ANAND RATH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC Vs. HIGHER EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ application is directed against an order dated 24 -] 2 -1981 passed by the Director of Public Instruction (H. E.) Orissa substituting the membership of the petitioner by that of the opposite party No. 4 as a Vice -Chancellor's nominee in the Governing Body of the Khetrabasi Dayananda Anglo Vedic College, Nirakarpur which is an aided Educational Institution governed by the Orissa Education Act and the rules framed thereunder.

(2.) AFTER the Orissa Education (management of the private Colleges) Rules, 1979 came into force on 10 -12 -1979, the old Governing Body ceased to exist and a new Governing Body was to be constituted under Rule 3 (4) of the said rules by SRO No. 891/80 dated 28 -8 -1980. The College is to have 15 members in the Governing Body in the maximum including the Vice Chancellor's nominee. The petitioner was nominated by the Vice -Chancellor of Utkal University as his nominee by letter No. 3749/81 dated 7 -2 -1981 (Annexure -1) and he was included as a member of the Governing Body as per office order No. 82761 dated 6 -5 -81 issued by the Director of Public Instruction (H. E) Orissa Vide Annexure - -2. On 4 -11 -1981, the petitioner received a letter from the Development Officer of the Utkal University informing him that the aforesaid letter No. 3749/81 dated 7 -2 -1981 issued to him to act as Vice -Chancellor's nominee to the Governing Body of the College had been cancelled by Annexure - -3. On 24 -12 -1981 the Director of Public Instruction (H. E) Orissa passed the impugned order substituting opposite party No. 4 Balaram Dash in place of the petitioner as the Vice -Chancellor's nominee to the Governing Body. This order was communicated to the petitioner on 2nd January 1982 as per Annexure -6. The validity of the order is challenged by the petitioner on the ground of con -compliance with the provisions of rule -5 of the aforesaid rules. It is contended that the principles of natural justice as embodied in Rule 5 (1) of the aforesaid rules not having been complied with, the impugned order is without jurisdiction and void.

(3.) OPPOSITE party No. 4 Balaram Dash has filed counter contending that the writ application is not maintainable in law as the petitioner has not preferred any appeal against the impugned order and that there has been no violation of any rules or the principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order.