BRUNDABAN CH MOHANTY Vs. D I OF SCHOOLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts on which this writ application is founded in brief are as follows: THE District Inspector of Schools Bhadrak (Opposite Party No. 1) by his letter dated 17-7-70, copy of which is at Annexure 3 to the writ applications communicated to the petitioner his approval of the re-constituted Managing Committee of the Kausalya M. E. School at a public meeting. THE letter runs as follows : - "Office of the District Inspector of Schools, Bhadrak. To, THE Secretary, Kausalya M. E. School, Rampur. Sir, THE Managing Committee reconstituted in a public meeting for Kausalya. M. E. School, Rampur is hereby approved. THE names of the members of Managing Committee are furnished below. xx xx xx Copy forwarded to Sri Brundaban Ch. Mohanty Ex-Secretary of Kausalya M. E. School for information and necessary action with reference to his application dated 28-6-70. He is requested to hand over charge to the newly elected Secretary Sri Ram Chandra Muduli immediately for smooth management of the School. Sd/- K. B. Khuntia District Inspector of Schools. Bhadrak."

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he originally founded the School with about Rupees 10,000/- contributed by him and the managing committee which was formed in 1961 has been continuing with some changes of the members therein of which he continues to be the Secretary. Opposite Party No. 1 during his inspection found that the School building had been left without repair and was not sufficient to privide accommodation to the students. Therefore, in his inspection note he made a suggestion that the President of the School and the Sarpaach, Ramkrushnapur are to take initiative in the matter, call a public meeting and take steps for formation of a healthy managing committee at such meeting. Some villagers claimed to have elected a new managing committee at a public meeting held behind the back of the petitioner. Petitioner communicated his protest against this action of his adversaries to Opposite Party No. 1 and requested for holding a fresh public meeting on 6-7-70. On the direction of Opposite Party No. 1. such a meeting was called on 6-7-70 but due to disturbances caused by the adversaries of the petitioner, the meeting had to be abandoned and no committee could be formed. In spite of it, the adversaries of the petitioner communicated a list of members of the managing committee alleged to have been elected at the public meeting held on 6-7-70 to Opposite Party No. 1 who, by the impugned order, according his approval and directed the petitioner to make over charge to Opposite Party No. 3. This order of Opposite Party No. 1 is challenged mainly on the ground that the public have no right to elect a managing committee and that it was outside the jurisdiction of Opposite Party No. 1 to dissolve the existing managing committee and give approval to a new managing committee.

(3.) ON the aforesaid analysis and the reasons discussed above, the impugned order at Annexure 3 approving the new managing committee cannot be sustained and the old committee shall be deemed to be continuing as before.