MANAGING COMMITTEE OF JUGAL KISHORE HIGH SCHOOL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ORISSA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE managing committee of Jugal Kishore High School at Aliha in the district of Balasore represented by its Secretary is the Petitioner assailing the order of the Inspector of Schools, Balasore Circle dated 2,9 -8 -1987 (Annexure -11) and the order of the said Inspector dated 17 -9 -1987 (Annexure 12). It is further prayed that a mandamus be issued to the opposite parties to constitute the managing committee in accordance with the proposal given in Annexure -9.

(2.) IT is urged in the writ application that the institution is a private and unaided school and it was established in the year 1980. The school was recognised by the Inspector's letter dated 24 -11 -1980 (Annexure -1) subject to the conditions contained in the said letter. The Board of Secondary Education accorded recognition to the school for enabling its students to appear at the High School Certificate Examination for the year 1984 by its letter dated 23 -12 -1983, which has been annexed as Annexure - 2. When the school was established an ad hoc managing committee had been formed with nine members and the said managing committee had been managing the institution. It was further alleged that two of the members of the managing committee, namely, Sukadev Parida and Fakir Charan Arakh were removed from the managing committee for -their failure to attend the meetings and in their place one Bhairab Charan Rout was taken in and was made the President and one Bharat Charan Patra was taken in as a member. One Chakradhar Rout was the Secretary of the managing committee. In 1984 said Chakradhar Rout and another member Purusottam Sethi remained absent from attending the meetings of the committee for more than four occasions and they were removed and in their place Govinda Charan Sankhua and Mangaraj Jena were inducted. On 28 -2 -1985 Dibakar Rout was elected as the Secretary in place of Chakradhar. On 2 -9 -1985 application for renewal of recognition was made to the Board of Secondary Education. When the Inspector received this application, he returned the same on the ground that the members who were in the managing committee initially are not there. This letter of the Inspector has been Annexed as Annexure - 3. On 3 -3.1986 the Headmaster of the school gave a reply indicating the sequence, of events and how some of the members of the original managing committee became ineligible to continue in the managing committee on account of their continued absence and in their place how fresh members have been taken in. The Inspector thereafter forwarded the application to the Board of Secondary Education and the Board accorded recognition for the year 1986. On 29 -12 -1986 the managing committee filed a fresh application for renewal for the year 1987. At that point of time Dibakar Rout was the Secretary who sent the application on behalf of the managing committee. The Inspector returned the said application by his letter dated 27 -1 -1987 on the ground that the managing committee bad expired long since and Dibakar Rout had not been approved as the Secretary. This letter of the Inspector has been annexed as Annexure - 5. The Headmaster, however, resubmitted an application. The Inspector by his letter dated 21.1 -1987 (Annexure .6) returned back the same saying that the managing committee had expired since November, 1986. A reply was given on behalf of the institution saying that there had been no regular managing committee, but an ad hoc managing committee was still continuing and therefore, the question of expiry of the managing committee did not arise. This reply to the 'Inspector has been annexed as Annexure -1. The Inspector thereafter forwarded the same to the Board of Secondary Education. On 25.2 -1987 the managing committee as existed passed a resolution deciding to move the Inspector with the proposal to constitute a managing committee in accordance with the nominations and sent the nominations to the Inspector. Sri Dibakar Rout, who was the then Secretary, sent the proposal to the Inspector with a copy of the resolution of the managing committee and requested the Inspector to accord approval to the same. This letter of the managing committee has been annexed as Annexure - 9. Instead of according approval to the nominations made by the managing committee in Annexure. 9 the Inspector issued a letter to the Headmaster to re -constitute the managing committee as per Annexure. 11. Again by his letter dated 16...9 -1987 the Headmaster was directed to convene a meeting of the managing committee as constituted under Annexure. 11 to elect the office bearers which has been annexed as Annexure - 12. The order of the Inspector constituting the managing committee under Annexure. 11 as well as the direction to the Headmaster under Annexure. 12 are being impugned in this writ application and further proper that the Inspector may be directed to act in accordance with Jaw pursuant to the nominations made in Annexure - 9 has been made.

(3.) IN the promises as aforesaid, the short question for consideration is whether on the admitted facts the ad hoc managing committee formed in 1980 had the jurisdiction to send nominations under Annexure -g in the year 1987 and whether the Inspector was justified in not accepting the said nominations and re -constituting the managing committee under Annexure -H. The answer to these questions depends upon an interpretation of the Rules. The Orissa Education (Management of private Schools) Rules, 1980, has been framed by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred under Section 27 of the Orissa Education Act. Rule 3(1) provides that after establishing a private school a managing committee consisting of nine members will be nominated on ad hoc basis to manage the affairs of the school till a regular managing committee is constituted in the manner provided under Sub -rule (2) of the said rule Sub -rule (2)(i) of Rule 3 provides that the managing committee of a private school recognised by the appropriate authority shall consist of nine members of which the Headmaster in his ex officio capacity and a teacher representative elected by the entire teaching staff would be there and seven other members to be nominated by the existing managing committee. Of these seven persons, one should be a donor if there is any. First proviso to the aforesaid sub -rule stipulates that if the managing committee is under supersession the of the authority exercising its powers and functions shall nominate these seven members subject to the approval of the Director. A second proviso has been added to the aforesaid Sub -rule (2)(i) providing the procedure in case of a defunct managing committee, which enables the Inspector of Schools in case of a High School, to nominate these seven members subject to the approval of the Director. Sub -rule (6) of Rule 3 provides the term of the managing committee to be three years. Rule 4 relates to procedure for constitution and approval of the managing committee. Rule 6(1) clearly stipulates that the terms of the office of the members of the managing committee shall be three years and Sub -rule (2) of Rule 6 gives an Extended life to the managing committee till the new managing committee assumes office it there has been no reconstitution before expiry of the term of three years. First proviso to Sub -rule (2) of Rule 6 puts an embargo to the effect that no managing committee shall continue after expiry of the term at three years for more than six months and thereafter the functions of the managing committee shall vest with the Inspector. This being the relevant provisions of the Rules, a combined reading of the same makes it abundantly clear that the managing committee of the Petitioner -school which was formed on ad hoc basis in the year 1980 lost its identity after three years and six months in view of Sub -rule (1) of Rule 6 read with first proviso to Sub -rule (2) of the said rule. Consequently on the date on which the said defunct managing committee passed a resolution sending nominations under Annexure -9 it was no longer in existence and the Inspector was absolutely right in ignoring the said nomination. Since the management of the school in law vested with the Inspector, thereafter it is the Inspector who has to re -constitute the managing committee with approval of the Director and this is precisely what has been done under Annexure -11. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the order of the Inspector of Schools dated 29 -3 -1987 as per Annexure -11 and the consequential order dated 17 -9 -1987 as per Annexure -12 so as to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.