JUDGMENT : L. Rath, J. - Being aggrieved by the decision of the opposite party No. 2, the State Education Tribunal, Orissa directing deemed continuance in service of opposite party No. I, an Assistant teacher from 21-10-1976 and his reinstatement in the Ispat High School at Rourkela, the Petitioner, an Officer of the Steel Authority of India Ltd., has filed this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The opposite party No. 1 was admittedly a teacher in the Ispat High School. His services were terminated and he was removed from service on charges of misconduct by order passed on 21-10-1976. The order was challenged in appeal before the opposite party No. 2 who set aside the order holding the same to be violative of the provisions of Section 10-A of the Orissa Education Act since the approval of the Inspector of Schools had not been taken before the removal from service. The opposite party No. 2 also negatived the contention that the school is not an aided one and hence was not amenable to its jurisdiction. 2. The finding of the Tribunal that the order of removal from service having been passed without approval from the Inspector of Schools is void, if the school is an aided one, is not contested by Mr. Nanda, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. It is however urged by him that the finding reached by the opposite party No. 2 regarding the status of the school as aided one is not sustainable. 3. The school is established by the Hindustan Steel Ltd. subsequently redesignated as the Steel Authority of India Ltd. It has not received any regular grant-in-aid from the State Government and is managed wholly by the Steel Authority of India. It is claimed by the opposite party No. 1 to be an aided one on the basis of a sum of Rs. 1200/- having been made available to it for the purpose of opening a Book Bank under a scheme sponsored by the State Government. The amount has been mentioned as Rs. 12,000/- by the opposite party No. 2 in its order, but in the writ petition it has been explained as Rs. 1200/- only of which Rs. 200/- was advanced for an almirah and Rs 1000/- for books. Such statement by the Petitioner has not been challenged in the counter affidavit. The amount has been mentioned as Rs. 12,000/- by the opposite party No. 2 in its order, but in the writ petition it has been explained as Rs. 1200/- only of which Rs. 200/- was advanced for an almirah and Rs 1000/- for books. Such statement by the Petitioner has not been challenged in the counter affidavit. The Petitioner has filed an affidavit as Annexure-4 explaining the features of a Book Bank scheme stating that the Government took a decision in 1976 to open Book Bank in different schools for preserving text books and for lending the same on payment basis to the students under such terms as fixed by the State Government. The schools where the Book Banks are opened are required to function as trustees on behalf of the State Government. In pursuance of such scheme a sum of Rs. 200/- was sent by way of bank draft to the Headmaster of the Ispat High School on 2-12-1976 for construction of one wooden almirah for keeping books and thereafter in September, 1977 a further sum of Rs. 1000/- was received by the Headmaster. It has been explained in the affidavit that the opening of Book Bank was a voluntary scheme of the State Government without the management of the school asking for the same and hence the management has nothing to do in the matter. The Headmaster remained the trustee for the books. Establishment of a Book Bank is neither necessary for the purpose of running an educational institution nor it is a condition precedent to recognition. In these premises it is contended that the school is not an aided one. 4. The affidavit (Annexure-4) was also before the opposite party No. 2 but in the order passed on 19-6-1978 it was stated that though the affidavit was dated 11-5-1978 and by an earlier order of the Tribunal on 25-4-1978 the Petitioner was to file the affidavit before 1] -5-1978, yet the order sheet of the Tribunal on 11-5-1978 did not show the affidavit to have been filed on that day nor was it on record before 15.5-1978. The affidavit had not been sealed or initialled in the Office of the Tribunal and it was not known how it came on record. The learned Tribunal thus directed its Secretary to enquire and find out how and when the affidavit came on record. The affidavit had not been sealed or initialled in the Office of the Tribunal and it was not known how it came on record. The learned Tribunal thus directed its Secretary to enquire and find out how and when the affidavit came on record. Even inspite of such direct ion, the Tribunal proceeded to decide the case without taking into consideration the affidavit holding that it had already been decided on 15-5-1978 that the school was an aided institution. 5. The Tribunal had granted opportunity to the Petitioner on 25-4-1978 to file the affidavit by 11-5-1978 to show that the aid by the Government was after the termination of service of the Petitioner. The affidavit was admittedly sworn on 11-5-1978, The learned Tribunal had directed an enquiry to be caused by the Secretary as to how the affidavit came on record. If on enquiry it would have been revealed that the affidavit was a genuine one, then the decision on 15-5-1978 could not have held the field even on the basis on which it was reached. The finding of the Tribunal regarding the school being an aided one was thus not reached on consideration of the entire facts. 6. An aided educational institution has been defined in Section 3 (b) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 (Orissa Act 15 of 1969) (for brevity called ?the Act?) as follows: Aided Educational Institution? means a private educational institution which is recognised by and is receiving aid from the State Government. From the definition it appears that two conditions must be satisfied before an educational institution can be called an aided one i.e., (i) it must be recognised by the State Government; and, (ii) is must be receiving aid from the State Government. There is no dispute that the Ispat High School, Rourkela is a recognised High School and hence the only question is whether it is receiving aid from the State Government. It has been urged on behalf of the Petitioner that since the school does not received grant-in-aid, it cannot be treated as an aided school. Reliance has been placed under Article 304 of the Orissa Education Code which states that the term ?aided schools? includes a school which it is proposed to establish if a grant is given. It is thus submitted that the concept of an aided school necessarily visualises a grant-in-aid. Reliance has been placed under Article 304 of the Orissa Education Code which states that the term ?aided schools? includes a school which it is proposed to establish if a grant is given. It is thus submitted that the concept of an aided school necessarily visualises a grant-in-aid. Grants to High Schools are made under Articles 315 and 327 of the Orissa Education Code under which provisions the grant is made available strictly in accordance with the Rules in force. An application for recurring grant is made under Article 329 in the prescribed form On receipt of the application memorandum is issued by the competent authority to either make or renew the grant and on receipt of the memorandum the managing committee is to execute a deed of acceptance when the institution is first admitted into aid. Besides non-recurring grants such as grant for school equipments, for furniture etc., are also made available under Articles 350, 351 and 352. It is contended that since such grant-in-aids have never been paid to the school, it can never be an aided institution. 7. It is of course true that the definition of an ?Aided Educational Institution? does not refer to grant-in-aid and speaks only of aid. ?Aid? literally is of a broader sweep than that of ?Grant-in-aid? and it is possible to contend that even if an educational institution is not receiving grant-in-aid as contemplated under the Education Code but is only receiving some other aid, it would yet be an aided educational institution. Even conceding such position it however is clear that the institution in question must be receiving aid which connotes that the act of receipt of aid must be continuous one. The providing of aid is required to be a constant and lasting process and cannot be sporadic or intermittent one. There must be of necessity a consecutive process of making available the aid. In other words there has to be a regularity in the process. This is not to say that if the institution has been receiving the aid but temporarily there has been a discontinuance due to some reason or other, it would cease to be an aided one. There must be of necessity a consecutive process of making available the aid. In other words there has to be a regularity in the process. This is not to say that if the institution has been receiving the aid but temporarily there has been a discontinuance due to some reason or other, it would cease to be an aided one. But where an educational institution has not been admitted to regular grant-in-aid or some other kind of regular aid and has been given only a casual grant, or where an aided educational institution has, over a sufficiently long period not received any aid which would lead to a reasonable inference that it no longer continues to be receipient of aid from the Government, the obvious conclusion would be that such institution is not an aided one. Article 348 of the Orissa Education Code even provides for withdrawal of grant-in-aid and it must also similarly be possible for a school to opt not to continue to receive any grant-in-aid in which case it can very well cease to be categorised as an aided one. 8. An occasional grant made to the school would in terms of the definition not bring the institution within the ambit of an aided school. It is not unoften to find that dignitaries of the Government while visiting an educational institution make ex gratia grants to the institution, For having received such grant, it can hardly be said that the institution is receiving aid in the sense it is contemplated u/s 3 (b) of the Act. Even if the money for Book Bank would have been intended for the school. Yet it being of a casual nature, would not convert the school to be an aided one. That apart there is no evidence that any aid was made available to the school itself. It was contended by the Petitioner that the Book Bank is a scheme in which the Headmaster is constituted a trustee and the beneficiaries are the students and that it is not a grant to the school. 