CHANDRASEKHAR SAMANTARAY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 1.6.2005 passed by Opp.party No.3 in Review petition No.1 of 2005 confirming the order dated 9.3.2005 passed by Opp.party No.4 in cancelling the School Committee of Adhanga Primary School, Adhanga under Kendrapara district. As per the case of petitioner, pursuant to Orissa School Education (Community Participation) Rules, 2000 (herein after referred to as 2000 Rules) a School Committee was formed in respect of Adhanga Primary School on 7.1.2002. After completion of its term of three years, notice was issued on 8.1.2005 by Opp.party No.6 for holding a Parent Teacher Association (here -in -after called as 'PTA) meeting on 13.1.2005 at 2.00 P.M. in the school premises. All the members of the PTA attended the meeting on the date fixed and elected the petitioner as President of the School Committee along with 7 others as its members. The Headmaster is the ex -officio member -Secretary. The resolution was sent to Opp.party No.4 for his approval; however the Opp.party No.5 approved the same on 27.1.2005. Pursuant to the approval of the School Committee the petitioner as the President of the said Committee and Opp.party No.6 the Headmaster of the school entered into an agreement with the District Project Co -ordinator for construction of the school building. While the matter stood thus, Opp.party No.4 suddenly issued a letter to Opp.party No.5 cancelling the said School Committee and directing him to form a new committee by 31.3.2005, which is against the principle of natural justice and the provision contained under the 2000 Rules. The petitioner challenged the order passed by Opp. party No.4 before this Court in W.P. (C) No. 3567 of 2005 wherein while disposing of the said W.P. (C) No. 28.3.2005 it was observed that in the event the petitioner filed a review application before the Collector concerned with a week, the same would be considered by the Collector in accordance with law on its own merit and a decision taken in the mater within four weeks from the date of receipt of the review application. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a review petition before the Collector, Kendrapara (Opp.party No.3) and since it was dismissed on 1.6.2005, again he preferred this Writ petition.

(2.) IN the counter affidavit Opp.party No.4 averred that on 8.1.2005, Opp.party No.6 issued notice to 39 members of PTA and to Alekh Chandra MIshra, the Headmaster of R.D.M. Girls U.P. School of whom only 32 were served with the same. The total roll strength of the school as on 8.1.2005 being 64, notice ought to have been served on all of them. Opp.party No.6 neither prepared the list of members of P.T.A. in form No.1 nor issued the above notice to them in form No.II as per the aforesaid Rules. The P.T.A. meeting was presided over by one Ratnakar Patra, a student guardian instead of the Headmaster of the nearby U.P. School as required under rules. Similarly, the Ward Member of the locality where the school situates ought to have been taken as member of the School Committee but it has not been done. The concerned S.I. of schools ought to have approved formation of the School Committee, but he denied to have approved it. Since the Opp.party No.6 did not follow the Govt. guidelines in forming the school Committee, Opp.party No.4 was compelled to cancel it. Hence he prayed to reject the writ petition.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , the Ward Member concerned has not been made a member of the School Committee. The Headmaster of the neighbouring school even though was present in the PTA meeting was not asked to preside over it. Rule 11(3) of the 2000 Rules requires that the resolution of the meeting reflecting the names of the members of the School Committee shall be submitted to the S.I of the Schools for approval. In the present case as found from the writ petition the resolution was sent to the D.I. of Schools instead of the S.I. of the Schools but the latter approved it. As reported by the S.I. of Schools he did not approve the School Committee. Again as per the said rule the President of the School Committee ought to have been elected/selected from among the School Committee members on a date subsequent to the date of election of the members.But in the present case the members of the School Committee and the President were elected/selected by the members of P.T.A. on the same date.Admittedly, some of the members of the PTA were not noticed to participate in the election/selection of the members of the School Committee. So the School Committee was not constituted as per the 2000 rules. While visiting the school in question Opp.Party No.5 casually signed some records including the resolution forming the School Committee. So the Committee presumed that it was approved and accordingly the President thereof entered into agreement with the District Project Co -ordinator for construction of a building for which Rs.2,00,000/ - had been sanctioned. As found from Annexure -G/4, guardians of some of the students challenged the formation of the School Committee before the D.I. (opp.Party No.4), on receipt of which he called for a report from Opp.Party No.5 and being satisfied that the School committee was not formed and approved in accordance with law he cancelled it, which has been confirmed by the Collector. Since the School Committee was not formed and approved in accordance with rules, no right accrued in favour of the members including the president thereof to be heard before cancellation of the Committee. Under the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot also be held that opp.party No.4 had no power to cancel the School Committee. In view of the discussions made above, we do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly the same stands dismissed. P. K. MOHANTY, J. I agree. Petition dismissed.