JUDGMENT : R.C. Patnaik, J. - While the Petitioner was serving as the Headmaster of Sindol Fakir Mohan M.E. School, his service was terminated by the Managing Committee. The Inspector of Schools, Balasore Circle, disapproved the order of termination. In appeal, the State Education Tribunal, Orissa, upset the decision of the Inspector of Schools and approved the order of termination. Hence, the writ application by the Petitioner. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts are: The Petitioner was the Headmaster of the school. When he was called upon to meet certain charges in a disciplinary proceeding, he questioned the competence of the Managing Committee on two grounds: firstly, the Managing Committee being an informant in a criminal case pending before the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhadrak, could not be a judge of its own cause and secondly, it could not under the rules enquire into the charges. To support his second ground of challenge, he relied upon the proviso to Sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974 (for short, 'the Rules'), which enjoined the Managing Committee to request the Director to appoint an officer of the Government holding at least an equivalent post to conduct the enquiry. Paying no heed to the objection, the Managing Committee proceeded with the enquiry and found him guilty and by resolution dated 3-6-1979 the Managing Committee proposed to remove the Petitioner from service. Advice of the Director was not sought as required by Sub-rule (12) of Rule 22. By resolution dated 6-4-1980, the Managing Committee decided to remove the Petitioner from service. The Petitioner has asserted that prior approval in writing of the Inspector as required u/s 10-A(2) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 (for short, 'the Act') was not obtained. On 18-7-1980, the Inspector of Schools informed the Managing Committee that the order of termination of the Petitioner's service was bad on two grounds: Firstly, for contravention of Section 10-A(1)(b) inasmuch as the Managing Committee had not obtained prior approval in writing of the Inspector before terminating the service of the Petitioner and, secondly, by conducting the enquiry itself without taking recourse to Sub-rule (4) of Rule 22. The order of the Inspector is Annexure-4. Aggrieved by the order of the Inspector, the. The order of the Inspector is Annexure-4. Aggrieved by the order of the Inspector, the. Managing Committee preferred an appeal before the State -Education Tribunal which accepted the appeals nullified the disapproval conveyed by the Inspector under Annexure-4 and accorded approval of the termination of Petitioner's service. It was of the view that the Managing Committee was competent to conduct the enquiry itself and take final decision when despite lapse of reasonable time the Director failed to appoint an officer as contemplated under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 and failed to render advice as contemplated under Sub-rule (13) of Rule 22. Though the Petitioner had categorically taken a stand that the termination of his service by the Managing Committee was bad for non-compliance with Section 10-A(1)(b), the Tribunal did not address itself to the said question. 3. The gist of the stand of the Managing Committee is that it had requested the Director to appoint an enquiry officer. When no action was taken, it had per force to conduct the enquiry itself. There was no violation of the proviso to Sub-rule (4) of Rule 22. Similarly, it asserted that it had sought prior approval of the Inspector as required by Section 10-A(1)(b). When month after month rolled by but no order from the Inspector emanated, it took the decision to terminate the service of the Petitioner. Here, as before the Tribunal it relied upon a few observations of this Court in Subas Chandra Misra Vs. Managing Committee, Nigamananda Vidyapitha and Another, 4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has assailed the decision of the State Education Tribunal on the following grounds, namely, (a) an appeal by the Managing Committee against an order of the Inspector disapproving the termination of the Petitioner's service was incompetent u/s 10-A(3) of the Act; (b) non-compliance with the requirements of the proviso to Sub-rule (4) and of Sub-rule (13) of Rule 22 being mandatory, vitiated the order of termination. The Tribunal was in error in holding that Subash Chandra Mishra's easel (supra) authorised the Managing Committee to bypass the procedure contained in the aforesaid provision and (c) in any view of the matter, as admittedly the order of termination was hit by Section 10-A(1)(b), failure of the Tribunal to perceive and consider this question vitiated its decision. 5. The Tribunal was in error in holding that Subash Chandra Mishra's easel (supra) authorised the Managing Committee to bypass the procedure contained in the aforesaid provision and (c) in any view of the matter, as admittedly the order of termination was hit by Section 10-A(1)(b), failure of the Tribunal to perceive and consider this question vitiated its decision. 5. Learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 has endeavoured to support the decision by placing reliance upon Subas Chandra Misra Vs. Managing Committee, Nigamananda Vidyapitha and Another, and has contended that the inordinate delay in taking action either under Sub-rule (4) or Sub-rule (13) of Rule 22 or u/s 10-A(1) released the Managing Committee of the obligation and in such a situation the Managing Committee was free to take action uninterrupted by the requirements of the provisions. 6. As the writ application can be disposed of on a short ground, namely, whether the order of termination is invalid by reason of the absence of the prior approval in writing the Inspector of Schools, it is not necessary for us to address ourselves to the other contentions raised at the Bar. 7. Section 10-A(1) of the Act reads as under: 10-A. (1) Service of teachers of aided institutions not to be terminated without approval-Services of a teacher of an aided educational institution shall not be terminated without obtaining the prior approval in writing of (a) Director in the case of a teacher of a college; and (b) Circle Inspector of Schools having jurisdiction in the case of a teacher of a school.... The provision is categorical and mandatory in nature. It admits of no exception. It contains safeguards against arbitrary and unjust termination of the services of teachers. Obtaining of prior approval has, therefore, been made a condition precedent. It has been observed by a Bench of this Court in the case of Sarat Chandra Panigrdhi v. State of Orissa and Ors. O.J.C. 1970 of 1979 disposed of on 3-3-1983, as follows: ...The language of Section 10-A(1) is mandatory in character. Approval of the prescribed authority in writing is a condition precedent. The provision does not contemplate an approval post facto. In this case there is positive disapproval.... 8. Admittedly, prior approval of the Inspector of Schools in writing was not obtained by the Managing Committee before the termination of the Petitioner's service. Approval of the prescribed authority in writing is a condition precedent. The provision does not contemplate an approval post facto. In this case there is positive disapproval.... 8. Admittedly, prior approval of the Inspector of Schools in writing was not obtained by the Managing Committee before the termination of the Petitioner's service. Its stand was that there was inordinate delay on the part of the Inspector to convey its decision. It has to be deprocated. The instrumentalities vested with powers under the statute should not sit over matters when having regard to the purpose and object, the delay would be prejudicial to the interests of both the institution and the teacher. Inordinate delay, therefore, in taking decision u/s 10-A(1) has to be condemned. But assuming there is inordinate delay, the law does not authorise the Managing Committee to ignore Section 10-A(1)(b). If there is inordinate delay, it could move this Court for an appropriate writ or order against the Inspector. One of the grounds on which the Inspector of Schools recorded its disapproval was non-compliance with Section 10-A(1)(b), the Tribunal could not have upset the Inspector's decision unless it was of the view that the reason for recording disapproval was untenable. 9. Reliance placed by the Tribunal on Subas Chandra Misra Vs. Managing Committee, Nigamananda Vidyapitha and Another, was misconceived. The decision did not lay down any rule. It did not hold that the mandatory provision of Section 10-A(1)(b) could be bypassed if there was inordinate delay at the level of the Inspector. The observations were made with a view to pulling up procrastinating authorities and reminding them of their obligations under the provisions of the Act and the Rules. 10. Inasmuch as prior approval of the Inspector of Schools in writing had not been obtained while terminating the service of the Petitioner, the order of termination is invalid and the decision of the Tribunal upturning the said decision and granting approval is unsupportable and is quashed. In the result, the writ application is allowed. There would be no order as to costs. D.P. Mohapatra, J. 11. I agree. Final Result : Allowed