging the petitioner as regular Primary School Teacher by misrepresenting Resolutions under Annexures-5 and 6 is illegal, ex facie arbitrary and is a case of complete non-application of mind. Mr. Khuntia further submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Sikshya Sahayak when she was untrained in accordance with the eligibility criteria governed at that point of time. As per the earlier application, the petitioner was eligible for appointment as regular Primary School teacher on completion of six years of service though she is untrained. Therefore, imposition of condition after completion of six years of service that only trained Sikshya Sahayaks and Junior Teachers will be appointed as regular Primary School Teachers is not legal and non-consideration of teachers like the petitioner for regular appointment is illegal. Law is well-settled that no authority under the law has right to deny or deprive a person of his legal entitlement without adopting due process of law or procedure of law. Under Article 14 of the Constitution of India right to equality has been guaranteed to the citizens by providing therein that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of laws within the territory of India. Under Article 14 of the Constitution of India right to equality has been guaranteed to the citizens by providing therein that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of laws within the territory of India. Article 16 prescribes that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment or promotion to any office under the State. The action of the authority is contrary to law. It is further submitted that in respect of other districts of the State though untrained Sikshya Sahayaks/Junior Teachers have been appointed as regular Primary School Teacher on completion of six years of service, the petitioner has been discriminated in Ganjam district which is illegal. The action of the Opp. Party-authorities in processing the selection in accordance with the amended rules has infringed the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Constitution provides an important significance on public employment and rule of equality. Special provisions have been made under Articles 323(A) which permits establishment of Tribunals as special and adjudicatory mechanism. Provisions of Part-XIV of Constitution show that the Constitution makers had given importance to public employment by providing certain rights and protection to the office holders and protection to Union and States under Articles 309, 311, 315, 316, 317 and 318 to 323. 4. Mr. Rath, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of Opp. Parties submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable as the relief prayed for by the petitioner in the writ petition relates to recruitment to the post of regular Primary School Teacher which is a civil post and the Orissa Administrative Tribunal is vested with the jurisdiction, powers, authority and matters concerning recruitment to any civil service of the State or to any civil post under the State. Mr. Rath further submitted that this Court vide judgment dated 26.7.2011 passed in W.P.(c) No.18915 of 2011 held that regular Primary School Teacher's post is a civil post. Therefore, the proper remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the Orissa Administrative Tribunal. 5. On rival contentions of the parties, the following questions arise for consideration by this Court: (i) Whether the writ petition seeking appointment as regular Primary School Teacher is maintainable ? Therefore, the proper remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the Orissa Administrative Tribunal. 5. On rival contentions of the parties, the following questions arise for consideration by this Court: (i) Whether the writ petition seeking appointment as regular Primary School Teacher is maintainable ? (ii) Whether Clauses 4 and 4.1 of the resolution dated 1.8.2011 stands on the way of the petitioner in getting appointment as regular Primary School Teacher ? 6. So far as first question is concerned, this Court vide Judgment dated 26.7.2011 in Kamala K. Paikroy v. State of Orissa and others held that the person holding the post of regular Primary School Teacher, is a civil servant and is holding a civil post under the State though his service is under direct control and supervision of Zilla Parishad, which is a State body with the following observation: "Coming back to the facts and circumstances of the case, admittedly that petitioner, who was working as Junior Teacher was appointed as regular Primary School Teacher under Zilla Parishad w.e.f. 09.04.2008. His appointment was made pending finalization of the service condition with the pay scale applicable to Level-V of the Elementary Cadre Trained Teachers. Petitioner is being paid emoluments by the State Government. He is entitled to pensionary benefit, house rent allowance, leave etc. as per the State Government Service Code and Rules regulating the services of a Civil Servant who is holding a civil post. Since petitioner and his service conditions are governed and regulated by the provisions contained in the Orissa Service Code, the Orissa Civil Service (Classification, Control & Rules)and his services are under the direct control and supervision of Zilla Parishad which a State body, he is a civil servant and is holding a civil posts under the State. A relationship of master and servant exists between Zilla Parishad and the petitioner. Therefore, all his service matters, including his transfer can be challenged by him only before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal. Since, the petitioner is holding a civil post under Zilla Parishad and existing Government establishment. Hence, the writ petition is not maintainable." 