ORDER Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J. - The petitioner has filed this application assailing the order dated, 15.7.2004 passed by the Joint Director (Schools), Regional Directorate of Education, Sambalpur in Appeal No. 11 of 2003 holding that the appointment of the petitioner is prima facie void as the said appointment was against a non-created, non-approved additional post by the Managing Committee and seeking quashing of the same and also for grant of consequential benefits as due and admissible in accordance with law by allowing him to resume his duty to function as Assistant Teacher in place of opposite party Nos. 6 and 7. The short fact of the case in hand is that Swami Ramakrishna Memorial High School, Chhend Colony, Rourkela was established in the year 1988 after getting due permission from the competent authority. The students of the said high school have been appearing at the H.S.C. Examination as regular candidates since 1994. The staffing pattern of the school is regulated by the Government guidelines according to which besides the headmaster, there should be two trained graduate teachers in Arts, two science graduate posts, one from PCM and another for CBZ two other teachers are continuing against the said posts. The petitioner who was a trained graduate was appointed by the Managing Committee to discharge his duty of Asst. Teacher and he joined in the said school on 20.08.1996. It is stated by the petitioner that by the time he was appointed/opposite party Nos. 6 and 7 though was continuing against the trained graduate post, they had no requisite training qualification. Therefore, they could not have been allowed to continue against the said posts. But subsequently, opposite party Nos. 6 and 7 obtained B.Ed. qualification under correspondence course from Kamraj University, Madurai in the year 1998-99. Since the petitioner's appointment had not been approved, he was not allowed to continue in service, the same amounted to termination of service. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Joint Director (Schools), Regional Directorate of Education, Sambalpur under Section 10(A) of the Orissa Education Act. After due adjudication, the Director has rejected the claim of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 15.7.2004. Hence, this application. 2. Mr. Bansidhar Baug, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that the petitioner having requisite qualification and having been appointed as Asst. After due adjudication, the Director has rejected the claim of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 15.7.2004. Hence, this application. 2. Mr. Bansidhar Baug, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that the petitioner having requisite qualification and having been appointed as Asst. Teacher pursuant to which he joined the post, he could not have been prevented to discharge his duty against the said post. It is stated that opposite party Nos. 6 and 7 both had no requisite training qualification by the time they were appointed against the trained graduate post. Therefore, the petitioner being the only qualified person, he should have been allowed to discharge his duty against the post he has been appointed. Subsequently, he has been prevented to discharge the duty, which amounts-to termination as a result of which he preferred an appeal before the Joint Director (Schools), Regional Directorate of Education, Sambalpur under Section 10(A) of the Orissa Education Act who ultimately held that the petitioner's appointment having been made against a non-created, non-approved additional post, such appointment is prima facie void. This finding of the appellate authority, it is urged, is the outcome of non-application of mind, therefore he seeks for interference of this Court. In order to substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgment in Pramod Kumar Vs. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Others, . 3. Mr. P. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department justifies the order passed by the Director in Annexure-5 and states that the order passed on 15.7.2004 by the Joint Director (Schools), Regional Directorate of Education, Sambalpur suffers from no infirmity in view of the fact that as per the provisions of law since opposite party Nos. 6 and 7 have been appointed as per the yardstick prescribed by the Education Department even though initially they don't have trained qualification. But there is no bar to appoint a non-trained person against the trained graduate post and by the time the petitioner was appointed, opposite party Nos. 6 and 7 were already continuing against the approved post under prescribed yardstick. In that view of the mater, the petitioner having been appointed against the nonexistent and non-created post, his services cannot be approved. Therefore, after realizing the mistake, the managing committee has rightly disallowed the petitioner to render the service. 6 and 7 were already continuing against the approved post under prescribed yardstick. In that view of the mater, the petitioner having been appointed against the nonexistent and non-created post, his services cannot be approved. Therefore, after realizing the mistake, the managing committee has rightly disallowed the petitioner to render the service. Consequence thereof, the petitioner was terminated from service and against the said order, he preferred appeal under Section 10-A of the Orissa Education Act. After due adjudication, the Director has passed the impugned order. Therefore, there is no infirmity and illegality in the order impugned as the appointment of the petitioner is absolutely void ab initio. 4. Mr. R.N. Pradhan, learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 6 and 7 states that opposite party Nos. 6 and 7 were appointed against the posts under the yardstick by following due procedure of selection even though they had no requisite training qualification. But there is no bar to allow a non-trained person against the trained graduate post. Consequentially by the time the petitioner was appointed, the posts were filled up by the opposite party Nos. o and 7. Therefore, against the non-existent and non-created post, he has been appointed by the managing committee, which is contrary to the yardstick prescribed by the State Government. After realizing the mistake, since the managing committee did not allow the petitioner to discharge his duty that amounts to termination of service. Therefore, he approached the appropriate forum under Section 10-A of the Orissa Education Act and after due adjudication, the authority has passed the impugned order. It is further urged that opposite party Nos. 6 and 7 have also acquired the B.Ed, qualification in the meantime and as such they having been appointed validly in conformity with the yardstick prescribed, the petitioner cannot question their appointment in any manner whatsoever. 5. Considering the contention raised, by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, it appears that the petitioner having trained graduate qualification was appointed by the managing committee pursuant to which he joined in the post on 20.08.1996. But by the time the petitioner joined in the post as per the yardstick no vacancy was available in the school. As per the yardstick, two trained arts graduates posts had been filled up by opposite party Nos. 6 and 7 though they had no B.Ed, qualification by the time they were appointed. But by the time the petitioner joined in the post as per the yardstick no vacancy was available in the school. As per the yardstick, two trained arts graduates posts had been filled up by opposite party Nos. 6 and 7 though they had no B.Ed, qualification by the time they were appointed. But as per the provisions of law, there was no bar to appoint a non-trained person against the trained graduate post. In the meantime, both the opposite party Nos. 6 and 7 have acquired the trained qualification and as such the appointment of opposite party Nos. 6 and 7 cannot be assailed by the petitioner because he was appointed at a point of time when there was no vacancy. Therefore, his appointment is contrary to the yardstick and more so no additional sectional post has been created on the basis of roll strength to accommodate the petitioner to discharge his duty. In that view of the matter, on verification of records and documents, the Director has come to a definite conclusion that the petitioner was appointed as an Asst. Teacher by the managing committee against a non-created and non-approved additional sectional post of the school though the roll strength of the school did not justify for opening of an additional section and roll strength of the school by the time the petitioner was appointed was in class-VIII was 42, Class-DC was 43 and Class-X was 36. The petitioner was not appointed against any post within the yardstick prescribed for the school and as such there was no vacancy available to accommodate him. In absence of any post as per the yardstick, any appointment made is contrary to the provisions of law. It appears from the materials which have been produced by the Managing Committee that the petitioner furnished an undertaking at the time of his appointment that he would not claim any grant-in-aid from the Government unless his appointment as an Asst. Teacher of the school is finally approved by me competent authority. As the petitioner was appointed against a non-created and non-approved post of Asst. Teacher by the managing committee, his appointment is purely void ab initio. 6. The reliance is placed on Pramod Kumar Vs. Teacher of the school is finally approved by me competent authority. As the petitioner was appointed against a non-created and non-approved post of Asst. Teacher by the managing committee, his appointment is purely void ab initio. 6. The reliance is placed on Pramod Kumar Vs. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Others, mentioned (supra), wherein the apex Court has dealt with a case where qualification of holding a post have been laid down under the statute. It was held therein that any appointment in violation thereof would be nullity. The ratio of the said case decided by the Apex Court is not applicable to the present context inasmuch as the appointment of opposite party Nos. 6 and 7 had been made against the trained graduate post and by the time they were appointed they had no training qualification, but subsequently they acquired such qualification and there is no bar that a non-trained person to continue against the trained graduate post under the provisions of law. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the appointment of opposite party Nos. 6 and 7 is dehors the rule. Therefore, their appointment do not suffer from any irregularity, rather the petitioner who had been appointed against the non-created and non-approved post has no locus standi to challenge the appointment of opposite party Nos. 6 and 7 in any manner. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the order passed by the Joint Director (Schools), Regional Directorate of Education, Sambalpur in Annexure-5 does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity so that this Court can interfere with the same. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this application and accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed