JUDGMENT Heard. 2. This writ petition is as against judgment of the State Education Tribunal, Orissa in Appeal No. 19 of 2000. Petitioner was the appellant and the Governing Body of Sri Satya Sai Women’s College, Bhubaneswar with its officials and the Director of Higher Education, Orissa were the respondents in that appeal. Petitioner’s service was terminated on 20.10.2000. That order of termination was challenged before the State Education Tribunal under Section 10-A of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 (in short, “the Act”). The dispute before the Tribunal centred round, if the petitioner was the junior-most surplus staff and whether his termination is regulated by the provisions in Section 10-A (1)(a) of the Act. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the Governing Body raises the issue on maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the impugned order is appealable under Section 24-C of the Act. According to Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the Governing Body, provision in Section 24-B (2) of the Act is sufficient enough to interpret that not only orders passed under Section 24-B (1) but also any order passed by the State Education Tribunal is appealable under Section 24-C of the Act. With due regard to that submission, we are unable to agree with such an interpretation. The provision in the Act is explicitly clear, in as much as, when it relates to termination of service, the provi¬sion in Section 10-A regulates the procedure for approval of the authority of the Education Department and Appeal to the State Education Tribunal against approval or rejection of the order of termination. No further forum has been provided in the Act for appeal against the judgment passed by the State Education Tribunal on appeal. Therefore, application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against order passed by Tribunal under Section 10-A of the Act. On the other hand, Section 24-B of the Act was introduced in the statute book in the year 1998 to regulate the matter relating to eligibility, enti¬tlement, payment or non-payment of grant-in-aid and in that respect, Sections 24-B and 24-C were inserted into the statute book. The said two provisions are wholesome to regulate the matter relating to grant-in-aid as stated above and the forum of appeal. The said two provisions are wholesome to regulate the matter relating to grant-in-aid as stated above and the forum of appeal. Apart from that, “any matter within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal” provided in Sub-section (2) of Section 24-B only relates to the matters mentioned in Sub-section (1). In other words, no forum for second appeal has been provided against judgments passed in appeal under Section 10-A of the Act. 4. The undisputed fact, on the basis of the contention of the parties, is that Satya Sai Women’s College, Bhubaneswar was an aided educational institution by the date of the aforesaid order of termination and, therefore, provision in Section 10-A was to be complied with in respect of termination of services of the teaching and non-teaching staff. 5. Petitioner’s contention that the appointment letter dated 19.01.1991, Annexure-1 reveals that service of the peti¬tioner was approved w.e.f. 05.07.1990. He further states that as per the Resolution of the Governing Body dated 03.04.1994, Annexure-2, petitioner’s service was ratified w.e.f. 05.07.1990 and, therefore, contention of the Management terming his service as junior-most surplus clerical staff is not correct. In that context, the Governing Body has relied on the Resolution dated 09.03.1998 constituting a Committee to regularize the services of the petitioner and the report of the Committee dated 02.05.1998, Annexure-4 and thereafter the Resolution of the Governing Body dated 04.05.1998, Annexure-5 in support of the contention that service of the petitioner was regularized w.e.f. 10.11.1993 and not w.e.f. 05.07.1990 and under such circumstance, he was the junior most surplus clerical staff. 6. According to the petitioner, whether or not he was the junior-most surplus staff, the requirement of law under Section 10-A (1)(a) of the Act was mandatory for obtaining approval of the order of termination and in support thereof, he relies on the case of Managing Committee, Orissa Police High School v. Rasbe¬hari Patnaik and others; Vol. 47 (1979) CLT 517. In that case, dealing with the termination of service of an ad hoc employee of an aided educational institution, their Lordships have held that : “7. Mr. Mohanty’s contention, that the provisions of Section 10-A of the Act apply only to teachers working within the approved cadre strength of the school, is without any substance. 47 (1979) CLT 517. In that case, dealing with the termination of service of an ad hoc employee of an aided educational institution, their Lordships have held that : “7. Mr. Mohanty’s contention, that the provisions of Section 10-A of the Act apply only to teachers working within the approved cadre strength of the school, is without any substance. The provisions of Section 10-A apply to “a teacher of an aided educational institution”, and there is nothing in that section to restrict its application only to the teachers working within the cadre strength of that school.” There is no quarrel on that principle of law and the ratio laid down by this Court and therefore on verification of facts available in the case record and the findings recorded by the learned Education Tribunal, it is seen that Section 10-A has not been complied with. However, in that respect Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the Governing Body states that a letter was addressed to the Director on the matter of termination of the services of the petitioner and that was replied from the Direc¬torate with the endorsement that “you are free to take any deci¬sion on the surplus staff”, thus the requirement of law under Section 10-A(1)(a) has been complied with and therefore, finding of the Tribunal to that extent is neither incorrect nor illegal. Learned Addl. Government Advocate, however, does not agree to that submission and fairly states that the contention of the petitioner is correct about non-compliance of the mandatory provision. 7. On consideration of the aforesaid contention, we find that a communication made from the office of the Director in the manner indicated by the learned counsel for the Governing Body does not amount to approval or rejection of the proposal of the order of termination of service and, therefore, that does not qualify to the requirement of law under Section 10-A(1)(a) of the Act and that deficiency still exists on record. In absence of approval, the order of termination is legally not sustainable. However, in the given facts and circumstance in this case, inac¬tion/improper action of the Director cannot be construed in favour of the petitioner when the Governing Body made proposal for approval of termination of the service of the petitioner. In absence of approval, the order of termination is legally not sustainable. However, in the given facts and circumstance in this case, inac¬tion/improper action of the Director cannot be construed in favour of the petitioner when the Governing Body made proposal for approval of termination of the service of the petitioner. Therefore, equity demands that the Governing Body should be provided with another opportunity to make appropriate correspond¬ence seeking approval if they wish to insist on the order of termination. It is upto the Director to take appropriate decision. To the above extent, we find the approach of the learned State Education Tribunal is contrary to the statutory provision in the Act and particularly Section 10-A and, therefore finding to that effect is illegal and set aside. 8. For the reasons indicated above, while upholding main¬tainability of the writ petition, we set aside the judgment of the State Education Tribunal and direct the Director, Higher Education (opp. party No. 4) to consider the proposal of the Governing Body (opp. party No. 2), if such proposal is made afresh within four weeks. Opposite party No. 4 shall bear in mind that we have expressed no opinion on the merit of the termination order and, therefore, he is to consider the same strictly in accordance with law. Before that, opportunity of hearing may be provided to the parties, if they opt for the same. It would be appropriate for the opposite party to dispose of the matter relating to approval within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, provided the Governing Body seeks for approval of order of termination within the above stipulated period. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Requisites by Regd. Post with A.D. be filed by 05.11.2007 to communicate this order to opp. party No. 2. Petition disposed of.