MANAGING COMMITTEE Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these four writ applications at the instance of respective Managing Committees of the Schools in question involve common questions of law and fact and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioners' case is that the U.P. (M.E.) Schools established by the respective Managing Committees were granted permission. In the order granting permission, some conditions were imposed which were required to be complied with by the Managing Committees. After the schools in question were granted permission, the Managing Committees submitted applications for grant of recognition and on consideration of the same, the petitioner -Schools were granted temporary recognition. It is alleged that the petitioner -schools fulfilled the conditions mentioned in the temporary recognition orders for which the petitioners submitted applications for grant of permanent recognition, but the Director -Opp. Party No. 2 instead of according permanent recognition, has passed the impugned order according temporary recognition. It is stated in the impugned orders that the question of permanent recognition would be considered as soon as the Management of the Schools appoint one trained Graduate as Headmaster and one trained Intermediate as Assistant Teacher (one of them shall have Science qualification up to +2 level) in their Schools and fulfil other conditions prescribed in Section 6A(1) of Orissa Education (Amendment) Act, 1994. Such orders passed by the Director (Opp. Party No. 2) have been challenged in these writ applications.

(2.) A counter has been filed by the opposite parties in which it has been stated that 55 U.P. Schools which were functioning before enactment of the Orissa Education (Establishment, Recognition and Management of Private Upper Primary Schools) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as '1991 Rules') were considered for permanent recognition by a High Power Committee and they were accorded temporary recognition with a stipulation to fulfil the staffing pattern, that is to say, one trained graduate Headmaster and one trained Intermediate Assistant Teacher (one of them shall have Science qualification up to +2 level), failing which, permanent recognition would not be granted to them. It has been further stated that the petitioner -Schools did not comply with the conditions as required by the Director's letter dated 18.3.1994, as a result of which, permanent recognition could not be granted as per law prior to coming into force of 1991 Rules. For non -fulfilment of the standard staff and other conditions prescribed in Section 6 -A(1) of the Orissa Education (Amendment) Act, 1994, temporary recognition was granted for the academic Session 1994/95 in favour of 55 U.P. (M.E.) Schools including the petitioner -Schools.

(3.) From a bare reading of the above provisions, it is crystal clear that there is no inconsistency between the 1991 Rules and the Orissa Education (Amendment) Act, 1994 with regard to staffing pattern. While considering the application for permanent recognition, the 1991 Rules were in force. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in the impugned order under Annexure -5 granting temporary recognition with the stipulation that the grant of permanent recognition to the petitioner -Schools will be considered as soon as they fulfil other conditions as to the appointment of qualified teachers. The aims and objects of the above Act and Rules are to maintain the academic standard and quality of teachings are concerned. Thus, the opposite parties have rightly decided not to grant permanent recognition to the educational institutions whose Management or Managing Committees do not fulfil the above staffing pattern. During the course of hearing, Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioners by referring to the order dated 20.4.2001 passed in OJC No. 8978 of 1995, The Managing Committee of Majhi Patana U.P. (M.E.) School v. State of Orissa and Ors. submitted that these writ petitions may be disposed of in terms of the said order. As it appears, while passing the above order, the aforesaid provisions of the 1991 Rules and the Orissa Education (Amendment) Act, 1994 were not noticed and considered. As such, it is a judgment per incuriam. Otherwise also, the schools in question have obtained permission with effect from the Session 1992/93 and as such the 1991 Rules are applicable to the petitioner -Schools. In such view of the matter, the order passed in OJC No. 8978 of 1995 cannot be held to be applicable to the instant case.