JUDGMENT : D.P. Mohapatra, J. - The Petitioners have filed this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Inspector of Schools. Mayurbhanj Circle, opposite party No. 1. as per Annexure-6 and the order of the appellate authority as per Annexure-7. Petitioner No. 1 was the Managing Committee of Jhinkiria High School represented by its Secretary Chhatish Kumar Behera and Petitioners 2 to 6 and opp. parties 5 to 7 were members of the Managing Committee at the material point of time. By the order in Annexure 6 the Inspector of Schools declared the said Managing Committee defunct in purported exercise of power under Rule 9-A of the Orissa Education (Management of Private Schools) Rules, 1980 (for short the ?Rules?) and took over charges of the Managing Committee of the School with effect, from 8th of November. 1985. By the appeal filed by the Petitioner Chhatish Kumar Behera challenging the order in Annexure 6. Admittedly the school was a private institution receiving aid from the State Govt. at the material point of time. 2. The case set out by the Petitioners in the writ application, shortly stated, is that the Petitioner-Managing Committee with Petitioners 2 to 6 and opp. parties 5 to 7 as its members was approved by the Inspector of Schools on 31-12-1981. Thereafter in-the first meeting of the said Managing Committee Petitioner No. 2 was elected as its Secretary and Petitioner No. 3 as its President and their selection was approved by the said authority much later sometime in 1985. According to the Petitioners, though the Managing Committee was to function for a period of three years -after approval of the selection of the President and Secretary under the Rules the Inspector on 2-11-1984 directed the Secretary to submit proposal for reconstitution of the Managing Committee for the next term stating therein that the term of the Committee was to expire on 14-11-1984 vide Annexure 2. It is the case of the Petitioners that on receipt of the said letter of opp. party No. 1 the Committee took necessary steps to nominate names for reconstitution, but due to some doubts about the donor-member the matter could not be finalised. As the matter stood thus, the Petitioners allege that the opp. It is the case of the Petitioners that on receipt of the said letter of opp. party No. 1 the Committee took necessary steps to nominate names for reconstitution, but due to some doubts about the donor-member the matter could not be finalised. As the matter stood thus, the Petitioners allege that the opp. party No. 1 issued the latter as per Annexure 6 declaring the Managing Committee defunct since it had failed to submit the names for reconstitution ninety days prior to expiry of its term as required under the Rules. This an order, the Petitioners contend, was passed without any authority under the Rules, without following the principle of natural justice and in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner. The appeal ?filed by the Petitioners before the State Govt. was rejected by the Minister, Education as not maintainable. The said authority also made some observations regarding merits of the case. The Petitioners therefore sought for quashing the order passed by the opp. party No. 1 and also the appellate order of the State Govt. 3. The Inspector of Schools, Mayurbhanj Circle, opp. party No. 1 and the Headmaster of Jhinkiria High School opp. party No. 4, have filed separate counter affidavits to the writ application. The stand taken by opp. party No. 1 is that by order in Annexure 6 the Inspector merely declared the legal consequence of the members of the Managing Committee going out of office on expiry of three years and the extendable period of six months under the Rules. The consequence was automatic under the Rules. Referring to the provisions under Rule 9-A of the Rules, the Inspector has contended that the Managing Committee ceasing to function on expiry of its term the Inspector is to discharge the function of the Committee as provided in the said Rule and that position has been merely reiterated in the order in Annexure 6. Various averments have been made regarding the steps taken in the matter of reconstitution of the Managing Committee on the recommendations received by the Petitioner?s Committee, but it is not necessary to refer to them in detail as they are not material for decision of the case Opposite party No. 4, the Headmaster of the School substantially reiterated the stand taken in the counter filed by the Inspector and denied the allegations made against him in the writ application. 4. 4. Though Shri K. N. Jena, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, raised several contentions, on analysis the core dispute boils down to one relating to computation of the period during which the Managing Committee of the School was entitled to remain in office. According to the learned Counsel the period of three years is to commence from the date of approval of selection of the President and the Secretary of the Committee and calculated on this basis, the Petitioner?s Committee was entitled to remain in office till 1988. The learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the opp. parties 1 to 3 refuting the contention raised on behalf of the Petitioners submitted that the period is to commence from the date of approval of nomination of the members of the Committee. 