JUDGMENT P.P. Naolekar, C.J. 1. The respondent/writ petitioner herein Smti Madabi Boruah was appointed as lecturer in education in Kalaguru Bishnu Rabha College on a fixed salary of Rs. 500/- on 30.6.1989 on a temporary basis. A resolution was passed on 28.2.1998 by the Managing Committee of the College to terminate the service of respondent. In pursuance of the resolution so passed by the Managing Committee an order of termination was finally issued on 1.3.1998 terminating the services of the respondent on the ground that she remained absent for a long period from 20.2.1997 without leave. It is also on record that respondent submitted applications for grant of leave on 1.8.1997, 1.9.1997 and 30.10.1997, however, no leave was granted by the Managing Committee and the respondent remained absent till the order of termination was issued. The order of termination was challenged by filling a writ petition (Civil Rule No. 5530/98) and the learned Single Judge by judgment and order dated 24.7.2002 directed reinstatement of the petitioner. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the respondent/writ petitioner was terminated from service without affording her any opportunity of hearing and, therefore, the order of termination was bad and consequently set aside the order of termination. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Single Judge the Governing Body of the College through its Secretary preferred the present appeal. 2. It is contended by Mr. B.C. Das, learned counsel for the appellant that the relief of reinstatement, granted by setting aside the order of termination, the respondent is not in accordance with the law as the respondent No. 3 was neither a Government servant nor an industrial workman nor an employee of the statutory body. The petitioner being an employee of the private institution at best could have been given damages if the Court arrives at a conclusion that the termination was not in accordance with the principles of natural justice. It is further contended that in case of the private employee the law governing the Government servant shall not apply and it is open for the Court to consider even in absence of enquiry whether the termination of the employee by the private employer is justified on the facts found in a particular case and in that event claim of damages by the employee can be denied. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel Mr. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel Mr. R.P. Sarma for the respondent is that the respondent had acquired the status of a Government servant under different provisions, which have been brought into force and governs the service conditions of the respondent and those having found applicable in the case of respondent, the termination was held to be not in accordance with the law and not inhering to the principles of natural justice, the learned Single Judge was right in setting asides the order of termination and directing the reinstatement of the respondent. 3. Various enactments have been brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the parties during the course of the argument in support of their respective submissions. The Assam Junior College Education (Provincialisation) Act, 1996 (Assam Act No. III of 1996), (for short "the Act 1996") came into force with effect from 26th March, 1996 provides for provincialisation of the services of teaching and non-teaching employees of certain Junior Colleges in the State of Assam. Section 2(e) of the Act 1996 defines the "employee", which means "a person in the teaching or non-teaching employment of a Junior College working against a regularly sanctioned post as per standard staffing pattern and whose appointment has been approved by the Government of Assam". So, to become an employee under this Act an employee must be holding a sanctioned post as per the standard staffing pattern and his appointment has been approved by the Government of Assam. Section 3 provides that all employees of the Junior Colleges specified in the Schedule which have received the concurrence of the Government as Junior College shall be deemed to have become the employees of the Government on and from the date of coming into force of the Act. Thus, the employees of the Junior College, whose names have been mentioned in the Schedule, become the employee of the Government from 26th March, 1996 on which date the Act came into force. The appellant College, where the respondent was serving, has been mentioned at Serial No. 18 of the Schedule to the Act 1996. The Collage has received the Government concurrence from 15th September, 1992. The general effect of this Act is that all the employees of the Kalaguru Bishnu Rabha College on the date when the Act came into force have become the employee of the Government. The Collage has received the Government concurrence from 15th September, 1992. The general effect of this Act is that all the employees of the Kalaguru Bishnu Rabha College on the date when the Act came into force have become the employee of the Government. Thus, normally we would not have found any difficulty in recognising the right of the respondent No. 1 as a Government employee. But this Act 1996 has been repealed by an Ordinance, viz. Assam Junior Colleges (Provincialisation) Act repealing the Ordinance 1998 and later by the Assam Junior College (Provincialisation) Repealing Act, 1998 (Assam Act No. III of 1999) (hereinafter called as the Act 1998) which came into force from the date of its enactment i.e. 26th March, 1996. This Act has received the assent of the Governor of Assam on 8th January, 1999, whereby the Assam Junior College (Provincialisation) Act, 1996 and the Assam Junior College (Provincialisation) Act Repealing Ordinance, 1988 were repealed. We may mention there that in the Repeal and Saving Clause of the Act 1998 or in the Ordinance 1998 the position acquired by the employees under the "Act 1996" has not been saved and, therefore, it is clear that the Repealing Ordinance or the Repealing Act do not save the position acquired by the respondent as Government employee under the Provincialisation Act. 4. Faced with this difficulty, the learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on Clause 6 of the Assam General Clauses Act, 