DOLAGOBINDA KHANDAI AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF ORISSA, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE SECRETARY IN EDUCATION AND YOUTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANXIETY to 'manage' the affairs of schools has become the epicenter of a large number of litigations. Schools which are supposed to be temples of education are frequently turning into battle fields of personal egos, political rivalries, group bickering and factional caviling. The society is now experiencing in addition to labour unrest, students unrest industrial unrest etc., a new type of unrest 'management' unrest. This is now fast introducing to educational institutions. More often than not, the sanctity of the institutions is getting lost, and the purposes for which the educational institutions are set up are frustrated. The present writ application is one of such numerous instances where accusations and counter accusations; allegations of contravention of provisions of law, foul -play and partisan approach by the authorities at the helm of affairs have been made. While the society expects the schools and other educational institutions to be run and managed by people really interested in the welfare of students, frequently it is seen that something murky is lurking in the background.

(2.) PETITIONERS , four in numbers, have filed this writ application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing the order of re -constitution as passed by the Inspector of Schools (opposite party No. 3) relating to the managing committee of Radhashyam Bidyapitha, a recognised unaided school, controlled and governed by the provisions of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Orissa Education Management of Private Schools Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), and for a direction that the Petitioners continue to be the members of a validly constituted managing committee and that their replacement by opposite party Nos. 4 to 10 is illegal and arbitrary.

(3.) IN this highly controversial and contentious factual backdrop, we feel that exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction is uncalled for. The extraordinary powers are not to be exercised to set right mere errors of law which do not occasion any substantial injustice. No interference is called for unless there is grave miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation of law. However, we would like to note some of the significant features which have reinforced our reluctance to interfere in the matter. Some of the relevant provisions of the R.on which reliance has been placed may be referred to. Strong reliance has been placed on R.6(3) by the Petitioners, which reads as follows: