JUDGMENT : L. Rath, J. - The Petitioner has come up before this Court for issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of opposite party No. 1 directing reinstatement of opposite party No. 3 and declaring him to be entitled to all statutory benefits flowing therefrom. The facts briefly stated are that on 14-2-1978 opposite party No. 3 was appointed as a temporary teacher in the Khajurisagar M. E. School and on 24-11-1978 his appointment was approved on ad-hoc basis by the Inspector of Schools from 18-2-1978 to 17-8-1978. Thereafter the appointment was again approved from 18-8-1978 to 17-2-1979 and lastly such approval was made by Annexure-4 from 18-2-1979 to 17-8.1979. An order had also been passed by the Petitioner on 23-7-1979 directing continuance of the opposite party No. 3 in the post till 17-8-1979 in accordance with the approval of the Inspector of Schools in Annexure-4. On 13-8-1979. the Managing Committee passed order as per Annexure-6 purporting to terminate the service of opposite party No, 3 with effect from 18-8-1979 and relieving him from duty. Opposite party No. 3 filed an appeal against termination of his service u/s 10-A of the Orissa Education Act, 1969. The appeal was allowed by the Tribunal it being on the view that the appointment of opposite party No. 3 was not a term appointment with the two termini fixed that the appointment was not conditional one and that merely because the Inspector of Schools approved opposite party No. 3's appointment from time to time the Managing Committee was not bound to terminate his services by way of a resolution without following the procedure 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"). It was held that there having been serious allegations against opposite party No. 3 which he had been called upon to explain by 12-8-1979 which he had failed to do, the decision of the Managing Committee to remove opposite party No. 3 was apparently without sufficient opportunity to opposite party No. 3 to defend himself and hence the provisions of Rule 22 were violated. The Tribunal also held that since for termination of opposite party No. 3's service the approval of the Inspector of Schools had not been taken, the order was hit by Section 10-A of the Orissa Education Act. 2. The order of the Tribunal is plainly not sustainable. In the case of The Managing Committee of Bhagabati Middle English School v. Baikutlthanath Mohapatra and Ors. 43 (1971) C.L.T. 445 it was decided that when the appointment of a teacher is a tenure appointment with two termini fixed, cessation of service by efflux ot time does not amount to a termination of service needing approval of the Inspector of Schools. The Tribunal was in error in holding that the appointment of the Petitioner was not such a tenure appointment. The school being an aided one, the appointment of opposite party No. 3 at the relevant time could only b?' made for a maximum period of six months, under Rule 5(8) of the Rules, with prior approval of the Inspector of Schools. The power of the Managing Committee to appoint opposite party No. 3 was hence restricted under the Rules to maximum period of six months and that too with the prior approval of the Inspector of Schools. The last approval or opposite party No. 3's service was up to 17-8-1979 and by Annexure-5 the Managing Committee bad passed an order specifically extending the service of opposite party No. 3 till 17-8-1979 in accordance with the approval. Thus, his service was bound to cease on the strength of the order itself on 17-8-1979 find could no longer continue on 18.8.19794 The order passed in Annexure-6 was merely to such Effect intimating opposite party No. 3 of his being relieved from service even though the order suffered from technological inexactitude stating that his services were being terminated. In effect there was no termination of service because the service had itself come to an end on 17-8-1979. There being no termination, compliance with the provisions of Section 10-A of the Act was not necessary it is the substance of the matter which is to be looked into and not the form thereof. Since the service came to an end the fact that opposite party No. 3 bad been coiled upon earlier to explain his conduct was immaterial as the contract between the parties ceased or happening of the event of cessation of service. Since the service came to an end the fact that opposite party No. 3 bad been coiled upon earlier to explain his conduct was immaterial as the contract between the parties ceased or happening of the event of cessation of service. For the very same reason, there was no removal from service or any stigma attached to opposite party No. 3 and hence the question of complying with the procedure under Rule 22 of the Rules did not arise. 3. In the result, the writ petition must succeed and the order of the Tribunal set aside. A writ of certiorari be issued accordingly. hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 200/-. R.C. Patnaik, J. 4. I agree. 5. Petition allowed. Final Result : Allowed