JUDGMENT : P.C. Naik, J. - The challenge in this writ application is to the order of the State Education Tribunal, Orissa, whereby the appeals filed by opposite parties 6, 7, 8 and 9 against the order of termination of their service, were allowed setting aside their termination with direction for their reinstatement in service with all benefits including the salary for the intervening period. 2. The institution in question is functioning in the name and style of "Sri Aurobindo institute of Integral Education & Research" at Sambalpur. The case of the Petitioner is that this is a minority institution which has a right to administer it without any outside control. That in exercise of this right to control, the institution had appointed opposite parties 6, 7, 8 and 9 as workers on a fixed honorarium of Rs. 375/- to cope with the extra teaching work which was necessary. It is the further case of the Petitioner that the institution being an integral educational institution the yardstick prescribed is not applicable to it. It is also submitted that it is not an aided institution and as such, the provisions selection 10A if the Orissa Education Act, 1969 (in short, "the Act") are not applicable to it, and therefore, the Orissa Education Tribunal committed an error in setting aside the order of termination for noncompliance of the provisions contained in section l0A of the Act. 3. It is the case of the State that the institution in question is an aided institution within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Act. It is submitted that not only a block grant has been given and accepted by the institution but also its name has been included in the list of institutions eligible to receive grant-in-aid from the Government. Accordingly,it is submitted that it being an aided educational institution, the provisions contained in section l0A of the Act are applicable to it and since the termination was without prior approval, it was rightly set aside by the Tribunal. There is, however, some confusion regarding the averments made in paragraph-5 of the counter wherein it has been stated that the institution in question had appointed employees without reference to the yardstick. The assertion of the Petitioner that the school is a minority institution is also denied. 4. There is, however, some confusion regarding the averments made in paragraph-5 of the counter wherein it has been stated that the institution in question had appointed employees without reference to the yardstick. The assertion of the Petitioner that the school is a minority institution is also denied. 4. The case of opposite patties 6, 7, 8 and 9 is that since the name of the school has been included in the list of newly aided educational institutions, it has become eligible to receive grant-in-aid and it is covered by the definition of Section 3(b) of the Act and once the school is treated as an aided institution, the provisions of section l0A of the said Act became applicable to it. As regards the contention that it is a minority institution, it is submitted that Sri Aurobinda Institute of Integral Education and Research was neither a religious nor a linguistic institution and, therefore, it cannot be termed as a minority institution within the meaning of Section 2 of the Act. 5. For determining whether or not the institution in question is a minority institution, reference may be made to the case of S.P. Mittal v. Union of India and Ors. (Batch) AIR 1983 SC 1 , wherein a Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court has held that whether Aurobinda Society nor Aura Ville township constitutes religious denomination and that the teachings of Sri Aurobinodo do not represent a different religion. In the case at hand, there is also nothing on record to indicate that the Petitioners institution is a linguistic minority institution. In this view of the matter the contentions that the institution run by the Aurobindo Society is a minority institution, has to be repelled. 6. Section 3(b) of the Act defines "an aided educational institution' to mean a private educational institution which is eligible to, and is receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government and includes an educational institution which has been notified by the State Government to receive grant-in-aid". Thus, under the definition, a mere inclusion of the name of an institution in the list of eligible institutions to receive grant-in-aid makes the said educational institution an aided educational institution within the meaning of the Act. 7. Admittedly, the Petitioners institution has drawn a block grant of Rs. 87,242/- which was extended to it. Thus, under the definition, a mere inclusion of the name of an institution in the list of eligible institutions to receive grant-in-aid makes the said educational institution an aided educational institution within the meaning of the Act. 7. Admittedly, the Petitioners institution has drawn a block grant of Rs. 87,242/- which was extended to it. That apart, it is clear from the counter filed by the State that its name has been included in the list of eligible institutions to receive grant-in-aid. Thus, it follows that the institution in question is an aided educational Institution and as such, the provisions contained in Section 10A of the Act would be applicable to it. 8. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that since opposite parties 6, 7, 8 and 9 were, as is clear from the counter of the State, not entitled to any grant-in-aid from the Government, they were exclusive employees of the institution and as such, the institution in question had a right to appoint them and also had right to dispense with their service. At any rate, it was submitted that they were not "teachers" but were mere workers, as they had been appointed to cope with the temporary workload of the institution on a fixed honorarium and not on a regular salary payable to a teacher. All that can be said on this is that the appointment order of the said opposite parties indicates that they (o.ps. 6 to 9) were appointed as 'teachers" in the Petitioner's institution, of course, on a consolidated honorarium of Rs. 375/- per month. But, the fact remains that they were appointed as Assistant teachers and were discharging the functions of teachers. The fact that they were not given a regular pay sale payable to a teacher but were given Rs. 375/-by way of honorarium does not change the nature and duty of the post to which they were appointed. They were appointed as teachers and were discharging their duties as teachers, may be on a fixed honorarium. Therefore, it follows that the opposite parties 6,7, 8 and 9 were appointed as teachers and were members of the staff of the institution in question. 9. It was then contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that u/s l0A of the Act prior approval for termination of. Therefore, it follows that the opposite parties 6,7, 8 and 9 were appointed as teachers and were members of the staff of the institution in question. 9. It was then contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that u/s l0A of the Act prior approval for termination of. service of the teacher or staff of an aided educational institution will only be necessary with regard to those who are appointed against the posts for which grant-in-aid, is paid or payable by the State Government and since admittedly opp. parties 6 to 9 were not entitled to grant-in-aid as is clear from the State's counter, it was not necessary to obtain prior approval u/s l0A of the Act before terminating their services. 10. Before considering the admission. It will be relevant to refer to neither section l0A which provides that services of teachers of aided institutions are not to be terminated without nor approval. Sub-section (1) thereof provides that the services of a teacher and other members of the staff of an aided educational institution shall not he terminated without obtaining the prior approval in writing of the Director or the Circle Inspector of Schools, as the case may be depending whether the person to be terminated was a member of the staff of a school or a college. In simple words, this section contemplates that the service of a teacher or other members of staff of an aided institution shall not be terminated without prior approval. What is to be noticed is that the provision does not lie down that the services of an "approved teacher" or other members of the staff shall not be terminated without prior approval. On the contrary, it provides that the services of a teacher and other members of staff of an aided educational institution shall not be terminated without prior approval in writing. Had the Legislature intended this provision to apply only in respect of approved teachers, it would have so provided. Since it is not so, the provision has to be read as it stands. Thus the spirit of the provision is that once the institution is an aged educational institution, the services of a teacher or any member of the staff which would mean "teaching" or "non-teaching" staff shall not be terminated without prior approval. Since it is not so, the provision has to be read as it stands. Thus the spirit of the provision is that once the institution is an aged educational institution, the services of a teacher or any member of the staff which would mean "teaching" or "non-teaching" staff shall not be terminated without prior approval. Thus in view of the finding that the institution in question was an aided institution and opposite party Nos, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are the members of teaching staff of the said institution. It has to be held that their services could not have been terminated in terms of section l0A of the Act without obtaining prior approval in writing. In this regard, reference may be made to O.J.C. No. 3266 of 1994 Governing Body of Oupada College v. State of Orissa and Ors. disposed of on 30-6-1994. 11. Lastly, the attention of the Court was drawn to the Circular of the Director of Public instructions, Orissa, bearing No. 9P-25-81(Al) l8798 dated 23-5-1981 wherein it has been mentioned that integral schools are special types of experimental schools and the management will have "full freedom" regarding recruitment and selection of teachers, appointment, honorarium, and the like. Accordingly, it is submitted that the Petitioner's institution had "full freedom" in the matter of recruitment and selection and consequently, it also had "full freedom" for dispensing with the service of its staff. This contention also cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the departmental circulars cannot provide the statutory provisions. Since the Petitioner's institution is an aided institution, as already held the statutory provisions of Section 10A will be applicable to it. Since admittedly the services of opposite parties 6,7, 8 and 9 were terminated without obtaining prior approval, the Tribunal did not commit any error in annulling the said orders. In the result, the writ application fails and is dismissed accordingly. There shall however be no order as to costs. Writ application dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed