JUDGMENT - DhabE H.W., J.:—The petitioner who is working as a Teacher in one of the secondary schools run by the respondent No. 2 society has challenged the order of the State Government dated 15-11-1988 by which the State Government has held that the services of the respondent No. 3 are continuous and there is no break in his service in the school during the period he was working as a Lecturer in the B.Ed. College of the Nagpur University. 2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 8-7-1960 whereas the respondent No. 3 was appointed as a Lecturer in 1957 in the Dharampeth High School run by the respondent No. 2 society. It may be seen that but for the alleged breaks in service, it is not in dispute that the respondent No. 3 was senior to the petitioner, being appointed earlier to him in the school service. 3. Pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Nagpur University, the respondent No. 3 desired to apply for the post of a Lecturer in the B.Ed. College of the Nagpur University, before the commencement of the academic session 1975-76. He made an application to the Head Master of the school on 15-7-1975 claiming that his application should be forwarded to the Nagpur University and that he should be granted lien on his post in the school for the period for which he would be serving as a Lecturer in the B.Ed. College of the Nagpur University. By his letter dated 16-7-1975, the Head Master of the school forwarded his application to the Registrar of the Nagpur University and informed him that the respondent No. 3 would be relieved only after his lien was sanctioned by the Managing Committee and duly approved by the proper authority of the Education Department of the State Government. He sent a similar communication to the respondent No. 3 also. It is the case of the respondent No. 3 that there was another advertisement for second post in the B.Ed. College of the Nagpur University for which also he made an application which was also forwarded by the Head Master to the Nagpur University. While making this application, the petitioner also applied to the Head Master of the school on 17-7-1975 claiming that he should be granted extraordinary leave with lien during the period of his service in the B.Ed. College of the Nagpur University for which also he made an application which was also forwarded by the Head Master to the Nagpur University. While making this application, the petitioner also applied to the Head Master of the school on 17-7-1975 claiming that he should be granted extraordinary leave with lien during the period of his service in the B.Ed. College of the Nagpur University. 4. The Managing Committee of the respondent No. 2 society passed a resolution on 17-8-1975 granting lien to the respondent No. 3 for one academic session. The respondent No. 3 thereafter joined the B. Ed. College of the Nagpur University on 19-8-1975 and served there for one academic session till 31-3-1976. On 1-4-1976, he joined his duties in the school. However, in the next academic session i.e. 1976-77, he again made application pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Nagpur University for the post of a lecturer in its B. Ed College. The said application was also forwarded through the Head Master to the Nagpur University. The respondent No. 3 again sought, by his letter dated 7-7-1976 addressed to the Head Master of the school, extraordinary leave and lien upon his post in the school. 4-A. The Managing Committee of the respondent No. 2 society by its resolution dated 13-10- 1976 again granted him lien upon his post for the year 1976-77. The managing committee further directed that his period of absence during the two academic sessions should be treated as extraordinary leave. After serving as Lecturer in the B.Ed. College of the Nagpur University till 31-3-1977, the respondent No. 3 again resumed his duties in the school from 1-4-1977. 5. The respondent No. 3 continued in his service and his service was treated as continuous by the management. However, by a letter dated 17-5-1983 addressed to the Head Master of the School the Senior Auditor, Education Department, Nagpur pointed out that under the Secondary School Code, there is no provision to allow the lien to the teacher in his post in the school if he wants to join another educational institution. He therefore directed that the period of absence of the respondent No. 3 in the school during the period he was serving in the respondent No. 1 college, should be treated as a break in service and his salary therefore should be revised accordingly by treating him as a new appointee on 1-4-1977. He therefore directed that the period of absence of the respondent No. 3 in the school during the period he was serving in the respondent No. 1 college, should be treated as a break in service and his salary therefore should be revised accordingly by treating him as a new appointee on 1-4-1977. The respondent No. 3 moved the Director of Education against the order of the Special Auditor dated 17-5-1983. The Director of Education by his letter dated 2nd September 1984 pointed out that under Rule 75.12 of the Secondary School Code, an employee can serve in another institution with the prior permission of the Employer. But the period of the service rendered elsewhere with the prior permission of the employer cannot be treated as leave with retrospective effect. However, before the aforesaid letter was issued by the Director of Education on 2nd September, 1984 pursuant to the letter dated 14th May, 1983 addressed by the respondent No. 3 to the Head Master of the School, the State Government by its letter dated 10-6-1983 pointed out that although there is no provision for lien in the Secondary School Code, since the respondent No. 2 society had granted extraordinary leave to the respondent No. 3 from 19-8-1975 to 31-3-1976, he will have to be treated as in continuous service of the school and the aforesaid period will not result in break in his service. The State Government therefore directed that the respondent No. 3 cannot be treated as a new entrant from 1-4-1976 and his pay therefore should be properly fixed without treating the aforesaid period as break in service. 5-A. It appears that Shri S.V. Parsodkar, an Assistant Teacher in the same school and Shri D.K. Mohogaonkar, another Assistant Teacher in the same school had made an appeal to the State Government claiming that the aforesaid letter dated 10-6-1983 written by the Desk Officer of the State Government should be withdrawn and that the respondent No. 3 should be treated as a fresh appointee after he joined his duties in the school from 1-4-1977. As regards this appeal, the State Government directed the Parishad Education Officer to make necessary enquiry in the matter and submit his report to the State Government. After making the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on or about 2-3-1988 to the State Government. As regards this appeal, the State Government directed the Parishad Education Officer to make necessary enquiry in the matter and submit his report to the State Government. After making the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on or about 2-3-1988 to the State Government. After considering the said report, the State Government directed the Parishad Education Officer by its letter dated 15-11-1988 that Shri Kane the respondent No. 3 cannot be treated as a new entrant as his service cannot be said to be broken because he was sanctioned extraordinary leave for the period of his absence when he was working as a lecturer in the B.Ed. College of the Nagpur University i.e. from 2-8-1976 to 31-3-1977. As for the first period of absence from 19-8-1975 to 31-3-1976, the State Government had already issued a similar order on 10th June, 1983. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition in this Court. 6. At the outset, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 have raised two preliminary objections before us. It is first urged on their behalf that the instant writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable or at any rate has become infructuous since the petitioner had already retired from service. In answer to the above preliminary objection, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that according to the Government Resolution dated 28-10-1988, if any employee/teacher serving in the Vidarbha region confirmed prior to 31-12-1965 were to retire during the middle of the session after completion of the age of superannuation of 60 years, he would actually stand retired at the end of the academic session and not in the midst of the session. It is therefore urged that the petitioner was entitled to continue in service till the end of the present academic session. It is further urged that if the service of the respondent No. 3 is treated as not continuous, the petitioner would be eligible for promotion to the post of the Head Master. 6-A. As regards the question of eligibility of the petitioner of becoming the Head Master, in case he succeeded, it is pointed out on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3 that the petitioner has no chance of becoming the Head Master of the school because there are 2 persons above him in seniority viz. Mr. Sarvate and Mr. 6-A. As regards the question of eligibility of the petitioner of becoming the Head Master, in case he succeeded, it is pointed out on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3 that the petitioner has no chance of becoming the Head Master of the school because there are 2 persons above him in seniority viz. Mr. Sarvate and Mr. Deshpande out of whom it is not in dispute that Mr. Deshpande had retired. As regards Shri Sarvate, it is pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that if the petitioner succeeds in this petition, then by reason of similar break in service in case of Shri Sarvate, he would also become junior to him and as such, the petitioner would have a chance of becoming the Head Master of the school. 7. As regards the Government Resolution dated 28-10-1988, it is urged on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3 that the said Government Resolution was challenged in Writ Petition No. 2436 of 1989 and this Court had granted stay of the said G.R. because of which it is urged on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3 that the petitioner had actually stood retired from service from 31st August, 1989. It is, however, pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that although initially there was stay of the aforesaid G.R. dated 28-10-1988, the said stay was vacated by this Court because of which unless the G.R. dated 28-10-1988 is set aside, the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of the said G.R. and as such, he would be entitled to continue till the end of this academic session. 8. It is clear that if the interim stay granted by this Court is vacated, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the G.R. dated 28-10-1988 unless and until it is set aside. The learned Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 have sought to canvass the validity of the said G.R. dated 28-10-1988 before us on the ground that it is contrary to Rule 17 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. It may be seen that we are not concerned in this petition with the validity of the G.R. dated 28-10-1988 in regard to which a substantive petition is pending in this Court. It may be seen that we are not concerned in this petition with the validity of the G.R. dated 28-10-1988 in regard to which a substantive petition is pending in this Court. It will not therefore be proper to go into the question of its validity only for the sake of determining the locus of the petitioner in the instant case. Proceeding on the assumption that the said G.R. is in force, it will have to be held that the petitioner has locus to challenge the continuity of service given to the respondent No. 3 because his claim for promotion to the post of Head Master can be considered if the respondent No. 3 does not get the continuity in service. The above preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3 therefore cannot be entertained. 9. The second preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3 is that the petitioner along with another teacher Wasudeo Gangadhar Patankar has filed a civil suit registered as Regular Civil Suit No. 662 of 1988 for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondent No. 2 Society and the relief claimed therein is that the appointment of the respondent No. 3 in this petition as the Head Master in the school is illegal and therefore by a permanent injunction, the respondent No. 2 Society should be restrained from appointing him as the Head Master. The said relief is claimed on the ground that there was break in service of the respondent No. 3 when he had served the B.Ed. College of the Nagpur University for the period from 19-8-1975 to 31-3-1976 and 2-8-1976 to 31-3-1977 as is clear from para 8 of the plaint which is placed before us for perusal. The objection raised on behalf of the respondent No. 2 is that since the petitioner has already availed of adequate remedy by way of suit, we should not entertain the instant writ petition. 10. The submission on behalf of the petitioner however is that the said suit was filed on or about 29-3-1988 when the second break in service of the respondent No. 3 from 2-8-1976 to 31-3-1977 was yet to be condoned by the State Government. 10. The submission on behalf of the petitioner however is that the said suit was filed on or about 29-3-1988 when the second break in service of the respondent No. 3 from 2-8-1976 to 31-3-1977 was yet to be condoned by the State Government. It is therefore urged that in regard to the order passed by the State Government on 15-11-1988 treating the service of the respondent No. 3 as continuous, even for the second academic session i.e. from 2-8-1976 to 31-3-1977, there is no challenge in the suit. Although the plaint does not show that the respondent No. 3 is party to the suit, it is urged on his behalf that later on he has been joined as a party to the suit which submission is denied on behalf of the petitioner. There is no material placed on record on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3 to show that the respondent No. 3 is joined as a party to the suit later on. 11. Be that as it may, in view of the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the break in service in the second academic session condoned on 15-11-1988 by the State Government is not the subject matter of the suit filed by the petitioner which is earlier to the said order dated 15-11-1988, we cannot give effect to the second objection raised on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3 that there is adequate remedy available to the petitioner which he has already availed of in the matter. Moreover, the proceedings in the civil suit are dilatory and the petitioner who was due to retire in this academic session had to take recourse to an efficacious remedy for which reason he has preferred the instant writ petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated before us that he would withdraw the suit and therefore this petition should be decided. In these circumstances, we do not think that it would be proper to give effect to the above objection raised by the respondents 2 and 3. 12. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated before us that he would withdraw the suit and therefore this petition should be decided. In these circumstances, we do not think that it would be proper to give effect to the above objection raised by the respondents 2 and 3. 12. Proceeding then to the merits of the challenge made in this writ petition, the principal question which needs consideration is whether in the absence of the provisions about lien in the Secondary School Code, it has to be necessarily held that the period during which the respondent No. 3 was working in the B.Ed College of the Nagpur University has to be treated as break in his service. There is no dispute that there are no provisions relating to lien in the Secondary School Code. The question which has, however, to be considered is whether there is any provision in the school code or whether the scheme of the school code shows that there is prohibition against the teacher as well as the management that a teacher in the school cannot work elsewhere and if he works elsewhere, it will result in termination of his earlier employment with the result that after resumption of his service, he will have to be treated as a new entrant from the date of resumption of his service in the school. It is therefore necessary to examine the relevant provisions of the school code in this regard. 13. It is made clear that the alleged breaks in service are prior to the coming into force of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and the Rules framed thereunder and therefore, at that time, the provisions of the school code were applicable to the teachers in the secondary schools. As regards the school code, it is well settled that it is an administrative code in the sense that it contains executive instructions issued by the State Government which are binding upon the managements of the Secondary Schools as they are recipients of recognition and grant-in-aid to their schools as per the Rules. The conditions of service of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the schools contained in the school code are made binding upon the managements of the schools since compliance with them is a term and condition of recognition of their schools by the State Government. The conditions of service of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the schools contained in the school code are made binding upon the managements of the schools since compliance with them is a term and condition of recognition of their schools by the State Government. It is clear that since the State Government has framed the School Code, it is the final authority to implement its provisions for which purpose it is open to it to issue appropriate instructions to the managements of the secondary schools. 14. Turning to the provisions of the School Code, section 3 of Chapter III deals with rules of discipline and leave. Rule 71.1 which is material for the purpose of this petition, provides that all employees would be subject to the general rules of discipline and conduct laid down by the Government from time to time and such other rules and instructions as may be issued by the management as are not repugnant to the general rule prescribed by the Government. It is clear from Rule 71.1 that the general rules of discipline and conduct issued by the Government from time to time are binding upon the employees in the secondary schools including the teachers. It is further clear from Rule 71.1 that on matters where there are no Rules or instructions of the State Government, it is open to the management to regulate such matters by its rules or instructions. 15. Rule 71.4 which is brought to our notice on behalf of the petitioner and very heavily relied upon on his behalf, provides that no full time employee shall accept part-time gainful employment in another educational, cultural or literary institution without first obtaining written permission from the authorities of the school in which he is employed, on a full-time basis. The said Rule further provides that if the full-time employee is permitted by the management to undertake pad-time employment, he shall not work for more than two clock hours per day and shall not be allowed to take private tuitions while he so works. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has sought to urge on the basis of the above rule that since it permits only part-time employment, full-time employment elsewhere is prohibited by implication. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has sought to urge on the basis of the above rule that since it permits only part-time employment, full-time employment elsewhere is prohibited by implication. 15-A. The learned Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 on the other hand, have relied upon Rule 75.12 to show that even full-time service elsewhere is permitted under the Secondary School Code or at any rate is not prohibited by it. Rule 75.12 provides that an employee on leave, with full or half pay, shall not accept any service with pay or remuneration during the period of leave, without first obtaining specific permission from his employer. The submission thus is that even during the period of leave with full or half pay, it is open to the employee to obtain employment elsewhere by obtaining specific permission from his employer. 16. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has pressed into service the same Rule 75.15 to show that it is not possible for an employee in the school to accept full-time employment elsewhere because as per the said rule, in case of emergency, the employee on leave, can be called back to service. It is clear from Rule 75.15 itself that the provision therein about calling back the employee on leave to service is not mandatory and that the employee concerned can satisfy the authority about his inability to return to duty due to some bona fide reasons or circumstances. That apart, because there is power to call back the employee to duty from his leave, it would not follow that there is no power in the management to allow its employee to accept full-time employment elsewhere when the same is permissible or at any rate when the same is not prohibited by any rules framed by the State Government or the Rules, if any, framed by the management itself. 