JUDGMENT : R.K. Patra, J. - The Petitioners are some of the erstwhile members of the', Governing Body of Jhadeswar Mahavidyalaya, Talkani. In this writ petition under Article's 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India they seek to challenge the vires of the proviso to Sub-section (6) of Section 7 of the Orissa Education Act, 1969. They have also prayed for quashing the reconstitution of the Governing Body of the college which was made by the Government in its letter No. 40293/HE. dated 5-6-1996 (Annexure-5) in exercise 'of the power under the impugned provision. 2. Briefly stated the Petitioners case is that Jhadeswar Mahavidyalaya, Talkani is a Junior College/Higher Secondary School, as defined u/s 3(j) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as. 'the Act'). It was established in the year 1983 and it got recognition during the year 1987-88. Petitioner No. 1 donated more than one lakh of rupees for the College and is one of its founder members. The Director, Higher Education, Orissa, in office order No. 17128 dated 15-3-1994 (Annexure-2) constituted the Governing Body of the college for a period of three years from the date of notification. All the Petitioners except Petitioners 7, 8 and 9 were the members of the said Governing Body of the college. The term of the Governing Body was to expire on 14-3-1997. While it was functioning smoothly without any hindrance, before expiry of its term, the Government illegally and arbitrarily reconstituted the Governing Body as per the impugned letter No. 40293/HE dated 5-6-1996 (Annexure-5) in exercise of powers under proviso to Sub-section (6) of Section 7 of the Act. 3. The State Government represented by its Secretary, Department of Higher Education is opposite party No. 1.. On its behalf counter affidavit has been filed being affirmed by the Joint Secretary of the Department. It has been averred therein that after constitution of the. Governing Body as per the Directorate order dated 15-3-1994 (Annexure-2), a number of allegations were made against the functioning of the Governing Body to the Director of Higher Education. Those allegations were enquired into by the Deputy Director (N.G.C.II). The Deputy Director submitted his report which was referred to the State Government for consideration. In the meantime, the Sub-Collector, Jajpur also submitted a report about the manner of functioning of the Governing Body. Those allegations were enquired into by the Deputy Director (N.G.C.II). The Deputy Director submitted his report which was referred to the State Government for consideration. In the meantime, the Sub-Collector, Jajpur also submitted a report about the manner of functioning of the Governing Body. The Minister, Higher Education, after perusing the equerry report of the Deputy Director as well as the report of the Sub-Collector was of the view that the Governing Body was working in a way detrimental to the interest of the college. He accordingly passed order dated 10-2-1996 (Annexure-A/1) that in the interest of administration and welfare of the college the Governing Body should be reconstituted. Accordingly steps were taken for the purpose. After receipt of the list of members from the Sub-Collector, Jajpur, the same was placed before the Government which after due consideration reconstituted the Governing Body as per the impugned letter Annexure-5. Regarding the constitutional validity of the impugned provision it has been pleaded in the counter affidavit that although Section 7-A of the Act dealt with supersession and reconstitution of the Governing Body, there is no provision enabling the Government to make any interim order prohibiting functioning of an erring Governing Body. Therefore, in order to protect the interest of the institution and to prevent further deterioration of management proviso to Sub-section (6) of Section 7 of the Act is available to be invoked. It has been asserted that the case in hand is the solitary occasion in which the power was invoked as an exceptional one. 4. Shri Mohapatra, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, raised the following contentions in support of the writ petition: (i) Proviso to Sub-section (6) of Section 7 of the Act is unguided unfettered and hence it suffers from the vice of arbitrariness; (ii) The Governing Body is constituted by the Directorate order dated ]5-3-1994 was entitled to remain in office till 14-3-1997 and before expiry of its term it cannot be displaced without giving an opportunity of hearing; (iii) The impugned decision of the Government is vulnerable as it was actuated by malice; and (iv) The erstwhile Governing Body having been displaced arbitrarily in violation of the principles of natural justice is entitled to be restituted to its original position. 5. 5. Regarding vires of the impugned provision, Shri Mohapatra submitted that the impugned proviso which came to be inserted by Orissa Act 13 of 1994 did not find mention in the draft bill. He produced before us a copy of the draft bill from which it prima facie appeared that the impugned proviso was not in existence. On our direction learned Additional Government Advocate produced before the Court on 12-3-1997 a copy of the Orissa Education (Amendment) Bill 1994 from which we found that the impugned proviso was very much In existence. Be that as it may for the sake of convenience, we may quote the relevant provision: Section 7. Managing Committee or Governing Body of the educational institution ' (1) x x x (2) x x x (3) x x x (4) x x x (5) x x x (6) x x x Provided that the State Government may reconstitute the Governing Body or the Managing Committee as the case may be not withstanding that the term of such Governing Body or Managing Committee has not expired and on such reconstitution the existing Managing Committee or Governing Body, as the case may be shall stand dissolved. A bare perusal of the aforesaid proviso would indicate that the State Government is competent to reconstitute the Governing Body/Managing Committee before expiry of its term. It was contended by Mr. Mohapatra that in the absence of any guideline the Government may arbitrarily invoke,the impugned provision and reconstitute the Governing Body/Managing Committee of an institution at its sweet will. Learned Additional Government Advocate by referring to the averments made in the counter affidavit submitted that it was the solitary occasion in which the power was invoked for reconstitution of the Governing Body of the College and merely because there was no guideline in exercise of the power it cannot the dubbed as arbitrary. 6. The contention of Shri Mohapatra cannot be lightly brushed aside but for the reasons indicated hereinafter it is not necessary for us to examine die constitutional validity of the impugned provision. The Governing Body as reconstituted as per the impugned Government letter No. 40293/HE. dated 15-3-1994 has been functioning since the date ?f its constitution and its term is going to expire very shortly. When this case was admitted on 4-6-1996. prayer, of the Petitioners for stay of' operation of the impugned letter was refused. 7. The Governing Body as reconstituted as per the impugned Government letter No. 40293/HE. dated 15-3-1994 has been functioning since the date ?f its constitution and its term is going to expire very shortly. When this case was admitted on 4-6-1996. prayer, of the Petitioners for stay of' operation of the impugned letter was refused. 7. The other three contentions may be taken up together for consideration. There is no dispute that the Governing Body constituted by Directorate order dated 15.3.1994 was entitled to remain in office till 14-3-1997, but before the due date it was displaced by another Governing Body which was formed as per the impugned Government letter. As the previous Governing Body had right to complete its full term, it could not have been displaced without giving an opportunity of hearing. Although there is force in the submission of Shri Mohapatra on this count, we are not inclined to quash the impugned Government letter as the term of the Governing Body constituted there under would expire very shortly. 8. For the reasons stated above, we dispose of this writ petition by directing' opposite parties 1 and 2 to reconstitute the Governing Body of the college in question according to law as early as possible. While doing so opposite parties 1 and 2 will take note of the claim of Petitioner No. 1 that as he was the diner founder-member of the college is entitled to be taken as one of the members of the new, Governing Body. R.K. Dash, J. 9. I agree. Writ petition disposed of.