D. D. SINHA, J.:- Rule, made returnable forthwith by the consent of panics, Heard Mr. M.G. Bhangde, Senior Counsel for Petitioners and Mr. S. J. Jichkar, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. 2. This petition is directed against the communications dt.20.2.2009 issued by Respondent No.2/Director of Education, Pune. By this communication, the Director of Education has appointed an Administrator and taken over management of the School namely Dyandeep Vidyalaya, Bramhanwada. 3. Mr. M. G. Bhangde, leaned Senior Counsel has contended that the action of Director of Education is inconsistent with the Scheme and procedure stipulated in Section 3(4) of the Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Management) Act. 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1976"). It is contended that Section 3( 1) deals with the power of Director of taking over of management of the Educational Institutions in certain contingencies. If the Management is aggrieved by the order of Director passed under sub-section 1 of Section 3, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of such order, right to file appeal before the State Government is provided u/s. 3 (4) of the Act of 1976. Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that the provisions of Section 4( 1) of the Act will come into play only after order is passed by the Director u/s.3(1) and fifteen days period provided for filing of appeal stipulated under sub-section 4 of Section 3 is over. 4. Mr. M. G. Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that. in the instant case, the Director of Education, without taking any decision u/s.3(1) of the Act of 1976, submitted proposal to the State Government for taking decision regarding appointment of Administrator. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that it is the State Government who has taken decision to appoint Administrator on 4.2.2009 and on the basis of said decision of the State Government, the Director of Education has issued impugned communication whereby management of the School is taken over and the Administrator is appointed. It is contended that the procedure adopted by respondent no.2/ Director of Education is not only contrary to the provisions of Section 3(4) of the Act of 1976, but has also taken away right of appeal of the petitioner/Management available u/s.3( 4) of the Act and therefore, the impugned orders/ communications are unsustainable-in-law. 5. Mr. S. J. Jichkar. It is contended that the procedure adopted by respondent no.2/ Director of Education is not only contrary to the provisions of Section 3(4) of the Act of 1976, but has also taken away right of appeal of the petitioner/Management available u/s.3( 4) of the Act and therefore, the impugned orders/ communications are unsustainable-in-law. 5. Mr. S. J. Jichkar. Assistant Government Pleader, on the other hand, has supported the impugned communications and has contended that the Director of Education has merely obtained approval of the State Government before taking over management of the School by appointing Administrator vide impugned communications dt.20.2.2009. It is contended that the procedure contemplated u/ s.3(4) of the Act of 1976 has been followed by the Director and therefore, the impugned communications are sustainable-in-law. 6. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the provisions of Sections 3(1) and 3(4) of the Act of 1976. 7. Section 3(1) of the Act of 1976 reads thus: "whenever the Director is satisfied that the Management of any educational institution has neglected to perform any of the duties imposed on it by or under any law for the time being in force, or the memorandum of association, or any instrument (including any rules, regulations or bylaws) which regulates its administration or is being managed in a manner detrimental to public interest, and that it is expedient in the public interest, and in particular, in the interest of education imparted in such institution to take over the management of such institution in so far its activity relates to imparting education, he may, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, after giving the management of such institution, a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action, by an order take over the management of such institution in so far as its activity relates to imparting education specified in the order for a limited period not exceeding three years." The Scheme of this provision clearly demonstrates that power is vested in the Director to take over management of Schools in certain contingencies mentioned therein by passing an order to that effect after observing principles of natural justice. 8. 8. Section 3(4) of the Act of 1976 gives power to the Management, which is aggrieved by the order of Director passed u/s.3(1), to file an appeal before the State Government within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of order of Director. Whereas Section 4(1) of the Act contemplates that the Director shall with the approval of the State Government, appoint one or more Administrators, to manage the educational institution, taken over under section 3(1) of the Act of 1976. As per the Scheme of Sections 3(1) and 3(4) and Section 4( 1), the Director is required to adopt the following procedure and the aggrieved Management also has remedy of appeal as stated below: (a) whenever the Director is satisfied that management of educational institution is required to be taken over in view of contingencies mentioned in Section 3(1), he has to pass an order to that effect of taking over of the management. (b) The Management which is aggrieved by the order of Director of taking over management has a right of appeal to the State Government within fifteen days from the date of receipt of such order u/s.3( 4) of the Act of 1976. (c) The Director is required to issue order of appointment of Administrator with the approval of the State Government to manage the educational institution taken over u/s.3(1) of the Act of 1976. 9. In the instant case, the Director of Education has failed to pass order u/s.3(1) for taking over management of the School in question. On the other hand, he had forwarded a proposal in this regard to the State Government for taking a decision u/s.3(1) of the Act of 1976, which, in fact, was taken by the State Government on 4.2.2009. The Director of Education, on the basis thereof, issued the impugned orders dt. 20.2.2009 for taking over management of the School and also appointed an Administrator. 10. In the instant case, the decision taken by the State Government on 4.2.2009, amounts to decision u/s.3(1) of the Act of 1976. The Director of Education, on the basis thereof, passed the impugned orders dt.20.2.2009 of taking over of Management of the School We want to express that Section 3(1) of the Act requires the Director to take a decision and pass appropriate order and at this stage, the State Government has no role to play. The Director of Education, on the basis thereof, passed the impugned orders dt.20.2.2009 of taking over of Management of the School We want to express that Section 3(1) of the Act requires the Director to take a decision and pass appropriate order and at this stage, the State Government has no role to play. In the present case, the impugned order of taking over of Management is based on the decision already taken by the State Government in this regard, the right of appeal provided to the Management is futile and without purpose, since the decision of Director is based on the decision of the State Government and the appealu/s.3(4) lies before the State Government. 11. The approval of the State Government is required at the time of passing of order by the Director u/s.4(1) of the Act while appointing administrator. The appointment of Administrator can be made by the Director only with the approval of the State Government, to manage the educational institution, taken over u/s.3(1) of the Act. In the instant case, the procedure undertaken, in our view, is inconsistent with these provisions of the Act and therefore, cannot be sustained in law. 12. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned orders passed by the Director of Education, Pune dt.20.2.2009 are quashed and set aside. However, it is open for the Director to take appropriate action, if necessary by following the due procedure applicable in this regard. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.