1915, particularly on Sub-clause (c) of Clause 6, where under it has been said that any Act repealed and enacted hitherto, or hereafter to be made, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not affect any right, privilege, obligation, or liability, acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed. So according to the learned counsel for the respondent the General Clauses Act, 1915 saves the right, privilege, obligation, or liability acquired, accrued or incurred by the respondent under "the Act 1996" and the respondent continues to be a Government employee when the alleged action has been taken against the respondent. So according to the learned counsel for the respondent the General Clauses Act, 1915 saves the right, privilege, obligation, or liability acquired, accrued or incurred by the respondent under "the Act 1996" and the respondent continues to be a Government employee when the alleged action has been taken against the respondent. The protection given by the Clause 6(c) of the Assam General Clauses Act, 1915 has to be read and effected with the principal object of Clause 6 of the General Clauses Act, wherein it has been categorically stated "where any Act repeals any enactment hereto made, or hereafter to be made, then unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not - (a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect; or (b) alter the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered there under; or (c) affect any right, privilege, obligation, or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or (d) affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any enactment so repealed; or (e) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture, or punishment as aforesaid. 5. Thus, the Clause 6 clearly spells out unless a different intention appears the Act shall not affect the right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed, But if the Repealing Act 1998 indicates different intention then the saving clause will not come into operation and the repeal will take place as it is absolute. Whether there is different intention appears from the provisions of the Repealing Act or not has first to be gathered from the Repealing Act itself and if the meaning is clear then the Court need not go for other aid of interpretation. The Ordinance 1998 and Repealing Act 1998 only repealed the Act 1996, although there is a provision in the repealing Act for repeal and Saving, the Act 1996 or any other provision therein, has not been saved by the Repealing Act, this indicates that the Legislature does not want to save the Act 1996 or any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the Act so repealed. The legislative intention is apparent from the Act enacted, although it contains repeal and saving clause in the Act, it do not mention anything about the savings of the Act 1996. On the other hand, Clause 2 of the Repealing Act 1998 says that the Assam Junior College (Provincialisation) Act, 1996 stands repealed without providing any savings with regard to the Act itself or any of the provisions contained therein. In view of the above, we are of the view that Clause 6 of the General Clause Act, 1915 would not operate to save any right, privilege, obligation, or liability acquired, accrued or incurred by the respondent under the Repealing Act, 1996. 6. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that Assam Higher Secondary Education Act, 1984 (Act No. XVII of 1984) has been enacted and came into force from 16th April, 1984 for the purpose of providing establishment of a Council to regulate, supervise and develop Higher Secondary Education (plus two stage) in the State of Assam. Under this Act of 1984 Regulations for recognition of Higher Secondary and Junior Colleges have been framed. Appendix-V to this Regulation provides for Rules on Management of Junior College/HS Schools other than Government and Government Aided Junior Colleges/HS Schools of Assam. Clause 9 of Appendix-V speaks about the powers and function of the President and Secretary, the Governing Body/Managing Committee by taking guidance from the Assam Aided College Management Rules, 1976. The Assam Aided College Management Rules, 1976 provided that the decision taken by the Governing Body of the Aided College under deficit system of grant-in-aid shall be sent to the Director of Public Instruction and no final decision regarding appointment, promotions, suspension, termination, removal or dismissal of teaching or non-teaching staff including the Principal shall be taken without prior approval of the Director of Public Instruction. Under this Rule the prior approval of the Director of Public Instruction is a pre-condition for valid termination of service of an employee of the College, which receives grant-in-aid, and, therefore, the termination of service of the employee without taking prior approval of the Director of Public Instruction is contrary to the statutory provisions and in breach of the other statutory provisions made and would be contrary to provision of law. 7. 7. On the other hand, it is the case of the appellant Governing Body that although the Government of Assam was pleased to take over the college in question under Deficit System of Grant-in-Aid w.e.f. 26.3.1996 vide notification dated 2.1.1999 the notification itself has stated that the actual date of extending financial benefit to the employees of the college would be communicated later on and that communication came vide Government of Assam order dated 17.2.2001 allotting the posts to 48 junior colleges of the State (including the Kalaguri Bihnu Rabha College) for entertainment of teaching and non-teaching staff under the Deficit System of Grant-in-Aid w.e.f. 1.2.2001. Thereafter, by another order dated 17.2.2001 the Government of Assam provisionally approved the names of the teaching and non-teaching staff of Kalaguru Bishnu Rabha College for entertainment under Deficit System of Grant-in-Aid w.e.f. 1.2.2001 and, therefore, the Kalaguru Bishnu Rabha College came under Deficit System of Grant-in-Aid w.e.f. 1.2.2001 and as such the provisions of Assam Aided College Management Rules, 1976 has no application when the respondent/petitioner's service was terminated. 