JUDGMENT : R.C. Pattnaik, J. - The Petitioner, President of erstwhile managing committee of Sakaleswar High School, Bikrampur, has filed this writ application assailing the order as per Annexures-2 and 6 dated 10-11-1982 and 16-12-1984 respectively passed by the Minister of Education and Youth Services directing stay of constitution of the managing committee by order of the Inspector of Schools as per Annexure-1 dated 8-6-1982 and the final order as per Annexure-6 dated 16-12-1984 re-constituting the Managing committee. 2. It is unnecessary to quest into the chequared career of this litigation, By Annexure-1, the managing committee was constituted in accordance with Rule 4(1) of the Orissa Education (Management of Private Schools) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter called 'the Rules'). As appeal was carried by Subas Chandra Roul (opposite party No. 6) under Rule 5(1). It is submitted by the counsel for the Petitioner that an order passed under Rule 4(3) is appealable under Rule 5(1) whereas the constitution of the managing committee under Annexure-1 was pursuant to the provisions contained in sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the Rules Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable. There is considerable force in the aforesaid submission, Rule 5(1) of the Rules reads as under: 5(1), Any person aggrieved by the order of the Inspector or the District Inspector, as the case may be 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. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 provides that when a proposal submitted to the Inspector is returned to the managing committee for re-consideration and the same is resubmitted after re-consideration, the Inspector 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 committee and thereafter, the Inspector shall nominate other members as provided under these rules and approve the managing committee. Where a proposal was submitted after re-consideration and the same it either disapproved or altered, a person aggrieved may prefer an appeal under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 But, where a proposal for constitution is submitted under Rule 4(1) and the same is approved no appeal is contemplated and provided for. Where a proposal was submitted after re-consideration and the same it either disapproved or altered, a person aggrieved may prefer an appeal under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 But, where a proposal for constitution is submitted under Rule 4(1) and the same is approved no appeal is contemplated and provided for. Therefore, the appeal before the Minister was not maintainable Though this aspect had been specifically raised by the Petitioner before the Minister, the same was not answered, but the Minister thought of settling the dispute by way of compromise and for that purpose, took advice of the local M.L.A. and constituted a committee which be thought would bring about settlement of the dispute. Howsoever that may he, the appeal was not maintainable. We would have as a matter of course quashed the decision of the committee for the incompetence of the writ application pointed out by us hereafter. 3. It is submitted by the counsel for the opposite parties that the writ application was not competent in the absence of some of the members of the managing committee, who are now in office It is pointed out that the managing committee, which was constituted as per Annexure-6, having served its term has been replaced by a fresh managing committee which consists also of the same members as the proceeding one. But, out of them, Kailash Chandra Sahu and Harihar Parida have not been impleaded in the writ application. Hence, the writ application is incompetent inasmuch as the membership of the managing committee is a civil office, the civil right of the member is affected if any decision is given prejudicial to him In as much as in the likely event of the writ application succeeding, the aforesaid two members would be prejudicially affected we hold this writ application incompetent without them. 4. In the result, the writ application is dismissed on this ground alone. In the circumstances there would be no order as to Costs. S.C. Mohapatra, J. 5. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed