Judgment S. Ali Ahmad, J. 1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India. The prayer is to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent no.3 to implement the orders contained in Annexures 4 and 8 annexure 4 is an order passed by the Chairman of the Board of Secondary education (respondent no.1) and communicated by the Secretary (respondent no.2) to respondent no.3. By this annexure respondent no.3 was directed to make payment to the petitioner towards his arrears of salary from 6th July, 1967 to April 1976 excluding the period from 19th April, 1975 to 11th of December 1975. It was also directed by this order contained in this annexure that payment should be made within 10 days and a compliance report should be submitted to the Board. Further direction was also given to respondent no.3 by this order that he should make enquiry as to whether the petitioner had received any salary or allowance from the High School at Netol for the period beginning from the 19th April, 1975 to 11th December, 1975. Since the order contained in annexure 4 was not complied with, a reminder was issued by the Secretary of the board, respondent no.2 to respondent no.3 asking him to make payment for undisputed period and to report compliance. It was also said in this letter that for the remaining period respondent no.3 should inform the Board if there was any difficulty in making the payment. 2. Although it is not necessary to state the facts in any detail but just to illustrate that facts some times are stranger than fiction I am tempted to mention some of them. 3. The petitioner was a Head Master of Behrampur High School in the year 1958 when he was selected for the Commonwealth Teachers Training Bursery award for specialised training in United Kingdom under the Commonwealth educational Co-operaticn Scheme. After taking the approval of the managing committee of the school for the purpose he left for England sometime in 1956. After completion of the training in England he returned home and wanted to join the school on 6.7.1967 when he was told that his services had been dispensed with. After some correspondence the petitioner filed an appeal before the president of the Board of Secondary Education under 1955 rules. The appeal was allowed and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated. After some correspondence the petitioner filed an appeal before the president of the Board of Secondary Education under 1955 rules. The appeal was allowed and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated. The erstwhile members of the managing committee took the matter to the education commissioner. The education commissioner who evidently had no saying in the matter set aside the order of reinstatement passed by the President of the Board of secondary Education. The petitioner thereafter moved this court against the order passed by the education commissioner. The members of the managing commitee also realising that the order they had obtained from the education commissioner was without jurisdiction came to this court in another writ application challenging the order passed in appeal by the President, Board of secondary Eduration. The two applications were heard together. The application filed by the petitioner was allowed and the order of the education commissioner was quashed. The application filed on behalf of the members of the managing committee was allowed to be withdrawn as dismissed. The petitioner thereafter thought that he had won the battle but he was wrong. In spite of this the Board could not succeed in getting the petitioner reinstated. This necessitated filing of another application under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India by the petitioner praying for a writ in the nature of mandamus to get the order of reinstatement passed by the Chairman of the board of Secondary education implemented. This application was also allowed and a writ in the nature of mandamus was issued directing the Board to implement this order by reinstating the petitioner. Since the writ issued by this court was not implemented a petition for taking action for contempt filed against respondents 1, 2, 3 and others. The contemptors appeared and expressed helplessness in getting the order of reinstatement implemented. They said that since the managing committee did not implement the order the Board disaffiliated the school, in that circumstance the contempt petition was dismissed as not pressed on the undertaking by Mr. The contemptors appeared and expressed helplessness in getting the order of reinstatement implemented. They said that since the managing committee did not implement the order the Board disaffiliated the school, in that circumstance the contempt petition was dismissed as not pressed on the undertaking by Mr. J. N. P. Verma, advocate appearing on behalf of the Board of Secondary Education and on behalf of the President and secretary after concluding them that no bills for payment to any one serving in the school would be passed unless they were signed by the petitioner as the headmaster and the Board will write at once, latest within one week from the date of the judgment, to the authorities concerned not to accept forms for appearing at the Secondary School Examination from the students appearing from the school so long such forms were not signed by the petitioner as the Head master. Thereafter some more applications either by the members of the erstwhile managing committee or by the present petitioner including another petition for contempt were filed in this Court. It is not necessary to mention them to complete the story. It should be sufficient to say that the petitioner could take charge of the records of the school in this court during the hearing of C. W. J. C. No.3122 of 1975 and M. J. C. No.203 of 1975. The difficulties of the petitioner did not end even after taking charge of the records. All obstacles were created in his way. The petitioner therefore made a representation to the board. The Board, this time acted with imagination and transferred him to s. S. High School Tonto in the district of Singhbhum as the Headmaster. Fortunately, this order was implemented and the petitioner joined the school at Tonto. 4. After succeeding the battle for reinstatement the petitioner made representation to tho Board saying that he was not paid salary for the idle period that is from 6.7.1967 to 12.4-1976. Some correspondence followed on that score and the matter seems to have been delayed at various levels. Ultimately the chairman of the Board passed an order saying that the petitioner should be paid salary for the period beginning from 6.7.1967 to 12 4.1976 within ten days and that enquiry should be made as to whether the petitioner had received any salary or allowance from the Netol School for tho period between 9.4.1975 to 11.12.1975. Ultimately the chairman of the Board passed an order saying that the petitioner should be paid salary for the period beginning from 6.7.1967 to 12 4.1976 within ten days and that enquiry should be made as to whether the petitioner had received any salary or allowance from the Netol School for tho period between 9.4.1975 to 11.12.1975. This order was communicated by annexure 4 to respondent, no.3 and a request was made to send the compliance report. Since no report came another letter by way of reminder was sent by the Secretary of the Board to respondent no.3. Inspite of the orders contained in annexures 4 and 8, the petitioner has not been paid his arrears as directed by the orders contained in annexures 4 and 8. Annexure 4 is dated the 9th of July, 1976. The payment was directed to be made within 10 days that was not done. Thereafter annexure 8 which is dated the 30th April, 1967 was issued. This order (annexure 8) also went unheeded. 5. In spite of service of notice no one has appeared on behalf of the district Education Officer or the Sub-divisional Education Officer, respondents 3 and 4 respectively. Mr. Krishna Murari who was instructed by the Board at the time of admission has appeared but he says that respondents 1 add 2, namely, the Chairman and Secretary or the Board cannot do anything in the matter except issuing reminder. I have given a careful consideration to the matter. The board has no administrative control over the District Education Officer. On the one hand it feels helpless when its orders are not implemented and on the other hand the petitioner is compelled to approach this court for getting the orders of the Board implemented. This court which is overburdened with arrears has to spend its time for such simple matters. Perhaps it may be desirable to invest some administrative control to the Board over District education Officer and such officers who have to work under the Board. In case that is done then the Board will not feel helpless in getting its orders implemented and the teachers will not have to run to court for issuance of a writ and will be able to devote themselves fully in imparting education to the students. 6. In case that is done then the Board will not feel helpless in getting its orders implemented and the teachers will not have to run to court for issuance of a writ and will be able to devote themselves fully in imparting education to the students. 6. For the reasons discussed above there seems to be no reason why respondent no.3 should not implement the orders contained in annexures 4 and 8. I find that ten days time was given to respondent no.3 to make payment for the period indicated therein. Perhaps ten days is sufficient for the purpose. however give twenty days time from the date of the service of the writ on respondent no.3 to implement the orders as contained in annexure 4. I hope, this time the petitioner will not have to come again to this court making a grievance that my orders have not been complied within time. 7. In the result the application is allowed. Let a writ in the nature of mandamus as indicated above be issued. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.