JUDGMENT
L. Mohapatra, J.
1. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 28.8.1997, Annexure-13 whrerin his representation for approval for the post of Lecturer occupied by him has been turned down on the ground that he has secured 47.88 per cent of marks and the petitioner has further prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to round up the aforesaid percentage to 48 per cent and approve the appointment of the petitioner for the post of Lecturer in English and release the grant- in-aid with effect from 1.6.1994.
2. The Panchayat College, Kantamal is a junior college which was established in the year 1984 and +2 classes were opened in the same year/Government concurrence was obtained with effect from the academic year 1988-89 and the college became eligible to receive grant-in-aid with effect from 1.6.1994. Presently it is an aided college.
After opening of the college, the petitioner had applied for appointment as a Lecturer in English pursuant to an advertisement and having been selected, he was so appointed by letter dated 5.8.1984. The petitioner further submits that he had secured 47.88 per cent of marks in M. A. examination i.e. 431 marks out of 900. Since the petitioner was occupying the first post of Lecturer in English, the Governing Body of the college submitted to the government the necessary staff position including the name of the petitioner for verification and approval of appointment of the staff for the purpose of releasing the grant-in-aid. On 15.3.1996 the Deputy Secretary of the Government, in the Department of Higher Education, sanctioned necessary funds for payment of grant-in-aid to the college as a result of which, many other lecturers who were appointed along with the petitioner in different Subjects were paid grant-in-aid with effect from 1.6.1994. Even though the name of the petitioner was duly recommended by the Governing Body for approval, the same had not been approved. The petitioner made a representation to the Minister, Higher Education which was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had not secured 48 per cent of marks in M.A. examination. The petitioner submits that his case is covered by the decisions of this Court as well as the apex Court and accordingly, the post occupied by the petitioner should be approved and he is entitled to the grant-in-aid with effect from 1.6.1994.
A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party No. 2 wherein it is stated that the petitioner having not secured 48 per cent of marks in Post-Graduate level, his appointment cannot be approved. It is further submitted in the counter-affidavit that there is no order of this Court, particularly in the case of Lecturers of non-government colleges, that 47.5 per cent or above and up to 48 per cent of marks secured by Lecturers should be treated as 48 per cent. The deficiency in the percentage of marks does not make the petitioner eligible and qualified to hold the post of Lecturer.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the decision rendered by this Court in Civil Review No. 87 of 1996, State of Orissa v. Pranaya Kumar Mohapatra and Ors., (disposed of on 5.5.1998). A Full Bench of this Court in that case held that 53.9 per cent marks is almost equivalent to 54 per cent marks and held that a Lecturer in an aided college shall be eligible to grant-in-aid with effect from the date he possesses the requisite qualification as prescribed by the State Government. The learned counsel has also referred to a decision reported in (1997) 4 SCC 560, State of Orissa and Anr., v. Damodar Nayak and Anr., wherein similar view has been taken by the apex Court.
Relying on the aforesaid two decisions, we are of the view that since the petitioner has secured 47.88 per cent marks at Post-Graduate level, the same is almost equivalent to 48 per cent which is the qualifying percentage as stated by the opposite parties in the counter-affidavit. Therefore, the appointment of the petitioner as Lecturer in English should be approved and the grant-in-aid in favour of the petitioner should be released with effect from 1.6.1994, as has been done in the case of other Lecturers of the said college, We, therefore, direct opposite parties 2 and 3 to approve the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Lecturer in English and release grant-in-aid in his favour with effect from 1.6.1994.
Accordingly, the writ application is allowed. No cost.
P.K. Mishra, J.
4. I agree.