5. Before proceeding to consider the contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties, it will be helpful to notice a few provisions of the Rules material for the purpose. Rule 2 (c) defines ?defunct Managing Committee? to mean a Managing Committee of which the total membership falls below the number required to make the quorum prescribed under the Rules either by death resignation or cessation of membership by not attending four consecutive meetings or otherwise or which does not hold its meetings as per requirement of the Rules or which fails to pay salaries of the staff regularly or discharge its: legitimate functions imposed on it. Under Rule 3 (3), the Managing Committee of a private school receiving minimum of full grant-in-aid from Govt. shall consist of eleven members as specified in the Rule and under the third proviso to the said sub-rule, in case of a defunct Managing Committee of a High School the Inspector shall nominate the seven non-official members. Rule 4 provides the procedure for constitution and approval of the Managing Committee. The said rule is quoted in extenso: 4 (1). shall consist of eleven members as specified in the Rule and under the third proviso to the said sub-rule, in case of a defunct Managing Committee of a High School the Inspector shall nominate the seven non-official members. Rule 4 provides the procedure for constitution and approval of the Managing Committee. The said rule is quoted in extenso: 4 (1). Not less than ninety days prior to the date of expiry of the term of members other than ex-officio members of the Managing Committee of a School mentioned under sub-rules (2) (3) and (4) of Rule 3, the Secretary of the Managing Committee shall move the Inspector in case of a High School and the District Inspector in case of a Middle School in a proposal for the constitution of the Managing Committee for the next term with details of members other than those to be nominated by the Inspector or the, District Inspector as the case may be and the supporting resolution relating thereto duly passed in a meeting of the Managing Committee. (2) On receipt of the proposal under Sub-rule (1), the Inspector or ?the District Inspector, as the case may be, shall consider the same and either accord his approval thereto or return, it to the Secretary of the Managing Committee for substitution of any nominated member after recording his reasons therefore, within one month from the date of receipt of the proposal, if he is not satisfied about proper nomination. When a proposal is so returned it shall be reconsidered accordingly and submitted again, within a period of one month from the date of reference, with or without modification to the Inspector or the District Inspector, as the case may be, for approval. (3) When the proposal is submitted after reconsideration as provided under Sub-rule (2) in respect of Managing Committee or Schools in receipt of grant-in-aid from Government, the Inspector or the District Inspector, as the case may be, shall consider the same and shall either accord his approval thereon or substitute any of the members other than the ex officio members of the Managing Committee, Thereafter, the Inspector or the District Inspector, as the case may be, shall nominate other members as provided under these rules and approve the Managing Committee. The Managing Committee shall be deemed to have been duly constituted with effect from the date of issue of the orders approving the same. Under Rule 5, it is provided that any person aggrieved by the order of the Inspector referred to under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4, may prefer an appeal in form of a memorandum before the State Government within One month from the date of receipt of the said order. Rule 6 makes provision regarding the term of office of the members of the Managing Committee. It reads as follows: 6 (1). The term of office of the members of Managing Committee shall be three years: Provided that an ex officio member shall cease to continue as such as soon as be ceases to hold the office by virtue of which he held the office. (2) If for any reason, the managing Committee constituted under these rules, has, not been reconstituted before the expiry of its term as prescribed in Sub-rule (1) it shall be,deemed to continue in office untill the new Managing Committee assumes office: Provided that the Managing Committee shall not continue, after the expiry of its term for more than six months and that the function of the Managing Committee shall thereafter vest with the Inspector or the District Inspector as the case may be: Provided further that the provisions of this sub-rule shall not apply to the case where a Managing Committee has been reconstituted under the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act. (3) Any member of the Managing Committee other than the ex officio members may at any time resign from the office by sending a letter of resignation to the President, but such resignation shall take effect from the date in which it is accepted by the Managing Committee. (4) If a member of the Managing Committee other than the ex officio members absent himself from four consecutive meetings of the Managing Committee without prior permission of the President, he shall cease to be a member. (5) Any member appointed against any causal vacancy caused during the term of the Managing Committee shall continue as member only for the remaining period of the term of the member in whose vacancy he is appointed. (5) Any member appointed against any causal vacancy caused during the term of the Managing Committee shall continue as member only for the remaining period of the term of the member in whose vacancy he is appointed. Rule 9-A which has been referred to by the Inspector in the impugned order provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules, in case of a defunct Managing Committee the powers and functions of the Managing Committee shall be exercised by the Inspector till the Managing Committee is constituted in accordance with law. 6. From the provisions discussed above, it is manifest that under the scheme in the Rules the Secretary of the Managing Committee shall move the Inspector in a proposal for constitution of the Managing Committee for the next term with details of members other than those to be nominated by the Inspector and the supporting resolution relating thereto passed by the. Committee, hot less than ninety days prior to the date of expiry of the terms of the members other than ex officio members of the Managing Committee, as provided under Rule 4 (1). On receipt of,the said proposal the Inspector shall deal with it in the manner laid down under sub-rules (2) and (3). On the matter being finalised, the Inspector shall nominate other members as provided under the Rules and approve the Managing Committee. It is expressly provided-under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 that the Managing Committee shall be deemed to have been duly constituted with effect from the date of issue of the orders approving the same. From the provisions in Rule 6, it is clear that the terms of office of the members of the Managing Committee (other than ex officio members) shall be three years and if for any reason the Managing Committee has not been reconstituted before the expiry of its term as prescribed in Sub-rule (1), it shall be deemed to continue in office until the new? Managing Committee assumes office: Provided that the Managing Committee shall not continue after the expiry of its term for more than six months and the function of .the Managing Committee shall thereafter vest with the Inspector. 