temporarily, for reconstitution of the Managing Committee to the Director, Secondary Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar for approval of the Managing Committee. On the basis of such recommendation, the Director has passed the impugned order under Annexure-4 on 08.09.2014. It appears that, as required under Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 28, the District Education Officer has not applied his mind independently, but only sent the proposal of reconstitution of the Managing Committee, submitted by the Senior most Asst. Teacher, which has been duly approved by the Director, Secondary Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar by the impugned order. The action of the District Education Officer is not in conformity with the Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 28 of 1991 Rules in view of the fact that though he has to take all necessary steps for reconstitution of the Managing Committee, but that has to be done independently with due application of mind and not on the basis of the proposal of the senior most Teacher of the School and consequentially the approval having been made by the Director, Secondary Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar, the same suffers from non-application of mind by the District Education Officer. The 1991 Rules having been framed under the Rule making power under Orissa Education Act, 1969, has got its own statutory force and therefore, the authority has to act in adherence to the provisions contained under the 1991 Rules and for any deviation thereof, consequential order cannot sustain in the eye of law.
