JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat, J. - "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, Sectionondary 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. 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. 3. 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. 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. Some faint attempt was, however, made to argue that though there is no specific provision contained in the Rules or in the Management Rules, yet Rule 4(2) of the Rules vested authority on the State Government as well as the Director to enquire into the existence of fulfillment of conditions before grant of recognition. Rule 4(2) is quoted here. 4. Authority empowered to grant or withdraw reconciliation. (1) x x x x (2) It shall be competent for the Director to require the fulfillment of such conditions as laid down in these rules and by the State Government from time to time, before according recontacting or to accord recognition provisionally for a period not exceeding one year after which unless he be satisfied that the slid conditions have been satisfactorily fulfilled, the recognition will be withdrawn by an order issued in that behalf. x x x x On a bare reading of the same, it is apparent that the provisions have no application to the facts of the present case. The Director even if vested with the power to enquire about the existence of the conditions before grant of recognition, has not directed merger on the background of recognition. The State Government has no say in the matter of recognition. The impugned orders contained in Annexures-1 and 2 are squarely silent on this aspect. The recognition aspect has not been dealt with in any of these orders. In any event the recognition or refusal to grant recognition is within the sole domain of the Director and the State Government has no role to play in the matter. 4. Admittedly, the schools in question are not aided and are private schools. The State Government has absolutely no authority to direct merger of two schools, which in essence would mean transfer of one?s assets to the other, with consequential implications and consequences. On that score, the order contained in Annexure-1 does not stand scrutiny and is liable to be quashed. 5. The State Government has absolutely no authority to direct merger of two schools, which in essence would mean transfer of one?s assets to the other, with consequential implications and consequences. On that score, the order contained in Annexure-1 does not stand scrutiny and is liable to be quashed. 5. It was submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that the Director was authorised to deal with the question of recognition and in fact his action in directing merger of opposite Party No. 4 school with the Petitioner school was as a sequel to the grant of recognition, and therefore was valid and consequently the order passed by the Board of Sectionondary Education was justified and the two orders needed implementation and the refusal to implement was illegal and improper. This submission has hardly any substance. As indicated above, neither the Director nor the State Government has dealt with the question of recognition in their respective orders. It was open to the Director to enquire about the existence of the conditions before grant of recognition. But in the inspection report containing the direction of merger (Annexure-2), the question of recognition was not dealt with at all. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Director pleased any order in the matter of recognition. 6. The unsavory situation has been brought out by the authorities by pussier orders which had no legal basis, while completely ignoring the statutory duties required to be performed. The Director was required to pass orders in the matter of recognition. He has not done so, except in the provisional recognition matter, which was disposed of by him long black. In the interest of students and the community, he should immediately take up the matter relating to recognition of the schools and pass necessary orders in accordance with law, but in any event not later than three months from the date of receipt of our order. If so needed and authorised, be shall permit all interested parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims and on consideration of the relevant materials pass requisite order. 7. It was submitted on behalf of the parties that to satisfy the sentiments of the parties concerned, a viable name acceptable to all concerned may be found out and on acceptance of the name the connected disputes can be resolved. 7. It was submitted on behalf of the parties that to satisfy the sentiments of the parties concerned, a viable name acceptable to all concerned may be found out and on acceptance of the name the connected disputes can be resolved. It would have been an ideal solution, but the parties are themselves to be blurted. They have stood by their so-called sentiments. In Aboth v. Babylonian Talmud it is written; "He who says what is mine is yours and what is yours is a yours is saint. He who says, what is yours is mine and what is mine is mine is a wicked man." We leave it to the parties to decide hat they choose to be. If an appropriate suggestion in writing is represented to the Director while he is considering the question of recognition, he may in the interest of the students and the community take note of the matter and deal with it. But it would not be appropriate to defer the question of recognition on the assumption that good sense may prevail at some time, and same shall be decided as directed earlier. In the result, the order contained in Annexure-1 is quashed. On the analysis as made above, the directions contained in Annexures-2 and 8 are without any sanction in law and are not implement able. 8. The writ application is all owed in part to the extent as indicate above. There shall be no order as to costs. D.P. Mohapatra, J. 9. I, agree. Application allowed in part. Final Result : Allowed