7. Relevant portion of Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 which deals with the jurisdiction, authority and powers of the Administrative Tribunals is extracted below: "15. Since, the petitioner is holding a civil post under Zilla Parishad and existing Government establishment. Hence, the writ petition is not maintainable." 7. Relevant portion of Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 which deals with the jurisdiction, authority and powers of the Administrative Tribunals is extracted below: "15. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of State Administrative Tribunals.-(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Administrative Tribunal for a State shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable immediately before that day by all Courts (except the Supreme Court ) in relation to - (a) recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment, to any civil service of the State or to any civil post under the State; (b) all service matters concerning a person (not being a person referred to in Clause (c) of this Sub-section or a member, person or civilian referred to in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 appointed to any civil service of the State or any civil post under the State and pertaining to the service of such person in connection with the affairs of the State or of any local or other authority under the control of the State Government or of any Corporation (or society) owned or controlled by the State Government; (c) all service matters pertaining to service in connection with the affairs of the State concerning a person appointed to any service or post referred to in Clause (b), being a person whose services have been placed by any such local or other authority or Corporation (or society) or other body as is controlled or owned by the State Government at the disposal of the State Government for such appointment." 8. Section 15 of the Act was interpreted by this Court in W.P.(c) Nos.3388 of 2010 (Hrusikesh Sethi & others v. State of Orissa and others) and W.P.(C) No.3752 of 2010 (Rajeeba Kumar Dutta v. State of Orissa and others). It was observed:- "A person holding a post under a State is a person serving or employed under the State. The relationship of master and servant exists between the State and the person holding a post under it. It was observed:- "A person holding a post under a State is a person serving or employed under the State. The relationship of master and servant exists between the State and the person holding a post under it. The existence of this relationship is indicated by the State's right to select and appoint the holder of the post, its right to suspend and dismiss him, its right to control, the manner and method of his doing the work and the payment of wages or remuneration, as the case may be. A relationship of master and servant may be established by the presence of all or some of these indicia, in conjunction with other circumstances and it is a question of fact in each case whether such a relation between the State and the alleged holder of a post exists or not. A conjoint reading of Articles 309, 310 and 311 gives an impression that post under the State denotes an office. A person who holds a civil post under a State holds an office during the pleasure of the Government except as expressly provided by Article 310 of the Constitution. In other words, a post under the State is an office or a position to which duties in connection with the affairs of the State are attached. Article 310(2) contemplates that a post may be abolished and a person holding such post may be required to vacate the post." 9. Law is well-settled that a decision by two Judges has a binding effect on another co-ordinate Bench of two Judges, unless it is demonstrated that the said decision by any subsequent change in law or decision ceases to be laying down a correct law. See Government of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. v. B. Satyanarayan Rao (dead) by LRs. And Ors., (2000) 4 SCC 262 10. In the present case, this Court is of the view that the regular Primary School Teacher's post is a civil post and the present writ petitioner's prayer is to consider her case to be appointed as a regular Primary School Teacher. In view of Section 15 of Administrative Tribunals Act and judgment of this Court dated 26.7.2011 in Kamala K. Paikroy v. State of Orissa and others (supra), this writ petition is not maintainable. 11. In view of Section 15 of Administrative Tribunals Act and judgment of this Court dated 26.7.2011 in Kamala K. Paikroy v. State of Orissa and others (supra), this writ petition is not maintainable. 11. In view of answer to question no.(i), there is no need to answer question No.(ii) which would amount to mere academic in nature. In the fact situation, it is open to the petitioner to approach the Orissa Administrative Tribunal for appropriate relief. 12. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observation as not maintainable.