THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, Vs. STATE OF ORISSA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, EDUCATION AND YOUTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet" wrote Shakespeare in Romeo and Juliet. The litigating parties in this writ application think otherwise.

(2.) TWO schools bearing identical name "Sharada Bihar High School" situate at a distance of stones throw from each other. The Managing Committees of the schools are fighting this litigate. One of the schools is situated at Samagara, while the other is situated at Baliguali both in the revenue village of Samagara served by one post office situated at Baliguali, in the district of Purl. A limitedly, the schools have not received any grant -in -aid and are governed by the provisions of the Orissa Education (Establishment and Recognition of Private High Schools) Rules, 1973 (for short 'the Rules') and the Orissa Education (Management of Private Schools) Rules, 1980 (for short 'the Management Rules'). Because of the conflicting claims as regards the richest to recognition and continuance of existence, provisional reconciliation was granted to each of the schools by the Director, Secondary Education, Orissa (opposite Party N.J. 2). He made inspection of both the schools and by his inspection report dated 23 -7 -1986 (Annexure -2 to the writ application) came to hold that there was no justification to run two high schools within a distance of about 100 feet and in the interest of the locality and the interest of education policy, the high school at Samagara should direct all its students for admission into the high school situated at Baliguali which according to him, was suitable to him. He was of the further view that the building of the Samagara high school should be utilised for the purpose of hostel of the amalgamated school. So far as the name is concerned, to satisfy the sentiments of the people of both the villages, he suggested "Sarada Bihari Samagara Baliguali High School". Though, apparently this satisfied the Petitioner in this writ application, the management of Samagara high school did not accept the same. Further, efforts seem to have been made by each of the schools on the questions of accord of recognition. By order dated 20 -4 -1987 (Annexure -1 to the writ application), the Inspector of Schools, Puri opposite Party No. 3) purporting to act under the directions of the State Government, directed in the school situated at Baliguali was to merge with the one situated at Samagara. According to the Petitioner, this letter was communicated to it by the Deputy Director of Sectionondary Education. In the meantime, acting on the reconsiderations of the Director of Sectionondary Education, the Board of Sectionondary Eduction, Orissa (opposite Party No. 5) had requested the Inspector of Schools to take steps for merger as indicated in the inspection report of the Director of Sectionondary Education. This communication dated 11 -2 -1987 is annexed as Annexure -8 to the writ application. The Petitioner by this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, has prayed for quashing the order dated 20 -4 -1986 (Annexure -1) and for hearing the opposite parties from implementing the said order in commissioner them to implement the orders dated 23 -7 -1985 and 12 -2 -1987 (Annexure 2 and 8 respectively). The writ application had a chequered career. At different points of time keeping in view the welfare of the students who are becoming victims of the conformation between the management of the two schools, efforts for reconciliation and for finding out a solution were made but all attempts appear to have failed, The unresolved tangle related to the name to be adopted in case of merger. We have heard Dr. S.C. Dash appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. G.A.R. Dora appearing for opposite party No. 4, Mr. R.K. Patra, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State and its functionaries and Mr. C.A. Rao, appearing for the Board of Sectionondary, Education (opposite Party No. 5), Submissions were made by counsel for each of the warring schools, justifying claims to the continuance of its school, necessitating merger by the other. While the Petitioner relied on Annexure 2 and 8, opposite Party No. 4 derived support from Annexure -1. A bare relaying of these orders leave no scope for any doubt that they are not sustainable in law. To a pointed query as to which provisions in the Rules, or the Management Rules sanctions the power to pass the order as contained in Annexure -1, it was fairly conceded by the learned Counsel for all the parties that in act no such power specifically exists. In our view, the concession is well -founded.

(3.) AUTHORITY empowered to grant or withdraw reconciliation.