PADMANAV DEHURY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Nomination of Ramachandra Mohapatra as President of the Governing Body of Ramamani Mahavidyalaya, Kantabad in the district of Khurda is under challenge in this writ application. Said nomination was made by the Director of Higher Education, Orissa, Bhubaneswar under Rule 27 (wrongly stated to be Section 27 in Annexure-1) of the Orissa Education (Establishment, Recognition, Management of Private Junior Colleges/Higher Secondary Schools) Rules, 1991 (in short, the 'Rules'). The institution is an aided educational institution within the meaning of Section 3 (b) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 (in short, the 'Act').

(2.) Main plank of challenge is that said Rama Chandra Mohapatra is not an eminent educationist which is a sine qua non for such nomination. It is highlighted that originally by order dated 4-9-1997 (Annexure-1) the Sub-Collector, Khurda was nominated by the Government as the President of the Governing Body. Subsequently by order dated 21-11-1997 (Annexure 2), the impugned order nomination of Rama Chandra was approved by the Director. The Sub-Collector was approved as the Member of the Governing Body.

(3.) A brief history of the power relating to such nomination needs to be noted. The fore-runner of the present Rules was The Orissa Education (Management of Private Colleges) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the 'old Rules'). Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the said Rules held the field so far as nomination is concerned. The requirement then was 'person interested in the field of education'. Subsequently it was substituted by the expression 'eminent educationist'. The expression 'eminent educationist' has not been defined. An Educationist is 'one who is skilled in the methods of education and teaching', and 'one who promotes education'. The expression had come up for consideration in several cases before this Court, and it was felt that neither it is easy to explain nor to conceive. It was observed in OJC nos. 3130 and 3359 of 1992 (Mardaraj Mohan Senapati v. State and Ashok Kumar Sahoo v. State) disposed of on 1-3-1993, that the rule making authority can consider whether the expression 'eminent educationist' needs any definition or elucidation. It is interesting to note that originally in the old Rules the requirement was 'person interested'. From 1991 till 1997 the requirement was 'an eminent educationist', and thereafter again from June, 1997 the expression 'person interested' has been substituted by notification dated 28-6-1997 of the Department of Higher Education vide S. R. O. No. 326/97 published in the Orissa Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 30-6-1997. The relevant rule reads as follows :