9. The words ?is receiving aid? may be compared with the words ?is living in adultery? which occurred in Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act 25 of 1955) as the first ground of divorce prior to its amendment in 1976. ?Is living in adultery? 9. The words ?is receiving aid? may be compared with the words ?is living in adultery? which occurred in Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act 25 of 1955) as the first ground of divorce prior to its amendment in 1976. ?Is living in adultery? was uniformly held as not merely a single or isolated act of adultery but that a continuous course of adulterous life was necessary to be proved for being the cause of divorce. It is for such very reason that the amendment in 1976 was introduced to constitute a single voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than the husband or wife, as the case may be as the basis of divorce. ?Is receiving aid? thus must connote as has been discussed above, a continuous act of receiving aid and not isolated occasions of the same. 10. Setting up a Book Bank is not a function of the managing committee and taking up of such duties by the Headmaster would not be in any way a discharge inalienable functions of the school Setting up a Book Bank in a school is not an aid to it. An illustration may be to the point. Suppose the Chief Minister of the State while visiting the school finds that the students are in rags and directs the Director to make available funds to the Headmaster to purchase clothings for the students and to distribute it amongst them. It would be undoubtedly Government money which would be spent for the purpose. Could such a benevolent gesture of the Government be termed as an aid to the school? Similarly if mid-day tiffin is distributed to the students of the school it would not constitute an aid to the school. 11. From the decision of the Tribunal it appears that such questions were not examined at all and it has rather proceeded on the footing that it was the burden of the Petitioner to have established that it is not an aided institution. The position of law is however different. It must be the burden of him to prove that the school is an aided one who alleges it to be so. Such onus does not seem to have been discharged. The learned Tribunal also requested the Additional D. P. I. (Schools) to place the list of the aided educational institutions of Orissa but however no such list was submitted. It must be the burden of him to prove that the school is an aided one who alleges it to be so. Such onus does not seem to have been discharged. The learned Tribunal also requested the Additional D. P. I. (Schools) to place the list of the aided educational institutions of Orissa but however no such list was submitted. There was thus no cogent material before him to come to the conclusion that the school is an aided one. Such fact as also the facts pleaded by the Petitioner regarding the Book Bank scheme leads us to hold that the question should be decided by the opposite party No. 2 afresh in the light of the discussions made above and that opportunity should be given to the parties to place materials on record bearing on that question only. The further question raised by the Petitioner that the Book Bank scheme even came into operation in the school after passing of the termination order can also be raised before the Tribunal to be determined as a fact. The Tribunal came to hold that the actual grant might have been received after the termination of the services of the opposite party No. 1 but Government must have sanctioned the amount earlier and while sanctioning the amount, they must have examined the status of the school. The approach is wholly untenable. The decision of a quasi judicial body cannot be based upon such conjectures. Besides it is suffice to hold that merely because a decision is taken by the Government to make a grant would by itself not make an institution an aided one unless the grant has in fact been received by it and is continued since the law required that the institution must be receiving the aid so as for characterise it as an aided institution. 12. In the result, the writ application must succeed. The order of the opposite party No. 2 in Annexure-3 is set aside and the case is remanded to the opposite party No. 2 to decide afresh in the light of the law discussed above as to whether the school is an aided institution and whether the grant if any, was made available to the school after the termination of the services of the opposite party No. 1. In deciding such question opportunity is to be afforded to the respective parties to place materials on record for the purpose. This being an old case the opposite party No. 2 is to dispose of the matter within two months from the date of the receipt of the writ and the lower Court records. Both the parties are directed to fully cooperate in getting the matter disposed of within that time. The lower Court records be sent back immediately. There shall be no order as to costs. G.B. Patnaik, J. 13. I agree.