17. Apart from the provisions which the rival parties have relied upon, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of Rule 75.4 relating to extraordinary leave. It is provided in Rule 75.4 that extraordinary leave can be granted to an employee in special circumstances when no other leave is by rule admissible or when other leave is admissible, but the employee applies in writing for the grant of extraordinary leave. It is provided in Rule 75.4 that extraordinary leave can be granted to an employee in special circumstances when no other leave is by rule admissible or when other leave is admissible, but the employee applies in writing for the grant of extraordinary leave. As regards the permanent employee, there is no restriction upon the extent or the limit to which such extraordinary leave can be granted. We may also notice the provisions of Rules 78.1, 78.2, 79.1 and 79.2 which consider the question of an employee desiring to apply for another post in another school. Perusal of the said provisions and in particular the provisions of rules 78.1 and 78.2 would show that the case contemplated therein is of an employee who wishes to leave his original school and join a new school in regard to which the procedure prescribed shows that he must submit the discharge certificate in the new school which he proposes to join. The said Rules have no bearing in regard to the case of an employee who does not wish to leave his school but for some temporary duration desires to join another institution with a view to gain knowledge and experience and to better his prospects. 18. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has then brought to our notice the provisions of rules 76.1, 76.2 and 76.3 to show that it is only part-time work or employment as provided in the said rules which is permissible under the School Code and not the full-time employment elsewhere. These provisions no doubt deal with part -time employment and it is clear from the said provisions that the main purpose of the said rules is that while undertaking part-time employment, the work of the employee in the school should not suffer. It is clear from the provisions relating to part -time employment including Rule 71.4 that the said part-time employment is undertaken in addition to the duties performed by the employee and that according to the conditions provided for such employment, it has to be seen that the work of the employee in his own school should not suffer by reason of his part-time employment. 19. 19. However, because there are some restrictions placed upon part-time employment so that the full-time work of the employee in the school should not suffer, it would not follow from the said consideration that it should be held that acceptance of full-time employment elsewhere is by implication prohibited. It may be seen that if it is permissible for an employee to take up full-time employment elsewhere for temporary duration by taking leave, then the consideration that his work in the school should not suffer can be taken care of by making temporary appointment in his leave vacancy which appointment is permissible under Rule 68.2 of the School Code. The above rules relating to part-time employment therefore do not spell out that full-time employment elsewhere is hot permissible under the School Code. 20. The basic question which we have therefore to consider is whether there is any prohibition, express or by necessary implication in the School Code against acceptance of full-time employment elsewhere by a school employee and if not, whether it is permissible for the management of the school to allow its employee to undertake full~time employment elsewhere for some temporary duration with a view to allow him to better his prospects. Rule 75.12 relied upon on behalf of the respondent No. 3 and which is also referred to by the Director of Education in his letter dated 2-9-1984 clearly supports the view that an employee in the school with the permission from his management, can serve elsewhere also. In any case, there is no prohibition in the Secondary School Code against the employee accepting full-time work elsewhere or against the management from permitting for temporary duration its employee to accept full-time employment elsewhere. In this context, Rule 71.1 of the School Code is relevant. According to Rule 71.1, if this area about acceptance of full-time employment elsewhere during the service of an employee in a secondary school is not covered by any provisions in the School Code, it is then open to the management of the said school to frame its own rules or issue necessary instructions in that regard. 21. According to Rule 71.1, if this area about acceptance of full-time employment elsewhere during the service of an employee in a secondary school is not covered by any provisions in the School Code, it is then open to the management of the said school to frame its own rules or issue necessary instructions in that regard. 21. Even otherwise, looked at from another angle, when the internal autonomy of the management of the school is not abridged by any rules or instructions issued by the State Government, it is open to it to regulate the question of granting permission to its employee to accept full-time employment elsewhere for a temporary duration by issuing its own instructions. It is thus open to the management of the school to allow its employee to take up employment elsewhere for some temporary duration by granting him leave as per the relevant rules. In this regard, it is pertinent to see that under Rule 75.4, an extraordinary leave can be granted to a permanent employee in regard to which there is no restriction placed upon the management to grant him such leave. 21-A. It may be seen that there is a practice in the respondent No. 2 Society to grant extraordinary leave with lien to its teachers so as to enable them to undertake employment elsewhere for temporary durations and to make temporary appointment in their leave vacancy in the school as is dear from the cases of the teachers Shri Sarvate and Shri Deshpande who were granted extraordinary leave with lien for two or three academic sessions to enable them to take up employment elsewhere for temporary durations as is clear from the resolution of the managing committee of the respondent No. 2 Society dated 17-8-1975 and the letter of its Secretary dated 25-8-1975 addressed to the Head Master of the school to treat the case of the respondent No. 3 similar to the above teachers. Such arrangement of granting lien with extraordinary leave is thus permissible in the school of the respondent No. 2 Society. 22. It is next contended on behalf of the petitioner that since there are no lien rules in the School Code, the employee cannot claim any right over his permanent post in the school and therefore no lien can be granted to him when he wants to join some foreign service. 22. It is next contended on behalf of the petitioner that since there are no lien rules in the School Code, the employee cannot claim any right over his permanent post in the school and therefore no lien can be granted to him when he wants to join some foreign service. It may be seen that lien is not a word of art, but it connotes the right of an employee to hold the post substantively to which he is appointed—as observed by the Supreme Court in the case of (Ramlal Khurana (dead) by L.Rs. v. State of Punjab and others)1, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 185. It is true that there are no lien rules in the School Code. The question, however, is whether in the absence of lien rules in the School Code, it is open to the management to allow its permanent employee to continue lien on his post while accepting employment elsewhere. As already pointed out hereinbefore, it is open to it to do so. 23. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has however brought to our notice the instructions issued by the Director of Education to the Parishad Education Officer as per the letter dated 8-11-1976 issued by its Desk Officer. It appears from the said letter dated 8-11-1976 that according to the view of the Director, the transfer of teacher on lien basis from one school to another and from one management to another is not permissible under the provisions of the School Code. He has therefore directed the Parishad Education Officer by his aforesaid letter dated 8-11-1976 that he should not grant approval to such transfers by the management from one school to another as the same is irregular. As regards the view of the Director of Education in the above letter dated 8-11-1976 that transfer on lien basis cannot be made from one management to another, we may presently show that the State Government which is the final and the highest authority to implement its own executive, instructions in the School Code has not accepted the above view of the Director in issuing the impugned orders in the instant case approving the action of the respondent No. 2 Society in granting lien and leave to the respondent No. 3. At any rate, the view taken by the Director is not binding upon the State Government and his letter dated 8-11-1976 is of no assistance to the petitioner in challenging the orders of the State Government in the instant case. 24. In examining the action of the management in the instant case which is approved by the two impugned orders issued, by the State Government, it is clear that the management had granted extraordinary leave to the respondent, No. 3 for the periods of his absence in the two academic sessions in question It is however pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that for the first period of absence i.e. from 19-8-1975 to 31-3-1976, the management had only granted lien, but not extraordinary leave as per its resolution dated 17-8-1975. It is then urged that such extraordinary leave for the first period of absence, referred to above cannot be granted retrospectively by the management while passing the resolution on 13-10-1976 in respect of the second period of absence from 2-8-1976 to 31-3-1977. In this regard, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has brought to our notice the resolution of the Managing Committee of the respondent No. 2 Society dated 17-8-1975 to show that what is granted to the respondent No. 3 is lien and not the extraordinary leave. 24-A. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 has however brought to our notice the letter dated 25-8-1975 addressed by the Secretary of the respondent No. 2 Society to the Head Master of the school and also the letter of the Head Master dated 9-9-1975 addressed to the respondent No. 3 to show that the respondent No. 3 was granted extraordinary leave with lien by the management. It is clear from the letter dated 25-8-1975 of the Secretary of the respondent No. 2 society that the management had decided to grant extraordinary leave to the respondent No. 3 while granting him lien. It is clear from the letter dated 25-8-1975 of the Secretary of the respondent No. 2 society that the management had decided to grant extraordinary leave to the respondent No. 3 while granting him lien. But through oversight there was no reference about the extraordinary leave to be granted to him in the above resolution of the managing committee dated 17-8-1975 for which reason it appears the said mistake was corrected by it and the extraordinary leave without pay for the first period of absence from 19-8-1975 to 31-3-1976 was granted by it when it passed the resolution about grant of lien and the extraordinary leave during the second academic session on 13-10-1976 for the period of his absence from 2-8-1976 to 31-3-1977. We do not therefore think that in the 'above circumstances and even otherwise, there is any illegality committed in sanctioning the extraordinary leave for the period from 19-8-1975 to 31-3-1976 subsequently or retrospectively and not before hand as alleged by the petitioner. At any rate in view of the letter of the Secretary dated 25-8-1975 and the letter of the Head Master dated 9-9-1975 addressed to the respondent No. 3 granting him lien with extraordinary leave without pay, the respondent No. 3 is not at fault and he cannot therefore be penalised for the irregularity, if any, committed by the management. 25. In our view what is important to be seen is whether the respondent No. 2 has granted permission to the respondent No. 3 to undertake the new employment for one academic session from 19-8-1975 to 31-3-1976. It is clear from the resolution of the Managing Committee dated 17-8-1975 and the letter dated 9-9-1975 addressed to the respondent No. 3 by the Head Master of the school that the respondent No. 3 was granted such permission after which alone he has joined the B.Ed. College w.e.f. 19-8-1975 as a lecturer. It is also clear that his application for the post of lecturer in question was routed through the management and that he had also claimed lien and extraordinary leave from the management by his letter dated 15-7-1975. College w.e.f. 19-8-1975 as a lecturer. It is also clear that his application for the post of lecturer in question was routed through the management and that he had also claimed lien and extraordinary leave from the management by his letter dated 15-7-1975. Once the permission is granted by the management by granting him lien as per its resolution, in our view, the question of granting extraordinary leave can be considered and decided at a later stage and thus there is nothing illegal in regularising the period of absence by grant of appropriate leave admissible to an employee. Even in a case where there are lien rules, the question of period of absence from the institution has to be considered in the light of the relevant leave rules. The grant of permission would also show that the management has not terminated the employment of the respondent No. 3 when he had joined the service in the B.Ed. College. 26. As already pointed out, through mistake or oversight there is no decision taken at that time by the management or its school committee about the grant of extraordinary leave to the respondent No. 3 during the academic session 19-8-1975 to 31-3-1976 which decision had been taken only later on when the question came for grant of extraordinary leave in the next academic session i.e. 2-8-1976 to 31-3-1977. The resolution of the managing committee dated 13-10-1976 shows that the management had granted extraordinary leave to the respondent No. 3 for his absence in the school from 19-8-1975 to 31-3-1976 by subsequently granting extraordinary leave for the said period which the management is authorised to do under Rule 75.4 of the School Code. 27. In holding that there is no break in school service of the respondent No. 3 by reason of his employment as a lecturer in the B.Ed. College of the Nagpur University during the two academic sessions in question, it is this aspect of grant of extraordinary leave to the petitioner during the above periods in the two academic sessions in question which has been emphasised by the State Government in both of its orders viz. College of the Nagpur University during the two academic sessions in question, it is this aspect of grant of extraordinary leave to the petitioner during the above periods in the two academic sessions in question which has been emphasised by the State Government in both of its orders viz. the order dated 10th June, 1983 in regard to the period of absence in the school of the petitioner from 19-8-1975 to 31-3-1976 and also the order dated 15-11-1988 in regard to the period of absence in the school of the petitioner from 2-8-1976 to 31-3-1977. 28. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the enquiry report of the Parishad Education Officer to emphasise the fact that the extraordinary leave was granted to the respondent No. 3 as an after thought by the Head Master and that it was not sanctioned by the School Committee, particularly in regard to the first period of absence from 19-8-1975 to 31-3-1976. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that the grant of leave to the teachers is the function of the school committee and not the function of the management as per the powers conferred upon the school committee in para 4(vi) of Appendix III to the Secondary School Code. 29. In this regard, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 has shown to us the original register about the minutes of the meetings of the school committee. He has shown to us that the resolution of the Managing Committee granting lien for the academic session 1975-76 was approved by the school committee in its meeting held on 30-8-1976. It is true that in the original resolution of the managing committee itself which was approved by the school committee, there is no reference to the grant of extraordinary leave to the respondent No. 3. However, the said question has been considered by the management as well as the school committee while considering the appointment of the respondent No. 3 in the B.Ed. College in the next academic session i.e. 1976-77. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has brought to our notice the resolution of the school committee dated 30-8-1976 by which the respondent No. 3 is granted extraordinary leave. It is not therefore correct to say that the School Committee has not considered the question of grant of extraordinary leave to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has brought to our notice the resolution of the school committee dated 30-8-1976 by which the respondent No. 3 is granted extraordinary leave. It is not therefore correct to say that the School Committee has not considered the question of grant of extraordinary leave to the petitioner. As already held, there is nothing illegal in regularising the periods of absence by subsequent grant of appropriate leave for the said periods of absence. 30. In our view, even assuming that there is irregularity in so far as the question of grant of extraordinary leave is not considered by the School Committee, but by the Managing Committee the said irregularity can always be cured by its subsequent sanction. At any rate, the respondent No. 3 cannot be held responsible for such an irregularity. In fact, the final authority under the School Code viz. the State Government itself has ignored the said irregularity by accepting the fact that the respondent No. 3 was granted extraordinary leave during the said period. The above contention raised on behalf of the petitioner therefore cannot be accepted. 31. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has then urged before us that the breaks in service can be condoned only for certain specific purposes. In this regard, the Government Resolution dated 14-10-1971 is brought to our notice to show that the breaks in service can be condoned only for the purpose of computing pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits and not for other purposes such as seniority etc. In our view, as rightly pointed out on behalf of the State Government, there is no question of condonation of breaks in service when extraordinary leave is granted to the respondent No. 3 for taking employment elsewhere during the above period. It is pertinent to see that Rule 75.4 provides for grant of extraordinary leave to an employee in special circumstances when no other leave is by rule admissible or when other leave is admissible but the employee applies in writing for the grant of extraordinary leave. In our view, the expression “special circumstances” would cover contingency where the management permits an employee to undertake employment elsewhere for certain temporary durations. In our view, the expression “special circumstances” would cover contingency where the management permits an employee to undertake employment elsewhere for certain temporary durations. In the instant case, the respondent No. 3 has himself applied in writing for the grant of extraordinary leave and therefore, if the extraordinary leave is granted to him for the purpose of undertaking employment elsewhere for some temporary duration which the management permits, there is no question of any break in his service which needs to be condoned subsequently. By grant of extraordinary leave, his period of absence in the school is regularised and the service is treated as continuous in the school. 32. Moreover, the above Government Resolution dated 14-10-1971 merely deals with the question of Competent Authority to condone such breaks. Since this G. R. is brought to our notice for the first time during the hearing of this petition, it is not possible to know whether the said G.R. is comprehensive or all pervasive on the question of condonation of breaks in service in the sense that the breaks inservice can be condoned only for the purpose of pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits and that there are no other G.R. issued by the State Government for condonation of breaks in service for other purposes. Be that as it may, since we have held that there is no question of condonation of break in service when the extraordinary leave is granted and the service is thus treated as continuous, the above submission made on behalf of the petitioner based upon the G.R. dated 14-10-1971 cannot be accepted. The State Government itself has not made applicable the above G.R. to the case of the respondent No. 3 in its impugned orders. 33. It may lastly be seen that the respondent No. 3 at any rate cannot be held responsible if there are any irregularities committed by the management or the Parishad Education Officer in the matter of grant of lien and leave to the petitioner. Had it been brought to his notice that he was not entitled to any lien in the sense that he could not take up employment elsewhere under the Rules during the period of his service in the school, he would not have taken up employment elsewhere particularly when it had the disastrous effect of break in his long service in the school since 1957. The submissions made on behalf of the petitioner in this regard therefore cannot be given effect to particularly when the management as well as the highest authority under the School Code viz. the State Government have held that there is no break in service of the respondent No. 3. In the result, the instant writ petition fails and is dismissed. However, in the circumstances, there would be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. -----