PRAFULLA MISHRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India assailing exercise of power by the Director, Higher Education, Orissa under Rule 4 (3) of the Orissa Management of Private Colleges Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') made Under Section 27 of the .Orissa Education Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by approving reconstitution of the Governing Body of Angul Mahila Mahavidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as 'the College'). Office order dated 26 -12 -1990 (Annexure -1) on basis of the list submitted by President of the Governing Body (opp. party No. 4) in his letter dated 3 -6 -1990 (Annexure -3),

(2.) ACCORDING to petitioners, College was established and was recognised in the year 1979, It had a governing body with the Subdivisional Officer, Angul as its President. Although the governing body had been reconstituted from time to time, it had never been approved by the prescribed authority under the Act and the rules made thereunder. Thus, the governing body first constituted is continuing to exercise the powers and carry on the functions as provided under the Act and 'Rules, Petitioner No. 1, a member of the Legislative Assembly was functioning as the Secretary of the Governing Body. On 13 -11 -1988, the governing body passed a resolution under the Presidentship of the Subdivisional Officer, for reconstitution of the governing body as it was learnt that the College was going to receive grant -in -aid On confirmation of the resolution in the meeting dated 13 -4 -1989 held under the Presidentship of the Subdivisional Officer, petitioner No, 1 addressed a letter on 12 -6 -1989 (Annexure -2) to the Director for approving the governing body attaching copies of both resolations. No action was, however, taken by the Director. On 12 -4 -1990, Director addressed letter No. 22582 to the President on basis of which President submitted a list of persons for reconstitution of Governing Body of the College in his letter dated 30 -6 -199C On that basis, the Director approved the reconstitution of the Governing Body in exercise of power under Rule 4(3) read with Rule 3 (3) of the Rules. Petitioners alleged that the Director (opp. party No. 2) and the Sub -Collector (opp. party No. 4) acted under political influence.

(3.) RULE 4 of the rules which is the basis of exercise of power, both by the President of the Governing Body as well as the Director reads as follows :