SUBESH CHANDRA SASUAL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Articles 226 of the Constitution for direction to constitute a Managing Committee of an Aided High School.

(2.) Pancha Panchava Sailabala High School, Dhanisho is an Aided Educational Institution under the Orissa Education Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). As provided in Section 7 it has a Managing Committee, constituted under the Orissa Education (Management of Private Schools) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Such Managing Committee constituted by order of the Inspector on 30/12/1985 as per Annexure 1 in exercise of power under Rule 4(3) of the Rules. Term of the members of the Committee and the Committee itself was three years as provided in Rule 3(6) and Rule 6(1) of the Rules. Thus, being duly constituted on 30-12-1985, term of the members and the Managing Committee was to expire on 30-12-1988. Under Rule 4(1) of the rules, Managing Committee in office nominated petitioners as the seven members for reconstitution of the successor committee in its resolution dated 1-9-85 and Secretary of the Managing Committee moved the Inspector on 4-9-1985 for approval with the resolution of the Committee duly passed since it is provided in Rule 4(1) that Secretary is to move not less than ninety days before expiry of the term of the committee in office. Inspector is required to pass an order within one month of the receipt of the proposal either according approval of the proposal or returning the same to the Secretary for substitution of any nominated member with reasons therefor. Since Inspector remained inaction for one month after receipt of the proposal from Secretary as per the decision reported in 67 (1989) CLT 33 : (1989) 1 Ori LR 86 : (Srinath Nayak v. Circle Inspector of Schools, Dhenkanal Circle and another) such nomination by Managing Committee is deemed to have been approved as provided in Rule 4(2). Inspector is next required to exercise power under Rule 4(3) of the rules to nominate the other members of the Managing Committee and issue order of approval of the Managing Committee reconstituted with eleven members as provided in Rule 3(3), petitioners have approached this Court since Inspector has not exercised power under Rule 4(3) and they have been deprived of the office which they would have held. In the meantime Managing Committee constituted on 30-12-1985 not having been reconstituted before 30-12-1988, it was deemed to continue in office for six months as provided in Rule 6(2) first Proviso till 30-5-1989 after which the power and function of Managing Committee has vested in the Inspector though factually the Managing Committee is discharging the function.

(3.) There might have been no difficulty to give direction to Inspector to exercise power under Rule 4(3) of the Rules if petitioners would have approached this Court before 30-5-1989. It is to be considered whether a direction to constitute a Managing Committee in exercise of power under Rule 4(3), with petitioners as members can be given at this stage.