JUDGMENT : H.L. Agarwal, C.J. - The question that arises for determination in this case is as to what would be the effect of the failure of the Inspector of Schools to take any action under Rule 4 (2) of the Orissa Education (Management of Private Schools) Rules, 1980' on receipt of the proposal for approval of the new managing committee within the prescribed period of 30 days. 2. The Petitioner, the Secretary of the managing committee of Nandini Devi Girls' High School, by this application challenges the action of the Circle Inspector of Schools, Dhenkanal, in not according approval to the said committee in accordance with the proposal dated 26-8-1987 of the managing committee in its resolution dated 25-8-1987. 3. The Girls' High School is a private institution receiving full aid from the State Government. When the term of the erstwhile managing committee was going to expire on 30-11-1987, the Petitioner as required under Rule 4 (1) of the Orissa Education (Management of Private Schools) Rules, 1980 (for short, 'the Rules'), submitted proposal for reconstitution of the managing committee for the next term vide its letter dated 11-8-1987 (Annexure-2). On some objection being raised by opposite party No. I, a fresh proposal was given by the Petitioner on 26-8-1987 vide Annexure-4 which was received in the office of opposite party No. 1 on the same date. After receipt of the proposal dated 26-8-1987, opposite party No. 1 did not take any action under Rule 4 (2) of the Rules. He neither passed any order according his approval nor did he return the same to the Secretary for substituting any member nominated by him in the proposal within the prescribed period of one month. Rather he kept quiet in the matter and accordingly the Petitioner came to this Court in O.J.C. No. 1678 of 1988 and this Court by order dated 20-5-1988 (Annexure-5) directed opposite party No. 1 to dispose of the matter in accordance with law within a week. This is how opposite party No. 1 has passed the impugned order dated 27-5-1988 (Annexure-6), thus purporting to act under Rule 4 (2) of the Rules raising various objections to the proposal of the managing committee and suggesting enquiries and the like. 4. This is how opposite party No. 1 has passed the impugned order dated 27-5-1988 (Annexure-6), thus purporting to act under Rule 4 (2) of the Rules raising various objections to the proposal of the managing committee and suggesting enquiries and the like. 4. The Petitioner challenges this action of opposite party No. 1 in Annexure-6 on the ground that he had ceased to have any authority to act under Rule 4 (2) of the Rules after the lapse of the statutory period of one month prescribed for dealing with the proposal submitted by him under Rule 4 (1). 5. On a reading of the scheme of Rule 4, it appears that the rule-making authority has fixed different periods for the functionaries to take action for reconstitution of the new managing committee for the succeeding term and Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 is mandatory in nature. On the failure of opposite party No. 1 to return the proposal to the Petitioner-Secretary of the managing committee within the prescribed time, it must be deemed that opposite party No. 1 bad no objection to the proposal which would be deemed to have been approved automatically in the eye of law. 6. I would, accordingly allow the application, quash the impugned order of opposite party No. 1 In Annexure-6 and direct him to complete the official formalities in the matter of approval of the proposal regarding reconstitution of the managing committee. No costs. A.K. Padhi, J. 7. I agree. Final Result : Allowed