JUDGMENT : A.K.Rath, J. - By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenge is made to the order dated 3.10.2016 passed by the District Education Officer, Balasore, opposite party no.4, vide Annexure-1, whereby and whereunder the application of the petitioner for appointment under the rehabilitation scheme has been rejected. 2. Sadananda Jena, husband of the petitioner, was functioning as Headmaster-in-charge in Khyama Radhashyam High School, Chhada in the district of Balasore. His service was approved on 1.4.2008. He was receiving grant-in-aid (block grant) pursuant to the notification dated 27.09.2008 issued by the Government of Orissa in its School and Mass Education Department. While matter stood thus, he expired on 24.01.2016. He was the sole bread earner of his family. After his demise, the family received a setback. The petitioner filed an application on 23.09.2016 to appoint her under the rehabilitation scheme. The same was rejected on 3.10.2016, vide Annexure-1, on the ground that there is no provision for appointment under the rehabilitation scheme to the employees of Block Grant High Schools. 3. Heard Mr. Binod Madhab Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Biswajit Mohanty, learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education. 4. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner was functioning as Headmaster-incharge in Khyama Radhashyam High School, Chhada. He died leaving behind his widow (petitioner) and daughter. After his death, the family received a setback. The application of the petitioner was rejected on untenable and unsupportable grounds. To buttress the submission, he places reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Ritanjali Giri @ Paul vs. State of Odisha and others, (W.P.(C) No.5022 of 2013 disposed of on 11.5.2016). 5. In Ritanjali Giri @ Paul, the question arose as to whether the benefit of the Scheme applies to the family members of an aided educational institution, which is receiving block grant ? This Court held "7. Section 3(b) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 defines the Aided Educational Institutions, which is quoted hereunder: "3(b) Aided Educational Institutions 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." 8. This Court held "7. Section 3(b) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 defines the Aided Educational Institutions, which is quoted hereunder: "3(b) Aided Educational Institutions 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." 8. On a bare perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is abundantly clear that 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 is an aided educational institution. The Act does not make any distinction between the full Grant School or Block Grant School. Moreover, the private educational institution which has been notified by the State Government to receive grant-in-aid is also an aided educational institution." 6. The judgment applies proprio vigore to the facts of the case. The application of the petitioner was rejected on jejune grounds. In view of the same, the impugned order is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the District Education Officer, Balasore, opposite party no.4, for re-consideration in accordance with law. 7. The petition is allowed. Final Result : Allowed