JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J. - The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for quashing the order dated 28-4-98 passed by the District Inspector of Schools in Annexure-5 holding that the petitioner was not working in Chitrotpala M E. School, Janardanpur, from 17-5-90 to 20-10-97 and to adjust her in any other school. The case of the petitioner is that on 16-5-90 one Balaram Das, a regular Teacher of Chitrotpala M. E. School resigned from his post and upon acceptance of his resignation the post fell vacant. On 17-5-90 the Managing Committee of the school appointed the petitioner on ad hoc basis awaiting appointment of the Selection Board candidate. On 29-6-90 the Secretary of the Managing Committee recommended the case of the petitioner to the District Inspector of Schools for approval of her appointment against the said post and for continuance till replaced by a Selection Board candidate. On 26-7-91 the District Inspector of Schools in Course of his inspection counter-signed the Attendance Register and other documents, wherein the petitioner was shown to have been appointed as Assistant Teacher of the school on ad hoc basis. Despite the recommendation made by the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the schools no steps were taken. Therefore the petitioner approached Court in O. J. C. No. 14321 of 1997. The said writ application was disposed of on 4-11-1997 directing the District Inspector of Schools to dispose of the recommendation made by the Secretary of the Managing Committee within a specified period. After disposal of the said writ application, by order dated 28-4-98 the District Inspector of Schools refused to accord approval of petitioner's appointment on the grounds that the petitioner's appointment was illegal, as at the relevant time, the State Government had imposed a ban on ad hoc appointment by order dated 31-12-88, the Managing Committee appointed the petitioner without obtaining prior approval of the competent authority, the Managing Committee did not allow a Selection Board Candidate to join in the institution, and that the post has already been filled up on transfer of one Shri Pati who has joined in the institution as an Assistant Teacher on 23-9-1997. Challenging the aforesaid order dated 28-4-98 this writ application has been filed. 2. Challenging the aforesaid order dated 28-4-98 this writ application has been filed. 2. Shri K. K. Swain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, challenged the order on the ground that the school in question was an aided educational institution at the relevant time. The Managing Committee had the power to make appointments under Rules 8(2) (a), 5(8) and 5(9) of the Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter called 'the 1974 Rules'). Referring to Rule 8(2)(a), Shri Swain submitted that the Managing Committee and the authority to make ad hoc appointments for a period not exceeding three months and it shall not be necessary to apply to the Selection Board for appointment against the vacancies for a period of six months or till the date of receipt of the list referred to in Sub-rule (2) from the Selection Board, whichever is earlier and all such appointments may be made by the Managing Committee with prior approval of the Inspector of Schools. Under Sub-rule (9) of Rule 5 of the 1974 Rules the Managing Committee has also the authority to extend the period of appointment beyond six months till the recommendation of the Selection Board is received with the prior approval of the Government. According to him, a combined reading of the aforesaid provisions for ad hoc appointment for a period of three months would show that no prior approval is required and ad hoc appointment for a period of six months or more requires prior approval of the Inspector. Even for appointment for a period of more than six months post facto approval can be obtained. Reference in this regard is made to a decision reported in 1998 (I) O.L.R. 520 : Pravati Kumari Uday Singh v. State of Orissa and Ors., Therefore, according to Shri Swain, there is absolutely no illegality in appointing the petitioner against an available vacancy on ad hoc basis and the so called ban imposed by the State Government cannot override the statutory powers. 3. So fat as the second ground of rejected is concerned, according to Shri Swain, prior approval is not necessary for such appointments and post facto approval can also be obtained. 3. So fat as the second ground of rejected is concerned, according to Shri Swain, prior approval is not necessary for such appointments and post facto approval can also be obtained. So far as third ground of rejection is concerned Shri Swain submitted that a District Selection Board candidate had never been sent to the institution and therefore, the question of denying such a candidate to join does not arise. There is no record to show that a Selection Board candidate had been sponsored to the institution for appointment. So far as the last ground of rejection is concerned Shri Swain submitted that the petitioner cannot be replaced by a Selection Board candidate on transfer. A selection Board candidate can only be replaced by another Selection Board candidate by way of transfer. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite parties 1 to 4. It is stated therein that the Managing Committee had no power to appoint the petitioner in view of the circular No. 32561 dated 31-12-88 issued by the State Government imposing ban on appointments. It is also stated in the counter that on 16-5-90 Balaram Das tendered his resignation and on the very next day the petitioner was appointed in the post without prior permission of the competent authority. In paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit it is stated that one Rajendra Pati had been transferred and posted in the institution to fill up the vacant post and no illegality has been committed by the Inspector in transferring Rajendra Pati tor filling up the said post. 4. From the averments made in the writ application as well as in the counter affidavit the following facts remain undisputed : One Balaram Das, a regular teacher of the institution resigned from his post on 16-5-90 and his place the Managing Committee of the institution appointed the petitioner on ad hoc basis pending appointment of the Selection Board candidate, on 17-5-90. The appointment letter in Annexure-2 shows that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher against the post of Trained Matric temporarily and was likely to be replaced as and when a Trained Matric Teacher is sponsored by the Selection Board. The first question that is to be decided is as to whether on the face of a ban order the Managing Committee could appoint the petitioner in the post. The first question that is to be decided is as to whether on the face of a ban order the Managing Committee could appoint the petitioner in the post. The ban ordered 31-12-88 shows that the Government had banned appointment of teachers on ad hoc basis and in supersession of all previous instructions issued from the Directorate of Elementary Education, No ad hoc appointment shall be made against Trained Matric Teacher in aided M. E. Schools until further instructions. Under rule 8(2)(e) of the 1974 Rules the Managing Committee of an aided educational institution can make appointment on ad hoc basis for a period not exceeding three months. Law is well settled that Executive Instructions and Circulars cannot override the statutory provisions of law. Therefore, the appointment of the petitioner cannot be said to be illegal only on the ground that there was a ban order imposed by the State Government. If the statutory provision authorises the Managing Committee to make such appointment, no Administrative Instruction can take away that right given to the Managing Committee under the statutory rules. 5. Coming to the second question as to whether prior approval for such appointment was required or not, reliance is placed by the learned counsel for petitioner on a decision reported in 1998(I) O. L. R. 520 (supra). In the aforesaid decision the facts were as follows : The petitioner in the said case was appointed as a Physical Education Teacher in Satyasai High School at Bhubane-swar and had approached this Court challenging the inaction on the part of the opposite parties in not approving her appointment against the aforesaid post and in not releasing her monthly salary. The petitioner was appointed as P. E. T. by the Managing Committee on 8-1-1991, While continuing as such the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the school recommended her name to the Inspector of Schools for approval of her appointment and for release of her salary. In spite of several correspondences between the Director, Inspector of Schools and the School authority, no action was taken and therefore, the writ application was filed. In spite of several correspondences between the Director, Inspector of Schools and the School authority, no action was taken and therefore, the writ application was filed. Relying on an earlier decision of this Court reported in 1997(II) O. L. R. 234 : Itishree Ray v. State of Orissa and Ors., this Court held that since the petitioner had been appointed by the Managing Committee on a stop-gap arrangement until a Selection Board candidate is sponsored, he can continue by getting such financial benefits as admissible and her appointment can be approved post facto with the condition that it may continue till joining of the Selection Board candidate. In view of the aforesaid decision of this Court, the second ground on which the Director has rejected the prayer of the petitioner also cannot be sustained. No prior approval was necessary for this ad hoc appointment and post facto approval could also be obtained. 6. Coming to the third question as to whether the Managing Committee refused a District Selection Board candidate to join in the institution there is absolutely no material on record to show that as a matter of fact, a Selection Board candidate was sponsored by Government but he was refused appointment by the institution. On the other hand no materials have been placed in support of such a ground. Therefore, this ground also on which the petitioner's appointment has not approved by the Director cannot be sustained. 7. So far as the fourth ground is concerned it is admitted by both parties that one Selection Board candidate has already been adjusted against the post held by the petitioner by way of transfer with effect from 23-9-97, Therefore, the question of continuance of the petitioner in the said institution beyond 23-9-97 does not arise any more. However, considering the fact that the petitioner was serving in the institution from 17-5-90 till the Selection Board candidate pined in the post, is she enritled to the salary admissible to the said post. 8. I, therefore, allow the writ application to the extent that the petitioner be paid her salary admissible to the post for the period from 17-5-90 till she was replaced by the Selection Board candidate in the year 1997. The amount be calculated and paid to the petitioner within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order. 9. Writ applications allowed. The amount be calculated and paid to the petitioner within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order. 9. Writ applications allowed. Final Result : Allowed