JUDGMENT This writ application has been filed seeking quashment of orders dated 25.02.1999 and 13.04.1999 passed by learned State Educational Tribunal under Annexure-5 & 9 respectively in Appeal No. 08 of 1998. 2. Essential facts for the purpose may be stated as under:- The appellant-school after its establishment got the required recognition under Orissa Education Act, 1969 and the Rules framed thereunder. In the year 1986, it was found eligible to receive the Grant in-Aid which was so released in favour of the school from that academic session. So, it is said that the school is an aided educational institution falling within the definition as provided under the Orissa Education Act (hereinafter in short called as ‘the Act’). The appellant claims to have been appointed as Art Teacher in the said school on 23.05.1981. The service of the respondent no. 1 having been terminated by order dated 24.04.1998 under Annexure-4, the challenge to the same was made without prior approval of the concerned authority as required under Section 10(A) of the Act; without initiation of any disciplinary proceeding and without following the procedures provided under Rule-22 of the Orissa Education (Recruitment & Condition of Service of Teachers and Members of Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rule, 1974 (in short hereinafter called ‘the rules’). The term of managing Committee of the School having long since expired the order of termination is also attached as without any authority and thus nonest. The appellant-school contested the claim of the respondent no. 1 as above stating specifically that the school is an experimental school and the appointment of the appellant was not as a teacher but for rendering honorary service as an artist. It is stated that the since the school occasionally used to receive block grant from the State, it is not an aided educational institution. It is further submitted that the Managing Committee decided not to accept the service of respondent no. 1 as Honorary Artist in the school any more in view of serius allegation of misconduct on his part. It is also stated although explanation was sought for the same it was not submitted. The Managing Committee taking a decision is thus said to be having the authority to do so. 3. Learned Tribunal has set aside the order of termination under Annexure-4 questioned. It is also stated although explanation was sought for the same it was not submitted. The Managing Committee taking a decision is thus said to be having the authority to do so. 3. Learned Tribunal has set aside the order of termination under Annexure-4 questioned. It has held that the school being an aided educational institution, the provision of the Act and Rules framed thereunder are applicable. Therefore, without prior approval being taken from the concerned authority as required under Section 10(A) of the Act and without following the procedure laid down in Rule-22 of the Rules 1974, the order of termination of the service of the appellant has been held to be unsustainable. It has also found that the Managing Committee passing the order of termination was not legally competent to pass such order of termination. 4. I have heard Mr. J.Patnaik, learned Sr. Counsel for the appellant and Mr. B.Routray, learned Sr. Counsel on behalf of the respondent no. 1 as also learned Addl. Government Advocate on merit of the appeal. It may be stated here that after the above final order passed under Annexure-5 was passed, the learned Tribunal was moved with two petitions by the appellant to recall the said order by which the appeal filed by the respondent no. 1 had been allowed and to hear the appeal afresh. Such prayer has also been turned down by the learned Tribunal under Annexure-9. I have carefully gone through the order passed by the learned Tribunal in deciding the appeal filed under Section 10(A)(3) of the Act. 5. The principal question arises in the present case is as to if the school in question is an aided educational institution falling within the ambit of the definition as provided in Section 3(b) of the Act. The answer to this question when gets rendered in affirmative, that would automatically lead to the conclusion that the provision of the Act and Rules are applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case as laid by the respondent no. 1. That would lead to completion of the exercise here whether the redressal of respondent no. 1’s grievance as also the prayer as allowed by the learned Tribunal is sustainable or not. 6. 1. That would lead to completion of the exercise here whether the redressal of respondent no. 1’s grievance as also the prayer as allowed by the learned Tribunal is sustainable or not. 6. The aided educational institutions as defined in Section 3(b) of the Act as it stood prior to coming into force of Orissa Act 13 of 1994 was as under:- “Aided Educational Institution means a private educational institution which is recognized by and is receiving aid from the State Government.” After the amendment the definition stands as under:- “Aided Educational Institution’ means 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.” In a series of decisions even prior to the amendment to the definition as above, this Court has already held that the school for the purpose must be in receipt of continuous aid. The providing of aid is required to be constant and lasting process and cannot be sporadic or intermittent one. In other words, there must be regularity in the process. It has also been said that if the institution has been receiving the aid but temporarily there has been discontinuance due to some reason or other, it would not be permissible to say that the institution has ceased to be an aided one. As per the definition as it now stands even an educational institution which has been notified by the State Government to receive Grant-in-Aid notwithstanding the actual release of Grant-in-Aid has to be taken to be an aided educational institution. In the present case even accepting for a moment that the document in support of above fact has been taken cognizance by the learned Educational Tribunal being produced without the knowledge of the appellant, the same in my considered opinion is hardly of any significance as the document is a public document, wherein the concerned officer in discharge of his duty as such has clearly written that this school had already been notified as eligible to receive the Grant-in-Aid. Thus, this puts the controversy on that score at rest. Be that as it may, it has been shown that the school has been receiving Grant-in-Aid constantly and regularly from the year 1986-87. However, it is stated by appellant that no such grant has come from the year 1992. Thus, this puts the controversy on that score at rest. Be that as it may, it has been shown that the school has been receiving Grant-in-Aid constantly and regularly from the year 1986-87. However, it is stated by appellant that no such grant has come from the year 1992. So, it is said that the grant is neither constant nor regular and rather is sporadic and intermittent. This is completely nullified by Annexur-2 which shows about such release of Grant-in –Aid to this school was in the year 1995-96. The decision of this Court has been that even if at a later point of time, the grant is discontinued, the educational institution would not automatically thereby get elbowed from the purview of the definition of aided educational institutions. In the present case, when we are concerned that the order of termination of service of respondent no. 1, this is of much relevance; that when he joined or even there after the educational institution was an aided one and thus squarely come within the purview of the Act and Rules which are applicable to the institution standing to be complied with in so far as the service of the appellant and others are concerned as they are from that date the employees of the aided educational institution. Therefore, even accepting for a moment that now the appellant-school is not receiving the Grant-in-Aid, in so far as the scope of the present proceeding is concerned, the provisions of the Act and Rules very much stand to be complied with in letter and spirit. Thus, here when admittedly no prior approval has been taken as provided under Section 10(A) of the Act and the procedures prescribed in Rule-22 of the Rules have not been followed, the learned Tribunal is found to have rightly held the order of termination as unsustainable in the eye of law. Next going to the question of authority of the Managing Committee when such newly instituted Managing Committee had not received the approval of the concerned authority, the Tribunal also appears to have rightly held the order to be without the legal authority. 6. Even without touching the facts and circumstances of the case, it is pertinent to state here that this institution is a wing of registered society called Patha Chakra viz Shri Aurobindo Sanskruti Sansad. 6. Even without touching the facts and circumstances of the case, it is pertinent to state here that this institution is a wing of registered society called Patha Chakra viz Shri Aurobindo Sanskruti Sansad. Finally as per the recommendation of the Education Commission constituted by Government of India for establishment of Integral Schools giving full freedom to the school to frame their own curricula to prescribe their won text books and conduct their educational activities without external restrictions, the State Government on 31.01.1982 constituted a High Power Committee to consider the above aspects. On the basis of their recognition, there has been selection and approval of some of the Integral education centers as special experimental schools. Accordingly, the Integral High Schools at Cuttack, Bhubaneswar, and Sambalpur being declared as experimental schools by Government in Education and Youth Services Department vide order No. 32434 EYS dated 15.07.1983, Annexure-2, the High Power Committee then recommended the State to extend some financial assistance also to these schools and accordingly Block Grant was decided to be given. It is however stated that the staff of said schools are being paid with honorarium for their dedicated honorary service. Similar question was before this Court in OJC No. 5143 of 1994 decided on 04.09.2000 (Secretary, Managing Committee Shri Aurobindo Institute of Integral Education and Research Vrs. State of Education Tribunal). The question was whether the institution is an aided one or not and that was also a case where termination of an employee was under challenge. The Tribunal had set aside the order and directed in re-instatement of the claimant in service with all benefits including salary for intervening period. This point of payment of honorarium had also been raised. The final answer to the question being rendered in the affirmative, the Tribunal’s order was not interfered with. Said decision had further been called in question in letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court which has been decided on 14.5.2007 (Secretary, Managing Committee, Shri Aurobindo Institute of Integral Education and Research Vrs. State Education Tribunal; AIR 2007 Orissa 139). The school under the very Committee at Sambalpur has thus finally been held to be and aided educational institution. For all the aforesaid discussion and reasons, this Court finds no such justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order of learned State Education Tribunal. 7. State Education Tribunal; AIR 2007 Orissa 139). The school under the very Committee at Sambalpur has thus finally been held to be and aided educational institution. For all the aforesaid discussion and reasons, this Court finds no such justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order of learned State Education Tribunal. 7. In the result, the writ application fails and is dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to cost. Application dismissed.