JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanti, J. - Petitioner, an Assistant Teacher of the Teisipur High School in the district of Puri, seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus quashing the order dated 16-1-1981 (Annexure-3) of the Director of Public Instruction (Schools) declaring O.P. No. 3 senior to him. 2. Petitioner as an Intermediate in Science was appointed as an Assistant Teacher of the School on 6-1-1969 in the scale of pay of Rs. 100-150/- prescribed for a trained matriculate teacher. O.P. No. 3 Prafulla Chandra Sarangi as a Graduate was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 1-7-1969 in the scale of pay of Rs. 110-200/- prescribed for a trained Intermediate teacher. Both the Petitioner and O.P. No. 3 passed B.Ed. Examination on the same day and were given the trained Graduate scale with effect from 1-8-1973. The Headmaster of the Schools having resigned, the Petitioner was appointed by the Managing Committee to act as in-Charge Headmaster from 21-6-1976 on his own scale of pay. The Circle Inspector of Schools by his letter dated 21-1-1976 (Annexure-2) approved the decision of the Managing Committee. On 14-4-1977, O.P. No. 3 filed a revisional application under Rule 26 of the Orissa Education (Recruitment and Condition of Service etc.) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "1974 Rules") before the Additional Director of Public Instruction (Schools), Orissa contending that the appointment of the Petitioner as in.-charge Headmaster in supersession of his claim of seniority amounted to a penalty under Rule 20 of the said Rules. He also filed a writ application before this Court in O.J.C. No. 494 of 1977 challenging the appointment of the Petitioner as an acting Headmaster of the School. A Division Bench of this Court by order dated 16-7-1980 directed the Additional Director of Public Instruction (Schools) to dispose of the revisional application. By the impugned order dated 5-11-1980, the D.P.I. (Schools) disposed of the revisional application by declaring the O.P. No. 3 senior to the Petitioner and observing as follows: The Directorate has no opinion to offer as to who will remain in charge of the duties of Headmaster in a absence of a permanent Headmaster. That depends upon the assessment of work and conduct by the appointing authority. But ordinarily seniority should not be overlooked. (Vide Annexure-3) Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner filed the present writ application for quashing the order in Annexure-3. 3. That depends upon the assessment of work and conduct by the appointing authority. But ordinarily seniority should not be overlooked. (Vide Annexure-3) Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner filed the present writ application for quashing the order in Annexure-3. 3. It is contended by the Petitioner that the Director of Public Instruction (Schools) having no competence to determine the inter se seniority of the Petitioner and O.P. No. 3, the order in Annexure-3 is without jurisdiction and void. 4. The stand taken by the opposite parties is that the opp. party No. 3 was holding a higher post and was getting higher salary before he was appointed against a trained graduate post. The Petitioner was getting lower scale of pay prescribed for the post of a trained matriculate teacher. O.P. No. 3 was, therefore, declared senior to the Petitioner. It is also maintained that O.P. No 5 had jurisdiction to decide the inter se seniority between the Petitioner and the opp. party No. 3. It is stated in the counter affidavit that in the meantime the Managing Committee has appointed the Petitioner as Headmaster on permanent basis and the proposal for approval of this appointment is pending with the Circle Inspector at Schools (O.P. No. 4) who has not been able to take any decision in the matter on account of the stay order issued by this Court. 5. The main contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner is that the order in Annexure-3 fixing the inter se seniority is without jurisdiction. The D.P.I. (Schools) appears to have passed the order in Annexure-3 in exercise of the powers under Rule 26 of the 1974 Rules. The Rule provides as follows: 26. Director's power of revision- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 22 & 23, the Director may on his own motion or otherwise, after calling for the records of the case, revise any order which is made or is appealable under these rules and may, (a) confirm, modify or set aside, the order; or (b) impose any penalty or set aside, reduce, confirm or enhance the penalty imposed by the order; or (c) remit the case to the authority which made the order or any other authority directing such further action or enquiry as considers proper in the circumstances of the case; or (d) pass such further orders as he deems fit. (2) Where the employee is a Principal, the Director shall before taking any act in pursuance of Sub-rule (1), obtain the prior approval of Government. (3) No order imposing or enhancing the penalty shall be passed under Sub-rule (1) unless the employe; of making any representation which he wishes to make against such enhanced penalty and such representation has been considered by the Director. 6. It is argued on behalf of the Petitioner that the power of revision conferred by Rule 26 on the D.P.I. (Schools) is exercisable only with to orders made in disciplinary proceedings, whereas according to O.P. No. 3 the power of revision under Rule 26 is exercisable with regard to both the disciplinary proceedings and other conditions of service. 7. Rule 26 being with a non-obstante clause. A non-obstante clause is appended to a provision to indicate that the provisions should prevail despite anything to the contrary in the provision referred to in such non-obstante clauses. The non-obstante clause in Rule 26 refers to Rules 22 and 23 only. The phrase "notwithstanding anything contained in Rules, 22 and 23" is equivalent to searing that in spite of Rules 22 and 23, the provision of Rule 26 will have its full operation or that Rules 22 and 23 mentioned in the non-obstante clause will not be an impediment for the operation of Rule 26. It is manifest that Rule 26 operates upon the Rule 22 and 23 only. Any other meaning would amount to ignoring the express non-obstante clause used in Rule 26. The provision in Rule 26 is obviously intended to repel a possible contention that the orders under Rules 22 and 23 being appealable to the Tribunal, no revisional powers can be exercised by the D.P.I. (Schools). The non obstante clause makes it clear that the D.P.I. (Schools) can exercise the powers of revision despite the fact that no appeal has been preferred to the Tribunal or that finality is attached to the appellate order of the Tribunal. The specific purpose which motivated the enactment of Rule 26 would be wholly frustrated if the provisions were to prevail over the provisions in the other rules. The contention that the non-obstante clause is not confined to matters dealt with under Rules 22 and 23; but it covers all the rules is, therefore, not acceptable. 8. Admittedly there was no disciplinary proceeding against O.P. No. 3. The contention that the non-obstante clause is not confined to matters dealt with under Rules 22 and 23; but it covers all the rules is, therefore, not acceptable. 8. Admittedly there was no disciplinary proceeding against O.P. No. 3. The decision of the Managing Committee appointing the Petitioner as acting Headmaster did not amount to imposition of a penalty against O.P. No. 3. The Circle Inspector of Schools while approving the decision of the Managing Committee made it clear that the Petitioner would not be entitled to claim any allowance for acting as in-charge Headmaster-Vide Annexure-2 There was no order under Rules 22 and 23 of the Rules against O.P. No. 3. Rule 26 was, therefore, not attracted. O.P. No. 3, however, filed the revisional application before the Addl. D.P.I. (O.P. No. 5) invoking his powers under Rule 26 of the Rules. This Court by order dated 16-7-1980 simply directed the D.P.I. (Schools) to dispose of the revisional application within two months, while disposing of the revisional application, the D.P.I. (Schools) m the purported exercise of his powers under Rule 26 of the Rules determined the inter se seniority and declared O.P. No. 3 as senior to the Petitioner. The order of this Court did not center jurisdiction on the D.P.I. (Schools) to determine the inter se seniority. There is no statutory rule or administrative instruction for fixation of inter se seniority among the teachers. It is, therefore within the discretion of the appointing authority to determine the inter se seniority by general consideration of merit, educational qualifications, age, past experience and several other factors. In the present case, there was no determination of inter se seniority by the Managing Committee. The Director of Public Instruction (Schools) had no jurisdiction to determine the inter se seniority. The order in Annexure-3 is, therefore, liable to be quashed. 9. In the result, we allow the writ application and quash the order in Annexure-3. A writ of mandamus be issued accordingly. We make no order as to costs. B.K. Behera, J. 10. I agree. Final Result : Allowed