9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (3) TMI 1451 - HC - Indian LawsApproval of reconstitution of the Managing Committee as per the provisions contained under Rule 28(1) of the Orissa Education (Establishment, Recognition and Management of Private High Schools) Rules, 1991 - whether the reconstitution of the Managing Committee of the School in question has been done in conformity with the provisions of Rule 28 of 1991 Rules? HELD THAT - The reconstitution has to be made under Sub-Rule(1) of Rule 28 of 1991 Rules. As per Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 28 of 1991 Rules, the Headmaster of the school or the teacher-in-charge of Headmaster shall be Secretary of the Managing Committee in his ex-officio capacity. Under Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 28 of 1991 Rules, the Sub-Collector shall nominate the President from among the members specified in Clauses (a) to (d) of Sub-rule (1). Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 28 of 1991 Rules, says that the Inspector shall take all necessary steps to reconstitute the Managing Committee in respect of aided High School and of any such School which becomes aided. Therefore, pivotal role is being played by Inspector of School, who is to take all necessary steps to reconstitute the Managing Committed in respect of aided High Schools. As it appears from the records, the Inspector of Schools instead of applying his mind independently submitted letter on 01.11.2012 recommending the proposal of Sri Sarat Kumar Mohapatra, senior most Asst. Teacher, who has been allowed to remain-in-charge of the School temporarily, for reconstitution of the Managing Committee to the Director, Secondary Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar for approval of the Managing Committee. On the basis of such recommendation, the Director has passed the impugned order under Annexure-4 on 08.09.2014 - The 1991 Rules having been framed under the Rule making power under Orissa Education Act, 1969, has got its own statutory force and therefore, the authority has to act in adherence to the provisions contained under the 1991 Rules and for any deviation thereof, consequential order cannot sustain in the eye of law. The action taken by the Inspector of School is not in consonance with the provisions of Sub-Rule(4) of Rule 28 of 1991 Rules. When a gross illegality has been committed by the authority for reconstitution of Managing Committee, which has been brought to notice of the Court by the present petitioner, without delving into the question of locus standi of the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the order passed under Annexure-4 for reconstitution of the Managing Committee of Bapujee Ashram Residential High School, Goradajhari in the district of Khurda under Rule 28(1) of 1991 Rules dated 08.09.2014 cannot sustain in the eye of law - the matter is remitted back to the District Education Officer, Khurda for submission of proposal afresh in-compliance to the Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 28 of 1991 Rules. The writ petition stands disposed of.
Issues Involved:
1. Approval of the reconstitution of the Managing Committee of Bapujee Ashram Residential High School. 2. Compliance with Rule 28 of the Orissa Education (Establishment, Recognition and Management of Private High Schools) Rules, 1991. 3. Application of mind by the District Education Officer in the reconstitution process. 4. Locus standi of the petitioner. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Approval of the Reconstitution of the Managing Committee: The petitioner, the Ex-President of the Managing Committee of Bapujee Ashram Residential High School, sought to quash the order dated 08.09.2014 by the Director, Secondary Education, Odisha, approving the reconstitution of the Managing Committee. The petitioner's contention was that the reconstitution was not done in compliance with Rule 28 of the 1991 Rules. 2. Compliance with Rule 28 of the 1991 Rules: The court examined whether the reconstitution of the Managing Committee was in conformity with Rule 28. Rule 28 outlines the composition and reconstitution process for the Managing Committee of an aided high school, including the roles of the local MLA, Sarpanch, Panchayat Samiti member, and other specified members. The pivotal role is played by the Inspector of Schools, who must take all necessary steps to reconstitute the Managing Committee independently. 3. Application of Mind by the District Education Officer: The court found that the Inspector of Schools did not apply his mind independently. Instead, he merely forwarded the proposal submitted by the Senior most Assistant Teacher, Sri Sarat Kumar Mohapatra, for approval. This action was not in conformity with Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 28, which requires the Inspector to independently take all necessary steps for reconstitution. The Director's approval, based on this non-independent proposal, was therefore flawed. 4. Locus Standi of the Petitioner: Although the respondent argued that the petitioner had no locus standi, the court focused on the gross illegality in the reconstitution process. The court held that the petitioner's standing was secondary to the need to address the procedural irregularity. Conclusion: The court quashed the order dated 08.09.2014 for reconstitution of the Managing Committee, directing the District Education Officer to submit a fresh proposal in compliance with Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 28 of the 1991 Rules. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs.
|
