- (1.) Special leave is granted. We have heard the learned advocates for the appellant Managing committee and the Respondents No. 4. The counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 states that he has not received any instruction.
(2.) After an enquiry about the alleged misconduct of the respondent No. 4, he was dismissed by the appellant Managing Committee. The order was challenged, inter alia, on the ground that the dismissal order was bad in absence of prior approval of the Inspector u/S. l0-A(1)(b) of Orissa Education Act, 1969. The High Court agreed and by the impugned judgment the writ petition of the respondent has been allowed.
(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant has in the first instance contended that since the present case is not of termination, but of dismissal, the provisions of S. 10-A are not attracted and the matter is covered exclusively by Rule 20(1)(i) and, therefore, the prior approval of the Inspector was not necessary. In support of this contention reliance is placed on an unreported judgment of the Orissa High Court, which has been included in the paper book. We have considered all the relevant provisions of the Act and are of the view that S. 10-A deals with all kinds of termination of service including dismissal and removal from service. The first point is accordingly rejected.;