KANHU CHARAN SWAIN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHORN of unnecessary details the case of the Petitioner is that Sri Raghunath Swamy Girls High School '(here -in -after referred to as 'S.R.S. Girls' High School') established in the year 1992 at Ballipadar under Ganjam District is a private unaided recognized institution. The Petitioner was the secretary of the Managing Committee of the said School from 20.7.2001 to 20.7.2004. Before expiry of the term of the said Managing Committee, the Petitioner convened a meeting for reconstitution of the Managing Committee and after observing all formalities, sent a panel of names to the Inspector of Schools, Ganjam Circle, Berhampur, Opp. Party No. 3 vide Annexue 6 dated 20.4.2004 to take steps for approval of the proposed Managing Committee. Though the list was sent within the stipulated time as per law, Opp. Parties 2 and 3 did not take any step and slept over the matter. Opp. Party No. 5 sent 3 panel of names for approval on different dates one after the other. When none of the proposals was approved, she sent the 4th proposal on 27.5.2005 vide Annexure 10 which was approved by the competent authority vide Annexure 12 on 5.7.2005. According to the Petitioner in terms of Rule 27 of the Orissa Education (Establishment, Recognition and Management of Private High Schools) Rules 1991 (hereinafter referred to as '1991 Rules') when the outgoing Managing Committee having passed a resolution in a meeting, nominated 7 members and sent the same to the Inspector of Schools (Opp. Party No. 3) for taking steps for approval, Opp. Parties 2 and 3 without considering the same ought not have approved the panel of names vide Annexure -12 dated 5.7.2005 sent by Opp. Party No. 5. Hence the Writ Petition with prayer to quash the order passed by the Director, Opp. Party No. 2 vide Annexure 12 and to approve the proposal sent by the Petitioner.

(2.) OPP . Party No. 3. in a separate counter -affidavit stated that on 20.7.2001 Opp. Party No. 2 approved the Managing Committee of S.R.S. Girls' High School where the Petitioner was elected as the Secretary. The approval order of the said Managing Committee was challenged by Opp. Party No. 5 in O.J.C. No 9733 of 2001 before this Court, which remained sub -judice till 6.9.2004 when it was withdrawn. Opp. Party No. 3 admitted that Petitioner had submitted a proposal on 20.4.2004 for reconstitution of the new Managing Committee, but pleaded that since the Managing Committee wherein the Petitioner was the secretary was not functioning and the approval of the said Managing Committee was under challenge in O.J.C. No. 9733 of 2001, he did not take any step for approval of the proposal submitted by the Petitioner. Soon after disposal of the O.J.C, he recommended the proposal for reconstitution of the Managing Committee sent by Opp. Party No. 5, as the proposed Managing Committee was constituted as per Rule 25 of the 1991 Rules, on receipt of which Opp. Party No. 2 vide his letter -dated 29.11.2004 directed the Joint Director (SE) Regional Directorate of Education, Berhampur to recommend a separate proposal after conducting an enquiry in the School. The proposal of the Joint Director (SE) submitted before Opp. Party No. 2, the Director, through Opp. Party No. 3 was not approved as the constitution of the Managing Committee was made under Rule -28 of the 1991 Rules treating the school as an aided institution, even though it was a non -aided school. As the school was selected to receive Block grant only and not full aid, reconstitution of the Managing Committee was to be made under Rule 25 of the 1991 Rules. So, Opp. Party No. 2 vide his letter -dated 29.4.2005 sought for a fresh proposal for reconstitution of the Managing Committee under Rule 25 of the 1991 Rules. Accordingly Opp. Party No. 5 submitted a fresh proposal, which, on being duly recommended by Opp. Party No. 3 was approved by Opp. Party No. 2 on 5.7.2005 and block grant @ 40% was paid to the staffs of the school. It is the further case of Opp. Party No. 3 that proposal for reconstitution of the Managing Committee dated 20.4.2004 submitted by the Petitioner was not taken into consideration since it was submitted beyond 90 days of the expiry of the terms of the outgoing Managing committee, no resolution of staff electing teachers representative was made, certificate of no litigation was not signed by Opp. Party No. 5 as required under law, Shri Udayanath Sahu, a member of the proposed Managing Committee had not signed in the willingness certificate, willingness certificate of Opp. Party No. 5 was also wanting and that Smt. K.Nalin Patra, a member of the said Managing Committee expressed her unwillingness to be a member of the Managing Committee on 22.04.2004 vide Annexure -B/3. Hence Opp. Party No. 3 presses for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

(3.) IN her counter affidavit Opp. Party No. 5 stated that the school in question was made eligible to get 40% block grant with effect from 1.1.2004. For releasing the said grant, the new Managing Committee was reconstituted as per the guidelines contained in gazette notification dated 20.9.1994 of the Department of School and Mass Education, and the name and address of the members thereof were sent to Opp. Party No. 2 for approval through Opp. Party No. 3. On receipt of the same, Opp. Party No. 2 vide letter dated 29.11.2004 instructed the Joint Director (S.E) to conduct a spot enquiry in connection with reconstitution of the Managing Committee. Accordingly, he enquired into the matter and submitted his report, relying on which Opp. Party No. 2 approved the proposal of Opp. Party No. 5 on 5.7.2005. Under such circumstances Opp. Party No. 5 presses to dismiss the Writ Petition. Learned Counsel for the Opp. Parties submits that since O.J.C. Nos. 9733 of 2001 and 10091 of 2001 challenging the validity of the approval order of the outgoing Managing Committee were sub -judice till 6.9.2004 when the same were withdrawn the proposal sent by the said Managing Committee was rightly not considered. Admittedly the order of approval of the outgoing Managing Committee was not suspended by any interim order in either of the aforesaid O.J.Cs. There is also nothing to indicate in the pleadings of the Opp. Parties that during the term of the office of the outgoing Managing Committee the management of the school in question was vested with any other agency. So, mere pendency of the aforesaid two O.J.Cs. was not a bar for Opp. Party No. 3 to send the proposal for approval of Opp. Party No. 2. Learned Counsel for the Opp. Parties further submit that since the Petitioner did not send the proposal (Annexure -6) along with the relevant documents viz. resolution of the staff, electing teachers representative, willingness certificate of Shri Udayanath Sahoo, a proposed member and that of Opp. Party No. 5, declaration of members about their willingness, and undertaking about absence of litigation it lias rightly not been considered. In fact, if those documents were not sent to the Opp. Party No. 3 along with the proposal, he could have very well asked for the same from the Petitioner.