7. On careful perusal of the provisions in the Rules, ? Managing Committee assumes office: Provided that the Managing Committee shall not continue after the expiry of its term for more than six months and the function of .the Managing Committee shall thereafter vest with the Inspector. 7. On careful perusal of the provisions in the Rules, ? I find nothing in it to support the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the period of three years is to commence from the, date of approval of election of the President and the Secretary of the Managing Committee. On the other hand this contention runs counter to the express provision in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4, noticed earlier. It is also clear from the Rules that in no circumstance can the life of the Committee extend beyond three and half years from the date of approval of constitution of the Committee by the Inspector. Admittedly, in the present case, constitution of the Committee was approved by the Inspector on 31-12-1981 and therefore the Committee was to remain in office in normal course till 31-12-1984 and in no case beyond 30th of June. 1984. On 2-11-1984 when the Inspector asked for names. for reconstitution of the Committee it was clearly a step outside the purview of the Rules since as provided in Rule 4 (1) the Secretary of the Managing Committee was to move the Inspector with proposal for constitution of the Committee for the next term ninety days prior to the date of expiry of the term of the Committee. This position has been admitted by the opposite party No. 1 in his counter. In pursuance of this step if some correspondence was carried on between the Inspector and the Secretary of the Managing Committee the Petitioner could derive no benefit from it under law. They can claim no right to remain in office after expiry of the three and half years from the date of constitution of the Committee no matter whether the matter relating to constitution of the Committee for the successive term had been decided or not. To cope with such a situation, the provision under Rule 9-A has been made to enable the Inspector of Schools to carryon the management of the institution and the functions of the Managing Committee. 8. To cope with such a situation, the provision under Rule 9-A has been made to enable the Inspector of Schools to carryon the management of the institution and the functions of the Managing Committee. 8. Shri Jena learned Counsel for the Petitioners, strenuously urged that if the provisions of the Rules are given literal interpretation, it may be possible for an Inspector of Schools to purposely delay according approval to the constitution of the Committee till expiry of the three and half years and on that plea take over management of the School. Though the contention cannot be rejected as an impossibility it has to be considered in the facts and circumstances of a given case. For instance, if, from the facts and circumstances it is clear that the Inspector has acted in a deliberately arbitrary anal mala fide manner appropriate direction may be issued compelling him to accept the suggestion regarding constitution of the Committee for the subsequent term or any other appropriate order may be passed but that, in my view, will not be a ground to accept the contention of the learned Counsel that the Managing Committee should continue in office till the successor committee is finalised and its constitution approved by the Inspector. That will be patently against the express provisions of the Rules noticed earlier. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners also raised the question that in respect of some other Schools in the locality the Inspector accepted the suggestions of the Managing Committee regarding constitution of the Committee for the next term, but passed a different order in the case of Petitioner?s School which is therefore discriminatory. In view of the legal position discussed earlier, I do not consider this submission of the learned Counsel to be relevant. No material is available to cexaming the correctness of the action of the Inspector taken in respect of other institution. Therefore, no finding can be arrived at that the situation prevailing in those institutions was exactly similar to that in the present case. Even assuming that it is so, the action of the authority in respect of those institutions may be invalid and incompetent and that will not vest the Petitioners with a right to continue in office beyond the period which is statutorily limited. Even assuming that it is so, the action of the authority in respect of those institutions may be invalid and incompetent and that will not vest the Petitioners with a right to continue in office beyond the period which is statutorily limited. Further, the matter relating to acceptance of the suggestions of the Petitioner?s Committee for the subsequent term does not really arise for consideration in the present case since that is not the grievance of the Petitioners and no relief is sought regarding constitution of the Committee. The claim of the Petitioners as discussed earlier, is that they are entitled to continue in office till 1988, that is, three years from the date of approval of the appointment of Secretary and President of the Committee. 9. On the analysis and discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, there is no escape from the conclusion that the Petitioners are not entitled to any relief in the application. The writ application, therefore, fails and it is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances, without any order for costs. H.L. Agrawal, C.J. 10. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed