JUDGMENT : G.B. Pattnaik, J. - The Managing Committee of an aided educational institution is the petitioner and relief sought for in the writ application is to direct the Inspector of Schools (opp. party No. 3) to accord approval of the suspension of the Headmaster of the School (opp party No. 4) and direct opp. party No. 3 not to release the salary of the Headmaster who is not performing his duty since 2nd July, 1991. The aforesaid relief has been claimed by the Managing Committee in the following circumstances : 2. The school in question was established In year 1981 and it got recognition from the competent educational authorities in the year 1983. The Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, also granted recognition to the institusion in the year 1983 for presenting candidates in the High School Certificate Examination of the Board. In accordance with the grant-in-aid rules of the Government, the school became entitled to receive grant-in-aid from the year 1988 and in fact, the grant-in-aid was sanctioned in the year 1991 with effect from 1988. Thus the school became an aided educational institution within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Orissa Education Act since 1988. A letter was received by the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the School from opposite party No. 3 dated 9-7-1990 wherein it had been indicated that the school building not having been constructed on its own plot and having been continued on a different plot, it should be shifted to the plot of land registered in the name of the school within one month from the date of receipt of the letter, failing which recognition would be withheld and no grant-in-aid would be released. The said letter has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ application. The Secretary of the Managing Committee immediately replied to the aforesaid letter denying the allegations made therein and reiterating that the school is functioning on its own land in the construction of the building more than a lakh of rupees has been spent and, therefore, the question of shifting does not arise. The resolution of the Managing Committee dated 2-9-1990 to the aforesaid effect which was sent to opp. party No. 3 have been annexed as Annexure-2. On receipt of the aforesaid resolution of the Managing Committee, opp. party No. 3 brought this matter to the notice of the Director of Secondary Education (opp. The resolution of the Managing Committee dated 2-9-1990 to the aforesaid effect which was sent to opp. party No. 3 have been annexed as Annexure-2. On receipt of the aforesaid resolution of the Managing Committee, opp. party No. 3 brought this matter to the notice of the Director of Secondary Education (opp. party No. 2) and the Director in his turn called upon the Inspector of Schools to verify the land records of the petitioner's institution and to report about the extent of land and the construction of the building. The Inspector of Schools duly complied with the aforesaid direction of the Director and submitted a report. On 31-10-1990 the grant-in-aid for the petitioner's institution was released on certain terms and conditions and it was stipulated that the conditions would be fulfilled within a year. One of the conditions was that the school should be shifted to the plot of land measuring Ac. 5. 00. On receipt of the aforesaid letter of the Inspector, the Managing Committee passed a resolution on 2-11-1990, which has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ application. The Managing Committee categorically took the decision that the school being continuing on its own plot of land, question of shifting does not arise. Notwithstanding the decision of the Managing Committee, as the Inspector insisted on shifting of the school to another plot of land, the school through its Managing Committee filed a writ application which was registered as O. J. C. No. 3274 of 1991. By an interim order, this Court directed that the school should continue to function in the place where it was functioning, namely plot No, 2121, Khata No. 300 of mauza Samia. In the meantime, the aforesaid writ application has been heard, but judgment has not been delivered. The Inspector of Schools while making correspondence with the Secretary of the Managing Committee regarding shifting of the school forwarded a copy of his letter dated 28-6-1991 to the Headmaster of the School. Though the Headmaster was not competent to shift the school from one building to the other and is an employee under the administrative control of the Managing Committee, defying the orders of the Managing Committee, the Headmaster issued a notice on 1-7-1991 to the staff members and guardians of the students for shifting of the school. Though the Headmaster was not competent to shift the school from one building to the other and is an employee under the administrative control of the Managing Committee, defying the orders of the Managing Committee, the Headmaster issued a notice on 1-7-1991 to the staff members and guardians of the students for shifting of the school. The Secretary of the Managing Committee directed the Headmaster to discharge his duty in the school building where the school-was functioning, but disobeying the said direction, the Headmaster started the school at the place where the educational authority had directed to shift. For such disobedience of the orders of the Managing Committee, the Headmaster was placed under suspension by the Managing Committee by order dated 1-7-1991 pending drawal of a disciplinary proceeding for issuing unauthorised order for shifting of the school and the Headmaster was directed to hand over the keys of the almirah and other charges to the senior-most Assistant Teacher of the School, Shri P. C. Sahu. The Inspector of Schools was also requested by the Managing Committee to direct the Headmaster to hand over charge. The order of suspension of the Headmaster has been annexed as Annexure-7. The Inspector of Schools, however, did not approve the suspension on the ground that the Headmaster has shifted the school not on his own accord, but pursuant to the direction of the educational authority. The letter of disapproval has been annexed as Annexure-8. The Headmaster was again placed under suspension by the decision of the Managing Committee dated 28-7-1991 and the Inspector of Schools was requested to accord approval. The letter of the Managing Committee requesting the Inspector to approve the suspension of the Headmaster has been annexed as Annexure-9. As thereafter no order of the Inspector was received approving the suspension, the Managing Committee continued to suspend the Headmaster over and over again, as under law an order of suspension without approval of the Inspector cannot have its life beyond thirty days. Finally, without receiving any intimation from the Inspector with regard to the approval of the order of suspension of the Headmaster, the petitioner has moved this Court. The stand of the petitioner is that the Headmaster is an employee of the Managing Committee and is, therefore, bound to obey the orders passed by the Managing Committee. Finally, without receiving any intimation from the Inspector with regard to the approval of the order of suspension of the Headmaster, the petitioner has moved this Court. The stand of the petitioner is that the Headmaster is an employee of the Managing Committee and is, therefore, bound to obey the orders passed by the Managing Committee. If he disobeys the orders of his employer and acts in accordance with the direction given by the educational authorities, then his employer, the Managing Committee, is entitled to suspend him and the Inspector cannot refuse to accord approval merely on the ground that the Headmaster had obeyed the directions of the educational authorities. Such disapproval is not a ground germane to the issue and, therefore, cannot be sustained in law and this Court would be justified in issuing appropriate direction to the Inspector to consider the question of approval of the order of suspension. 2. Opp. parties 1 to 3 have filed a counter affidavit. It has been indicated in the said counter affidavit that when the school started functioning, a plot of land measuring Ac. 5. 00 has been registered in the name of the school and the school was to function on the said plot of land, but as the school did not function on the said plot, the Director of Secondary Education had issued instructions to shift the school to its own plot of land, the aforesaid direction to shift had been issued as it was found that the plot of land where the school was temporarily functioning was near the campus of M. E. School and Primary School and was not suitable for the High School. The letter of the Inspector to the Secretary of the Managing Committee requiring him to shift the school had been forwarded to the Headmaster and, therefore, when the Headmaster implemented the decision of the educational authority, the Managing Committee could not have suspended him and, therefore, the Inspector was justified in not approving the order of suspension. It has also been indicated that before receipt of the order of stay passed by this Court in the writ application, where shifting of the school has been challenged, the Headmaster had already shifted the school in obedience to the order of the departmental authorities. It has also been indicated that before receipt of the order of stay passed by this Court in the writ application, where shifting of the school has been challenged, the Headmaster had already shifted the school in obedience to the order of the departmental authorities. It has also been indicated that since the order of suspension had not been approved once and yet the Managing Committee went on passing subsequent orders of suspension, no further action has been taken by the Inspector, 3. The Headmaster (opp. party Mo. 4) has also appeared and has filed a counter affidavit. The stand taken by the Headmaster is that the life of the present Managing Committee having expired, the Committee has no locus stand! to file the writ application. The further stand is that in order to be eligible to get recognition, the school must have at least 3.00-acres of land and for that reason, 5.00 acres of land had been registered by one Parvati Kumari Patamahadsi in Mauza Samia in Khata No, 300, plot No. 73. The said land has been registered in the name of the school on 3-11-1981, When the educational authorities directed shifting of the school to the plot of land registered in the name of the school, a copy of which had been forwarded to the Headmaster, the Headmaster apprehending that the recognition may be withdrawn if the order is not complied with directed shifting of the school and thus the shifting was made pursuant to the direction of the educational authorities. Consequently, the Headmaster cannot be held guilty for directing shifting of the school and in fact, shifting the school. So far as the order of stay passed by this Court in the writ application filed challenging the shifting of the school, the Headmaster stated that he got the interim order after he had shifted the school. On the merits of the matter, the Headmaster indicated in his affidavit that the High School was functioning in the premises of the M. E. School and due to paucity of rooms, the office of the High School as well as the office of the M. E. School were functioning in a single room where both the Headmasters were sitting and discharging their duties. Since the High School could not function suitably within the premises of the M. E. School and the educational authorities directed for shifting, the Headmaster took the decision of shifting. It was also indicated that the decision of the Managing Committee not to shift the school having been superseded by the order of the Inspector, the Headmaster obeyed the orders of the Inspector and, therefore, the Managing Committee was not justified in suspending the Headmaster. 4. In view of the stand taken by the parties, the first question that arises for consideration is who exercises administrative control over the Headmaster of an institution ? The 'Managing Committee' has been defined in Section 3(k) of the Orissa Education Act to mean "any body of individuals, by whatever name designated, in which the management of a school vests." u/s 7(3) of the Act, the Managing Committee is responsible for the proper management of the institution and exercises such powers and performs such functions as may be prescribed. Under Rule 5 of the Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the "Recruitment Rules") it is the Secretary of the Managing Committee who is called upon to apply to the Selection Board with a copy to the concerned Inspector of Schools indicating the vacancy position in the school and requesting the Selection Board to sponsor candidates. Under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the said Rules, appointment is made by the Managing Committee of the candidates alltted to the school by the authority under Sub-rule (2). Rule 8 of the Recruitment Rules specifies circumstances under which the Managing Committee can make appointment without asking the Selection Board to allot candidates. Under Rule 1 i(d) of the Recruitment Rules, the employees are required to carry out the orders of the President or the Secretary of the Managing Committee. Under Rule 17(2) of the Recruitment Rules, the Secretary of the Managing Committee is to maintain in respect of each employee a service book in duplicate. The proviso to Rule 21(1) of the Recruitment Rules indicates that it is the Managing Committee who is the disciplinary authority in respect of the employees of the school and only when the Managing Committee refuses or neglects to take disciplinary action against an employee, the Director may take such action. The proviso to Rule 21(1) of the Recruitment Rules indicates that it is the Managing Committee who is the disciplinary authority in respect of the employees of the school and only when the Managing Committee refuses or neglects to take disciplinary action against an employee, the Director may take such action. In view of the provisions of the Act and the Rules, referred to above, there cannot be any manner of doubt that it is the Managing Committee on whom the control and administration of the institution vests and the employees of the institution including the Headmaster are the employees under the control of the Managing Committee. The Director or the Inspector has been conferred certain powers under the Act or the relevani Rules which are in the nature of a supervisory power to supervise the functions and duties of the Managing Committees and if any Managing Committee refuses to obey the lawful orders passed by any competent educational authority, then the Director has the power to take action for supersession. But so far as the employees of the institution are concerned, they continue to be under the administrative control of the Managing Committee and they are answerable to the Managing Committee. The relationship of employer and employee exists between the Managing Committee and the employees. 5. The next question that arises for consideration is where an employee disobeys the orders of his employer, would the employer be entitled to place him under suspension even if such disobedience amounts to implementation of directions of the educational authorities ? The answer to this problem must be in the affirmative. Since the Managing Committee is the employer with whom the administrative control in respect of the employees of the institution vests, if any employee disobeys the orders passed by the employer-Managing Committee, then the Managing Committee would be fully justified to place him under suspension. The Director or the Inspector might be exercising some power of supervision or control over the actions of the Managing Committee, but there is no direct control or administration over the employees of the institution and if an employee refuses to obey the directions of his employer, namely the Managing Committee, then the employer would be fully justified in placing him under suspension. The stand of the Managing Committee is that notwithstanding the direction given by the Managing Committee not to shift the school, the Head- master having shifted the school, the Managing Committee placed him under suspension. The stand of the Headmaster, on the other hand, is that he had obeyed the orders of the Inspector and shifted the school and, therefore, he cannot be held to have disobeyed the orders of the Managing Committee. We are unable to accept the stand of- the Head- master. In course of hearing of the writ application, Mr, Patnaik, appearing for the Headmaster forcefully argues that the Headmaster obeyed the direction to shift the school as he thought that otherwise the recognition of the school would be cancelled Though there may be some truth and force in the aforesaid anxiety of the Headmaster, but so long as he continues an as employee of the Managing Committee, he owes his loyalty and obligation to his employer, the Managing Committee. If the recognition of a school is cancelled or withdrawn, that is the headache of the Managing Committee with whom the administration of the school vests. An employee of the school cannot have any direct connection with the educational authorities who might be exercising certain supervising power. In that view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the Headmaster was not justified in disobeying the orders of the Managing Committee and in shifting the school to a place pursuant to the orders passed by the Inspector and, therefore, in such circumstances, the Managing Committee would be entitled to suspend such employee for disobedience of their orders. 6. The next question that arises for our consideration is whether the Inspector was justified in refusing to accord approval of the suspension on the grounds indicated therein and whether the Managing Committee thereafter was justified in passing orders of suspension for 29 days at a stretch notwithstanding the disapproval of the order of suspension ? So far as the disapproval passed by the inspector is concerned, the only ground indicated by the Inspector in Annexure-8 is that since the Headmaster has acted in accordance with the direction of the Inspector, the Managing Committee was not justified in placing the Headmaster under suspension and, therefore, the inspector does not think it appropriate to accord approval to the order of suspension. For what has been stated earlier by us indicating that the Headmaster is an employee of the Managing Committee and the Managing Committee is the employer and, therefore, disobedience of orders of the employer would entitle the employer to put the employee under suspension, the ground indicated in the letter of the Inspector under Annexure-8 for disapproving the order of suspension cannot be said to be a germane ground. But at the same time, if the Inspector refuses to accord approval taking the view that bona fide the Headmaster has complied with the direction given in the Inspector's letter and has ordered for shifting, as otherwise, the recognition of the school was in danger, then that may be a good ground for refusing to accord approval. It has been already indicated in this judgment that if a Managing Committee does not comply with the lawful directions given by the Director of the Inspector, then there is ample power to take action against the said Managing Committee. But that by no means would authorise the Inspector to annul any orders passed by the Managing Committee in suspending an employee for disobedience of orders passed by the Managing Committee. The question of approval of an order of suspension arises because of the provisions contained in Rule 21 of the Recruitment Rules. The proviso to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 indicates that a Managing Commitee can place an employee of the school under suspension with the prior approval of the Inspector. The second proviso to the said Sub-rule, however, authorises the Managing Committee to place an employee under suspension for a period of thirty days at the initiation of a disciplinary proceeding pending approval of the Inspector. It is because of the aforesaid provision, any order of suspension passed by a Managing Committee does not become operative after expiry of thirty days if it is not approved by the Inspector, but at the same time, the Managing Committee may pass a fresh order of suspension. In view of our conclusion that the reasons advanced by the Inspector for not according approval to the order of suspension passed by the Managing Committee are not germane and since the Managing Committee has passed sub- sequent orders of suspension, the Inspector may now re-consider the question as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of suspension would be approved or not. While reconsidering the matter, the Inspector would also take into account all subsequent events that have happened including the question as to whether the Managing Committee has lost its administrative control over the institution and the employees, the tenure having been expired and further whether the shifting of the school made by the Headmaster can be said to be a bona fide act of the Headmaster in implementing the decision of the educational authorities. 7. The writ application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid directions and observations. There will be no order as to costs. A. Pasayat, J. I agree. Final Result : Allowed