ORDER JUSTICE N. PRUSTY, CHAIRIVIAN- The applicant, who was appointed as an Assistant Teacher/Additional Section Teacher in Gunadi High School in the district of Dhenkanal vide order dated 20.6.1989 issued by the Secretary of the School (Annexure-l) and terminated from his services with effect from 11.10.1993 vide order dated 10.9.1993 issued by the Headmaster-cum-Secretary of the said school as per the decision of the Managing Committee (Annexure-2), had filed this O.A. with a prayer for a direction to the respondents to reinstate the applicant in his former post as the termination is illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard Miss. S. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Miss D. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. A.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel, S & M.E. 3. Miss. Mohapatra, learned counsel submitted that Gunadi High School in the district Dhenkanal was established in the year 1966 and became an aided educational institution in the year 1969 within the meaning of Section 3 (B) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969. Due to increase of roll strength in Class VIII, when opening of an additional section was required, the Managing Committee had opened a section during the year 1989 and the applicant was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in as against the additional section of Class VIII(B) by the Secretary of the school vide order dated 20.6.1989 (Annexure-1) with the terms and conditions that the services of the applicant is purely temporary and can be terminated at any time without assigning any reason and the applicant accepting such terms and conditions joined the post on 3.7.1989. While the applicant was continuing as such, his name was duly recommended by the headmaster-cum-Secretary of the said school to the Inspector of Schools for approval of his appointment and al-so for payment of his monthly salary under the direct payment scheme as per Rule 9 of the Orissa Education (Recruitment) Rules, 1974. When the matter was pending before the State Government, the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the school served one month's notice dated 10.9.1993 on the applicant that the services of the applicant shall be terminated on 11.10.1993 on the ground of non-acquisition of B.Ed. qualification vide Annexure-2. Challenging the said order of termination of services of the applicant, he had filed appeal No.36/1993 before the Education Tribunal. qualification vide Annexure-2. Challenging the said order of termination of services of the applicant, he had filed appeal No.36/1993 before the Education Tribunal. Vide judgment dated 4.5.1994 (Annexure-3) the Tribunal dismissed the said appeal filed by the applicant on the ground that the appointment of the applicant being irregular he is not entitled to the claim of protection under Section 10(9) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969. After disposal of the said appeal, the applicant had filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court bearing O.J.C. No.5550/1995 before the Hon'ble High Court. At the relevant time, since the school in question was taken over by the State Government, the Hon'ble High Court permitted the applicant to withdraw the writ application on 19.10.1995 to file an Original Application before the Tribunal. Thereafter the applicant had filed O.A. 1923(c)/1995 assailing the order of the appellate authority as well as the order of termination. The Tribunal vide order dated 19.10.1995 (Annexure-4) disposed of the said O.A. with a direction to the Inspector of Schools/ respondent No.3 to dispose of the representation of the applicant within 3 months. When the order of termination was passed, the matter was pending before the State Government for approval and sanction of an additional section post. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 had intimated the respondent No.2 that the post of Additional Section Teacher w.e.f. 7.6.1994 as per the list enclosed provided the continuance of such post found justified as on 7.6.1994 may be approved by the Inspector of Schools and the name of the applicant was also mentioned in the list of Teachers enclosed therein vide order dated 29.4.1995 (Annexure-5). Pursuant to the order of the Tribunal dated 19.10.1995 (Annexure-4), the Inspector of Schools/respondent No.3 vide his order dated 28.12.1995 (Annexure-8) rejected the representation of the applicant on the ground that the services of the applicant has already been terminated by the Managing Committee and the appeal preferred by the applicant challenging the order of termination of his services before the State Education Tribunal has already been dismissed. Respondent No.3 has not taken into account the various circulars of the Government wherein it has been stipulated that even though a teacher having no requisite qualification to hold a Trained Graduate post, his services cannot be terminated and he should be given opportunity of two years to acquire training qualification. Respondent No.3 has not taken into account the various circulars of the Government wherein it has been stipulated that even though a teacher having no requisite qualification to hold a Trained Graduate post, his services cannot be terminated and he should be given opportunity of two years to acquire training qualification. It has also been decided by the Government that untrained teachers continuing against a Trained Graduate post shall be permitted to continue, if he was appointed prior to 5.1.1991 (Annexure-6). Since the applicant was appointed in 1989, he is entitled to get the benefit of the circulars issued by the Government from time to time. 4. The applicant filed L.P. No.55(c)/1999 with a prayer to condone delay in filing of this O.A. In this application the applicant has stated that after the order was passed on 28.12.1995 the applicant has approached the authorities and filed several representations to