JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - In this application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed (i) to issue direction to District Inspector of Schools to treat him as ad hoc Headmaster and to pay him his salary as Headmaster directly under Rule 9 of the Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') and (ii) to issue direction to the Director to approve the appointment of petitioner as Headmaster. 2. Petitioner joined as teacher in Pipili Mission M. E, School on 1-5-1979 in a Trained Matric Post available on account of duplication of Class VI when he was a Graduate without teachers training. This appointment was made regular on 19-10-1979. While petitioner was continuing as such, he obtained his B. Ed. degree in January, 1988. In view of his qualification, Managing Committee placed him as the senior most teacher in the school next to the Headmaster in its resolution dated 4-5-1988. When Headmaster of the school retired on attaining age of superannuation on 30-11-1990, Managing Committee in its resolution dated 1-12-1990 (Annexure-4) promoted petitioner as Headmaster. However, District Inspector allowed petitioner to be Headmaster incharge till the post of Headmaster is filled up on regular basis by a. candidate of the Selection Board as has decided by State Government on principle in letter No. 166/90-2745 (3) EYS dated 18-1-1991 which was communicated to the Managing Committee by the District Inspector in his letter dated "26-2-1991. This is grievance of the petitioner. 3. Headmaster of an Aided Mi Idle School is required to be a trained graduate. Managing Committee of such a school has power to appoint Headmaster when vacancy arise?; Such appointment is regulated by provisions of the Orissa Educition Act and rules made thereunder. 4. This is grievance of the petitioner. 3. Headmaster of an Aided Mi Idle School is required to be a trained graduate. Managing Committee of such a school has power to appoint Headmaster when vacancy arise?; Such appointment is regulated by provisions of the Orissa Educition Act and rules made thereunder. 4. Managing Committee of an Aided Middle School has been vested with powers to appoint staff including Haidmaster : (i) On deputation (ii) on ad hoc basis for a period not exceeding three months; (iii) by direct recruitment; (iv) for six months or till a candidate of the selection board is available whichever is earlier Appointment for six months requires prior approval of Inspector and extension requires prior approval of State Government; (v) from among employees of the school getting salary lesser scale to a post in the higher scale with prior approval of the Director which power is to be exercised depends upon the decision of the managing committee and there is no scope for controlling or regulating such power under the Act and the rules. In O. J. C. No. 2334 of 1991 decided today (17-6-1991) (Kailash Chandra Mishra v. State of Orissa and Ors.) we have clearly analysed the scheme of apoointment of Headmaster in an Aided Middle School. Same would have full force in this case also. 5. In this case, Resolution dated 1-12-1990 (Annexure-4) of the Managing Committee was passed in the meeting where petitioner partici- pated. Thus, the said resolurion so far as appointment of petitioner as Headmaster, is invalid. This is the settled position of law as laid down by this Court in . OJC No. 687 of 1990 decided on 17-5-1991 (Managing Committee, Mohammadpur Biswanathpur Girls' High School, Cuttack v. State of Orissa and Ors.) and OJC No. 2334 of 1991 decided today (17-6-1991) (supra). 6. When Managing Committee sought for approval of appointment of petitioner an employee in lesser scale of pay as Headmaster under Rule 8(2)(b)the rules. District Inspector who is not the approving authority ought to have forwarded the same to Director who is the approving authority. In the decision reported in Ranganath Misra Vs. State of Orissa and Others, it has been observed : "In dealing with a Managing Committee of a Secondary Educational Institution tike a High School, one should not encourage too much technicalities of law to operate. In the decision reported in Ranganath Misra Vs. State of Orissa and Others, it has been observed : "In dealing with a Managing Committee of a Secondary Educational Institution tike a High School, one should not encourage too much technicalities of law to operate. After alt, the educational institution has been set up for importing education and Government have evolved a process of reasonably regulating the running of such institution. The authorities in whom powers have been vested to exercise the control should come forward to ease the situation when there is hardship in the working process ...-There was scope for confession on the part of the Managing Committee and it was the duty of the Inspector not only to assist the management In knowing, the law, but to point out forthwith who the appropriate authority to be approached in the given case was. When by a new law, a situation is intended to be dealt with, those charged with the enforcement of the law as supervising authorities must rise up to the occasion to assist those who are intended to be governed by the new law to know the new provisions which they are obliged to follow, In this background, the Inspector owed a duty, particularly when the limitation of thirty days was prescribed by statute, to either return the application under Annexure-8 to to the Management saying that he was not the competent authority, or to forward the same to the Director of Public Instruction (Schools) who was the competent authority to dispose of the same in accordance with law." This principle has full application to the present case. District Inspector ought to have either returned the proposal or forward the same to the Director who would have considered the same. He had no power to treat the petitioner as Headmaster in charge when there is no post of that nature. 7. In the result, writ application is allowed. Resolution dated 1-12-1990 (Annexure-4 ) and letter dated 16-1-1991 of District Inspector (Annexure-5) are declared invalid. District Inspector is directed to advise the Managing Committee to appoint a Headmaster on ad hoc basis fora period not exceeding three months immediately and to reconsider the question of appointment of Headmaster. Process of appointment of Head-master on regular basis shall be completed before end of September, 1991 by opposite parties. No costs. J.M. Mahapatra, J. 8. I agree. District Inspector is directed to advise the Managing Committee to appoint a Headmaster on ad hoc basis fora period not exceeding three months immediately and to reconsider the question of appointment of Headmaster. Process of appointment of Head-master on regular basis shall be completed before end of September, 1991 by opposite parties. No costs. J.M. Mahapatra, J. 8. I agree. Final Result : Allowed