8. It is clear from the notification issued by the State Government that the Government of Assam was pleased to take over the 48 Junior Colleges of the State which were earlier proposed to be provincialised as per Assam Junior College (Provincialisation) Act, 1996, since repealed, under Deficit System of Grant-in-Aid w.e.f. 26.3.1996 vide notification dated 2.1.1999. It is mentioned in the notification that actual date of extending financial benefits to the employees of the 48 Junior Colleges would be communicated later on and that communication was made by the Government of Assam vide order dated 17.2.2001. In our opinion, the communication of providing financial benefits to the employees of the 49 Junior Colleges from 1.2.2001 does not make any difference in regard to the college being taken over under the Deficit System of Grant-in-Aid w.e.f. 26.3.1996 vide notification dated 2.1.1999. Once the notification has been issued by the State Government bringing the College under the Deficit System of Grant-in-Aid w.e.f. 26.3.1996 the college comes under the control of the Government of Assam by virtue of the statutory provisions. The grant of financial aid for the allotted posts from a later date will not change the complexion of the college, which is brought under Deficit System of Grant-in-Aid. The grant of financial aid for the allotted posts from a later date will not change the complexion of the college, which is brought under Deficit System of Grant-in-Aid. The Government of Assam by its notification dated 2.1.1999 was pleaded to take over the 48 Junior Colleges of the State under Deficit System in Grant-in-Aid w.e.f. 26.3.1996. This w.e.f. 26.3.1996 the colleges became aided college and would be governed by the Assam Aided College Management Rules, 1976. Clause 18 of the Assam Aided College Management Rules, 1976 requires that no final decision in regard to appointment, promotions, suspension, termination, removal or dismissal of teaching or non-teaching staff shall be taken without prior approval of the Director of Public Instruction. For removal or termination of the service of teacher working in the aided colleges the necessary condition would be the prior approval of the Director of Public Instruction. In the absence of prior approval of the Director of Public Instruction a teacher cannot be removed, terminated or dismissed. 9. Appendix-V of Assam Higher Secondary Education Act, 1984 is in regard to Rules on Management of Junior College/HS School other than Government and Government Aided Junior Colleges/HS School of Assam. Clause 9 of Appendix - V provides that for the powers to be exercised by the President and Secretary, the Governing Body/Managing Committee may take guidance from the Assam Aided College Management Rules, 1976. Thus the Junior Colleges other than the Government and Government Aided Junior Colleges/HS Schools the Management of the Society shall be guided as provided in the Assam Aided College Management Rules, 1976. Clause 18 of the Assam Aided College Management Rules, 1976 lays down that the proceeding of the Governing Body's meeting of Aided Colleges under deficit system of grant-in-aid shall be sent to the Director of Public Instruction and no final decision regarding appointment, promotions, suspension, termination, removal or dismissal of teaching or non-teaching staff including the Principal or construction involving Rs. 5,000.00 or more shall be taken without prior approval of the Director of Public Instruction. The Rules 1976 have no direct application to the Unaided Colleges but by virtue of Clause 9 of the Appendix -V to the Assam Higher Secondary Education Act, 1984 the President and Secretary of the General Body/Managing Committee in its action in managing the affairs of the college are guided by the Assam Aided College Management Rules, 1976. The Rules 1976 have no direct application to the Unaided Colleges but by virtue of Clause 9 of the Appendix -V to the Assam Higher Secondary Education Act, 1984 the President and Secretary of the General Body/Managing Committee in its action in managing the affairs of the college are guided by the Assam Aided College Management Rules, 1976. If the college is not aided then the President and Secretary of the General Body/Managing Committee are guided by the Assam Aided College Management Rules, 1976 whereas if the college is aided then Assam Aided College Management Rules, 1976, shall apply. 10. Even assuming, as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, that the college came under the control of the Government by order dated 17.2.2001 issued by the Government allotting the posts to 48 Junior Colleges of the State for entertainment of teaching and non-teaching staff under the Deficit System of Grant-in-Aid, then also, by virtue of Clause 9 of Appendix-V the Management Committee is guided by the Assam Aided College Management Rules, 1976 in the matter of appointment, promotion, termination, suspension, removal and dismissal of teaching and non-teaching staff, wherein the requirement is of prior approval of the Director of Public Instruction, before any action of termination or removal is taken against the Teacher. In the present case admittedly before terminating the service of the respondent/petitioner prior approval of the Director of Public Instruction has not been taken and, therefore, the termination of service of the respondent/petitioner was not in accordance with law. Apart from the fact that when the respondent/petitioner's service has been terminated on a specific charge of her absence from duty, the principle of natural justice requires that the respondent/petitioner should have been given an opportunity of hearing before terminating her service. At the same time we cannot lose sight of the fact that the respondent/petitioner was only a temporary employee and has remained absent from service, may or may not be for a reasonable cause, without sanctioned leave and thus we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge whereby directions have been given for reinstatement of the respondent/petitioner but without back wages with further conditions imposed in the order of the learned Single Judge. 11. 11. For the aforesaid reasons we do not find any good or sufficient reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed