JUDGMENT : D.P. Mohapatra, J. - The Managing Committee of Raghunath High School at Kothi, an aided educational institution, and its Secretary Sri Rama Chandra Moharana filed this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to quash the order passed by the, Inspector of Schools, Cuttack III Circle on 7-7-1988 recalling approval earlier granted by the said authority to the Managing Committee of the School vide Annexure-9. The Director of Secondary Education, Orissa, the Inspector of Schools, Cuttack III Circle and the District Inspector of Schools, Jagatsinghpur were jmpleaded as opposite parties in the application. It is stated in the impugned order in Annexure-9 that-the approval order issued on 28-10-1987 was withdrawn in pursuance of the letter No. 22038 dated 23-6-1988 of the Director of. Secondary Education, Orissa and the-Managing Committee of the School was declared defunct with effect from 24-1-1987. The letter of the Director has been filed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties. 2. The facts relevant for the present proceeding may be shortly stated thus: There was an approved Managing Committee in the School. On 24-1-1987 seven non-official' members of the Committee resigned from office leaving four official members. When the Secretary of the Managing Committee sought instruction regarding further action to be taken by him, opp. party No. 2, the Inspector advised him that since four official members can constitute the quorum, a meeting of the Managing Committee should be held with the said official members to propose names for re-constitution of the Committee. In pursuance of the said advice, seven persons Were proposed by the Managing Committee and the Inspector approved, the proposal by her order dated 28-10-1987 -vide Annexure-7 and thus the Managing Committee was re-constituted and was to continue in office for the remaining period of the existing Managing Committee. Subsequently, it appears that the Director took the view that after resignation of the seven Don-official members, there were only three valid official members left in the Managing Committee and not four members as held by the Inspector. It was the opinion of the Director that the teachers representative on the Committee was to be elected every year and that procedure having not been followed in the case, the teachers representative was not a valid member on the relevant date. When this view was communicated to the opp. party No. 2. It was the opinion of the Director that the teachers representative on the Committee was to be elected every year and that procedure having not been followed in the case, the teachers representative was not a valid member on the relevant date. When this view was communicated to the opp. party No. 2. Inspector of schools, she passed the impugned order withdrawing her earlier order according approval to the Committee. 3. From the facts discussed in the preceding paragraph the core question that arises for consideration is whether the teachers representative on the Managing Committee was a valid member on 24-1-1987 when the non-official members of the Committee tendered their resignation. For determination of this question, it is necessary to consider if it was required under the provisions in the Rules or under any other law that the teachers representative was to be elected every year. There is no dispute that the provisions of the Orissa Education (Management of Private Schools) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') are applicable to the institution in this case. Rule 3 of the Rules which deals with Managing Committee provides in Sub-rule (3) that the Managing Committee of a private School receiving minimum of full grant-in-aid from Government shall consist of eleven members as specified therein. It includes a teacher representative elected by the entire teaching staff of the school and seven other members to be nominated by the outgoing Managing Committee, out of which one shall be a do not, two shall be from among guardians of the students, two shall be educationists or those interested in the field of education one from minority community and one from Scheduled caste or Scheduled tribe. Under Sub-rule (4-a) of Rule 3 it is provided that no teacher of the particular school shall be a member of the Managing Committee of another school and Sub-rule (6) provides that, the Managing Committee of a School constituted in accordance with the rules shall continue in office for the full term of three years notwithstanding any change of its character in relation to receipt of grant-in-aid during the continuance of its term. Rule 4 of the Rules deals with the procedure for constitution and approval of the Managing Committee. Rule 4 of the Rules deals with the procedure for constitution and approval of the Managing Committee. Rule 6 which deals with the term of office of the members of the Managing Committee provides inter alia, that the term of office of the members of the Managing Committee shall be three years provided that an ex officio member shall cease to continue as such as soon as he ceases to hold the office by virtue of which be 'held the office. Under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 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 on which it is accepted by the Managing Committee and Sub-rule (5) provides that any member appointed against any casual vacancy caused during the term of the Managing Committee shall continue as a member only for the remaining period of the term if the member in whose vacancy he is appointed. Rule 11 which deals with repeal and savings lays down that all rules corresponding to these rules and in force immediately before the commencement of these rules are hereby repealed provided that any order issued things done or action taken under the rules so repealed shall be deemed to have been issued, done or taken under these rules. 4. It is the contention of the Petitioners that the advice initially tendered by the !Inspector of Schools to suggest names of persons in place of the non-official members who resigned from office and the approval accorded by the said authority to the re-constitution of the Committee was valid and proper and the view taken by the Director that the Committee became defunct on resignation of the seven non-official members since there were only three official valid members was not supported by the provisions of the Rules and therefore invalid. The learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the opposite parties supporting the impugned order contended that according to the provision in the Note in Article 286 of the Orissa Education Code the teacher representative was to here-elected every year and since that procedure was not followed, the teacher representative on the Committee was not a valid member on the relevant date. Government Advocate appearing for the opposite parties supporting the impugned order contended that according to the provision in the Note in Article 286 of the Orissa Education Code the teacher representative was to here-elected every year and since that procedure was not followed, the teacher representative on the Committee was not a valid member on the relevant date. On perusal of Article 286 of the Code, it appears that Clause (c) of the Note in the said Article which provides that no teacher should be allowed to represent the staff on the Managing Committee for more than a year unless he is reelected, was introduced by Resolution of the Board of Secondary Education dated 6-6-1934. 5. On consideration of the provisions in the Rules discussed earlier, particularly those of Rule 11, there can be no scope for doubt that constitution and re-constitution of the Managing Committes of Schools governed by the Rules are to be made only in accordance with the provision's in the Rules since all rules corresponding to these rules and in force immediately before the commencement of these rules have been repealed. There is no provision in the Rules making any distinction regarding the term of office of the teacher representative on the Managing Committe. Therefore, as provided in Rule 6, his term of office is three years as in the case of other members excepting the ex officio members. Another provision on which the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate placed reliance was Section 27(4) of the Orissa Education Act: The section deals with the power to make rules. Sub-section (4) provides that until rules are made under the; section, the rules contained in the Orissa Education Code which were in force immediately prior to the coming into force of the Act shall, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act or of the Constitution be deemed to be rules made under the Act. This provision is of little relevance in the present case since the matter relating to re-constitution of the Managing Committee arose long after the 1980 Rules came into force. This provision is of little relevance in the present case since the matter relating to re-constitution of the Managing Committee arose long after the 1980 Rules came into force. The Director was, therefore, in error in taking the view that the teachers representative on the Managing Committee was not a valid member on the relevant date and since the number of valid members was three, less than the minimum (four) to constitute the quorum, the Managing Committee was to be taken as a defunct one. 6. On the above analysis, it is clear that the impugned order in Annexure 9 is unsupportable since the sole basis of the order that the teacher's representative on the Committee was not a valid m ember on the relevant date was erroneous. 7. The writ application is therefore allowed and the order in Annexure 9 is quashed. Both parties will bear their respective costs of this proceeding. K.C.J. Roy, J. I agree. Application allowed. Final Result : Allowed