KALINDI CHARAN BEHERA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner calls in question legality of the order passed by the Director of Higher Education, Orissa regarding withdrawal of nomination of petitioner as President -of the Governing Body of Mahapurusha Achyutananda Mahavidyalaya, Lomalo in the district of Cuttack with immediate effect, and that the Collector, Cuttack is to be ex officio President of the Governing Body of the said institution from the date of issuance of the order. The impugned order is purported to have been passed in accordance with the provisions of R.25 (1)(i) of the Orissa Education (Establishment, Recognition and Management of Private Colleges) Rules, 1991 (in short, "the Rules') framed Under the Orissa Education Act, 1969 (in short, 'the Act').

(2.) The factual position is almost undisputed, and the controversy lies within a narrow compass. According to the petitioner, withdrawal of nomination of the petitioner as President is illegal, as no reason has been indicated for such withdrawal. There was no pressing need for such withdrawal, particularly when the term of office is to expire on 17-12-1995. In exercise of powers conferred on the Director of Higher Education, Orissa under R. 25 of the Rules, the Governing Body of the College was constituted for a period of three years with effect from the date of notification, i.e., 17-12-1992, and the petitioner who was then M. L. A. and the Minister, Energy was nominated as President.

(3.) Petitioner's stand is that though the Government had the option to withdraw the nomination at their pleasure, same cannot be arbitrary, mala fide and based on erroneous considerations. Petitioner's case is that he belongs to opposite party and the ruling Congress (I) Party wanted his removal without any rhyme and reason on political considerations for which his nomination has been withdrawn. Further, no opportunity was granted to the petitioner before withdrawal of nomination and same was in violation of the principles of natural justice. Reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Ananta Kumar alias Charan Jena v. State of Orissa, AIR 1992 Orissa 121. The State has stoutly defended its action by stating that there were no mala fides involved and in any event the petitioner has no right to continue as President, particularly when his continuance was at the pleasure of the Government. There was also no question of granting opportunity to petitioner to have his say because the pleasure was that of the Government and not of the petitioner.