the authorities. He has made the last representation on 20.8.1998. Since the representations of the applicant have not been considered the representations, he has filed the present O.A. on 7.5.1999. If the delay will not be condoned, the applicant will be highly prejudiced and shall suffer irreparable loss. 5. Mr. Pandey, learned standing counsel, on the basis of counter filed by the State respondents, submitted that the applicant being an untrained graduate was appointed by the Secretary of the Managing Committee of Gunadei High School as an Additional Section Teacher of Class VIII-B vide order dated 20.6.1989 (Annexure-1) with condition that his service is purely temporary and may be terminated at any time without assigning any reason thereof and fully knowing such terms and conditions the applicant joined in his post on 3.7.1989. The said appointment of the applicant made by the Secretary was accepted by the Managing Committee vide their resolution No.1 dated 12.1.1990 (Annexure-A/3) i.e. 6 months after appointment of the applicant. In the said Resolution it has been resolved that one teacher is being appointed in every year by the Managing Committee to teach the additional section of Class VIII and Class IX purely on private basis and accordingly during the year i.e. 1989-90 the applicant was appointed, which seems to be manipulated in the proceeding book of the Managing Committee. Hence the appointment of the applicant is illegal and in contravention of the provisions of law. Hence the appointment of the applicant is illegal and in contravention of the provisions of law. Sub-section 2 of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 categorically envisages that every private educational institution shall appoint qualified teachers as provided under sub-section (1). According to the staffing pattern prescribed by Government vide their order No.28465/EYS dated 8.7.1981 it has been mentioned that the qualification of a section teacher to be appointed against the sections of Class VIII, IX and X must be trained graduate. But the Secretary of the school in question has given appointment to the applicant non-officially in utter violation of the directions of the Government and without following the recruitment procedure, etc. to accommodate the applicant obviously. Since the appointment of the applicant was irregular, as such the Managing Committee issued one month notice to the applicant on 10.9.1993 and terminated his services with effect from 11.10.1993, since he could not get himself trained for the additional section teacher's post of Class VIII, which is a trained graduate post as per the provisions laid down in G.O. dated 8.7.1981. The applicant had filed appeal bearing No.36/1993 challenging the order of termination of his services before the State Education Tribunal and the Tribunal after hearing the parties dismissed the said appeal on 4.5.1994 on the ground that the appointment of the applicant is irregular and he is not entitled to claim of protection under Section 10(A) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969. Being dissatisfied with the judgment of the Education Tribunal the applicant had filed O.J.C. 5550/1995 and the said writ application was beard and disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court on 11.10.1995 as withdrawn. The applicant filed O.A. 1923(c)/1995 before the Tribunal. The said O.A. was disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dated 19.10.1995 with a direction to the Inspector of schools to dispose of the representation of the applicant by paying him his arrears. Accordingly the case of the applicant was examined and disposed of by the Inspector of schools vide order dated 28.12.1995 (Annexure-B/3). The said O.A. was disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dated 19.10.1995 with a direction to the Inspector of schools to dispose of the representation of the applicant by paying him his arrears. Accordingly the case of the applicant was examined and disposed of by the Inspector of schools vide order dated 28.12.1995 (Annexure-B/3). The Government in School and Mass Education Department vide their letter No.12631/SME dt.29.4.95 addressed to the Director, Secondary Education, Orissa (as at Annexure-5 to the O.A.) categorically approved the posts of the additional section teachers (but not the appointment/services of the teachers) with effect from 7.6.94 in the schools as per the list enclosed for the time being provided continuance of such posts are found justified as on 7.6.94 i.e. the date of taken over of Government new High Schools, on the basis of yard stick and roll strength of each school. Further in the said Government letter it has been mentioned that the appointment of the incumbents reported to be continuing against such posts as shown in the list may be approved by the concerned C.I. of Schools as per rules subject to the following criteria. (i) The incumbent must have been eligible on the basis of prescribed qualifications to hold the post. (ii) They were appointed following the prescribed procedure. (iii) The post of additional section teacher was justified on the basis of yard stick and roll strength as on 7.6.1994. (3) The appointment will take effect from 7.6.94 and no retrospective effect will be given. (4) If at the time of approval, it is found that an Additional Section teacher as per the list submitted by the Director vide his letter No.5076-G dt. 14.12.94 is not available, the same shall not be filled up without prior approval of Government. Since the applicant had no requisite qualification to be appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher and his appointment was made without following the prescribed procedure, the services of the applicant cannot be approved. Learned counsel further submitted that the services of the applicant were terminated with effect from 11.10.1993 vide order dated 10.9.1993 (Annexure-2). Challenging the said order of termination, the applicant had filed appeal bearing No.36/1993 before the State Education Tribunal. The State Education Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by applicant on merits vide its order dated 4.5.1994 (Annexure-3). Learned counsel further submitted that the services of the applicant were terminated with effect from 11.10.1993 vide order dated 10.9.1993 (Annexure-2). Challenging the said order of termination, the applicant had filed appeal bearing No.36/1993 before the State Education Tribunal. The State Education Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by applicant on merits vide its order dated 4.5.1994 (Annexure-3). As per the averments made in paragraph 6.7 of the O.A., the applicant had filed OJC 5550/1995 which was disposed of as withdrawn vide order dated 19.10.1995. The applicant filed O.A. 1923(c)/1995 before the Tribunal. As it appears from the order of the Tribunal dated 19.10.1995 (Annexure-4), whereby O.A. 1923(c)/1995 was disposed of at the stage of admission, the grievance of the applicant in the said O.A. was that after approval of the services by the State Government on 29.4.1995 in letter No.12631, the applicant had not been paid his legitimate dues. As such the Tribunal disposed of the said O.A. with a direction to consider the representation of the applicant by paying him his arrears within 3 months. The letter dated 29.4.1995 cited in the earlier O.A. is annexed as Annexure-5 to the O.A. Even though the applicant was not in service since 11.10.1993 and the appeal preferred by the applicant challenging the said order of termination from his services before the State Education Tribunal was dismissed vide order dated 4.5.1994, the applicant had filed earlier O.A. 1923(c)/1999 with a prayer to pay his arrear dues as if he was in service on the date of filing of the said O.A. and his appointment was approved by the competent authority. The Inspector of Schools/respondent No.3 vide his order dated 28.12.1995 (Annexure-8) rejected the representation of the applicant with the observation that "since the services of Sri Sar is terminated by the Managing Committee and he is not reinstated in service and his appointment is not yet approved, the question of payment of arrear dues as well as and present salary does, not arise. Besides that have clearly instructed that the appointments of untrained/under qualified teachers should not be approved." As such there is no illegality or irregularity in the order dated 28.12.1995 (Annexure-8) which would call for any interference by the Tribunal. Besides that have clearly instructed that the appointments of untrained/under qualified teachers should not be approved." As such there is no illegality or irregularity in the order dated 28.12.1995 (Annexure-8) which would call for any interference by the Tribunal. Since the appeal preferred by the applicant challenging the order of termination from his services dated 11.10.1993 was dismissed by the State Education Tribunal vide order dated 4.5.1994 and even though the applicant had challenged the order of the State Education Tribunal before the Hon'ble Court in OJC 5550/1995 and the said OJC was disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court as withdrawn vide order dated 11.10.1995, the applicant accepted the order of termination of his services which was confirmed by a competent Court of law i.e. the State Education Tribunal. In that view of the matter the relief as has been sought for by the applicant in this O.A. need not be entertained. Learned counsel further submitted that since the applicant has been appointed by the managing committee as against the non-sanctioned/ 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(1) 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 appointment for 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. 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 Court vide order dated 17.11.2005 passed in W.P(C) 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. 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 intervenors 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. At a later stage, the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(C) 14884/2007 (Manjulata Samantray v. State of Orissa and others) vide order dated 9.1.2008 have been pleased to clarify the above decision dated 17.11.2005 passed in W.P.(C) 5864/2004 and W.P.(C) 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. W.P.(c) No. 17001/2007 (Gangadhar Paikaray v. State of Orissa and others) vide their order dated 5.2.2008 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 W.P.(c) 236/2008 Rajendranath Dey v. State of Orissa and others) vide order 5.2.2008 and W.P.(C) 13868/2007 (Santosh Kumar Prusty v. State of Orissa and others) vide order dated 11.3.2008. As such in all these case 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 post 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) 14895/2004. 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 educational institution, Mr. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel relied upon and cited a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa and another v. 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. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel relied upon and cited a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa and another v. 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. 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 v. Delhi Admn.), State of Haryana v. Paira Singh, Excise Supdt. v. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao, Arun Tewari 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 adhoc 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. 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. 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. As provided under the statute an applicant is to approach the Tribunal within one year from the cause of action or at best within one and half year taking into account the period required for disposal of the representation. Learned counsel also submitted that pursuant to the order of the Tribunal dated 19.10.1995 in O.A. 1923(c)/1995 the Inspector of Schools, Dhenkanal Circle rejected the prayer of the applicant for payment of arrear dues in favour of the applicant vide order dated 28.12.1995 (Annexure-8). Since the applicant has filed the present O.A. even without challenging the said order, nearing 3 years 5 months after the order dated 28.12.1995 was passed by the Inspector of Schools, as such the present O.A. is hopelessly barred by limitation. Since the applicant has filed the present O.A. even without challenging the said order, nearing 3 years 5 months after the order dated 28.12.1995 was passed by the Inspector of Schools, 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 SCC 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 and others v. M.K. Sarkar, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 59. As such on that count also the relief as has been sought for by the applicant in this O.A. is liable to be rejected. Learned counsel further submitted that as it appears the applicant had no requisite qualification on the date of his appointment. In that view of the matter the Secretary of the erstwhile Managing Committee appointed the applicant without having requisite training qualification 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 our 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 Common and others, 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 tentamounts to an illegality and not an irregularity, thus cannot be cured. 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 tentamounts 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). 6. 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 of Gunadei High School in the district of Dhenkanal vide order dated 20.6.1989 (Annexure-1) without having requisite qualification i.e. B.Ed. 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/Additt6nal 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 his 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, his services was not taken over by the Government when the school in which the applicant was said to be working was taken over. Since the applicant did not agitate the order of his termination from his services after the OJC 5550/1995 was disposed of by the Hon'ble Court as withdrawn vide order dated 11.10.1995, as such the order passed by the State Education Tribunal in dismissing the appeal No.36/1993 preferred by the applicant vide order dated 4.5.1994 remained in effect and accordingly the applicant was not reinstated in his services after termination of his services w.e.f. 11.10.1993. The applicant has approached the Tribunal in May 1999 i.e. nearing 3 years 5 months after the order dated 28.12.1995 (Annexure-8), was passed, whereby his claim for payment of arrear dues in his favour was rejected by the Inspector of Schools pursuant to the order dated 19.10.1995 of the Tribunal in O.A. 1923(c)/1995, even without challenging the said order of rejection and only prayed for his reinstatement in service on the ground that the termination was illegal. As such, the present O.A. is hopelessly barred by limitation. Even assuming that the applicant's name finds place in the list of teachers to be considered for approval subject to certain conditions annexed to the order dated 29.4.1995 (Annexure-5), which is after the school was taken over by the Government with effect from 7.6.1994, admittedly the applicant was appointed by the Managing Committee when the school was an aided educational institution vide order dated 20.6.1989 (Annexure-1 ) as against a non-sanctioned post and after his appointment even though his name was recommended by the Secretary of the school to the concerned authority for approval of his post, much prior to approval of his post the services of the applicant was terminated by the same appointing authority vide order dated 10.9.1993 (Annexure-2). In that view of the matter even if the applicant's appointment was to be approved subject to fulfilling the terms and conditions of the order/letter dated 29.4.1995 (Annexure-5), his post can never be approved, since the applicant did not have B.Ed. qualification i.e. the minimum required qualification, prior to the date the school was taken over in the year 1994. As such the applicant shall not be entitled for the benefit of such order (Annexure-5), so also since he was no more in service beginning from 11.10.1993 i.e. one month after notice of termination of his services was served on him and that order shall be treated as one month's notice for all practical purposes. As such the applicant shall not be entitled for the benefit of such order (Annexure-5), so also since he was no more in service beginning from 11.10.1993 i.e. one month after notice of termination of his services was served on him and that order shall be treated as one month's notice for all practical purposes. As such on the date of taken over of the school by the Government with effect from 7.6.1994 vide order dated 16.12.1994, the applicant was not in service in the concerned school being appointed as against Trained Graduate Teacher post only having B.A. qualification. Further more 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 the services of the approved staff were taken over by Government except the non-approved teaching staff like the applicant. As such, keeping in view the facts and circumstances narrated above and 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 , and other decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as stated above, 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. 20.6.1989, when the school was in Grant-in-Aid system nor from 7.6.1994 when the school was taken over by the Government. 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. Both the O.A. and L.P. are accordingly disposed of. O.A. disposed of.