Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 38 (ORI)

Chandrasekhar Samantaray v. State of Orissa

2006-01-24

P.K.MOHANTY, R.N.BISWAL

body2006
JUDGMENT R. N. BISWAL, J. : In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 1.6.2005 passed by Opp.party No.3 in Review petition No.1 of 2005 confirming the order dated 9.3.2005 passed by Opp.party No.4 in cancelling the School Committee of Adhanga Primary School, Adhanga under Kendrapara district. As per the case of petitioner, pursuant to Orissa School Education (Community Participation) Rules, 2000 (herein after referred to as 2000 Rules) a School Committee was formed in respect of Adhan¬ga Primary School on 7.1.2002. After completion of its term of three years, notice was issued on 8.1.2005 by Opp.party No.6 for holding a Parent Teacher Association (here-in-after called as ‘PTA’) meeting on 13.1.2005 at 2.00 P.M. in the school premises. All the members of the PTA attended the meeting on the date fixed and elected the petitioner as President of the School Committee along with 7 others as its members. The Headmaster is the ex-officio member-Secretary. The resolution was sent to Opp.party No.4 for his approval; however the Opp.party No.5 approved the same on 27.1.2005. Pursuant to the approval of the School Commit¬tee the petitioner as the President of the said Committee and Opp.party No.6 the Headmaster of the school entered into an agreement with the District Project Co-ordinator for construc¬tion of the school building. While the matter stood thus, Opp.party No.4 suddenly issued a letter to Opp.party No.5 cancel¬ling the said School Committee and directing him to form a new committee by 31.3.2005, which is against the principle of natural justice and the provision contained under the 2000 Rules. The petitioner challenged the order passed by Opp. party No.4 before this Court in W.P. (C) No. 3567 of 2005 wherein while disposing of the said W.P. (C) No. 28.3.2005 it was observed that in the event the petitioner filed a review application before the Col¬lector concerned with a week, the same would be considered by the Collector in accordance with law on its own merit and a decision taken in the mater within four weeks from the date of receipt of the review application. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a review petition before the Collector, Kendrapara (Opp.party No.3) and since it was dismissed on 1.6.2005, again he preferred this Writ petition. 2. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a review petition before the Collector, Kendrapara (Opp.party No.3) and since it was dismissed on 1.6.2005, again he preferred this Writ petition. 2. In the counter affidavit Opp.party No.4 averred that on 8.1.2005, Opp.party No.6 issued notice to 39 members of PTA and to Alekh Chandra MIshra, the Headmaster of R.D.M. Girls U.P. School of whom only 32 were served with the same. The total roll strength of the school as on 8.1.2005 being 64, notice ought to have been served on all of them. Opp.party No.6 neither prepared the list of members of P.T.A. in form No.1 nor issued the above notice to them in form No.II as per the aforesaid Rules. The P.T.A. meeting was presided over by one Ratnakar Patra, a student guardian instead of the Headmaster of the nearby U.P. School as required under rules. Similarly, the Ward Member of the locality where the school situates ought to have been taken as member of the School Committee but it has not been done. The concerned S.I. of schools ought to have approved formation of the School Commit¬tee, but he denied to have approved it. Since the Opp.party No.6 did not follow the Govt. guidelines in forming the school Commit¬tee, Opp.party No.4 was compelled to cancel it. Hence he prayed to reject the writ petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that after the School Committee was approved by the Inspector of Schools, a right accrued in favour of the members thereof to continue as such till expiry of its term. So, before cancelling the School Committee, the D.I. of Schools (Opp.party No.4) ought to have issued notice to them to file their show-cause in the matter. Since it has not been done, the order of cancellation of the School Committee as passed by opp.party No.4 and confirmed by the Collector (Opp.party No.3) is liable to be set-aside. She further submitted that as per Sub-rule (5), Rule-11 of the 2000 Rules, the S.I. of Schools is the prescribed authority to cancel the School Committee of a Primary School on receiving complaint from Member-Secretary (the Headmaster of the School) that the School Committee became a non-functional and did not evince any interest in the development of the school for six months.The school in question being a Primary School, the D.I. of Schools has no authority to cancel the School Committee. As against this, learned Standing Counsel contended that the S.I. of Schools did not approve the School Committee, but while visiting the school, he signed different records including the resolution in question in a routine manner. So it cannot be said that he approved it.Since the School Committee was not approved in the eye of law, no right accrued in favour of the members thereof so as to be heard before cancellation of the Committee. He further contended that as per Rule 10 (ii) of the 2000 Rules, Ward Member/Councilor of any of the wards concerned of the Gram Panchayat/NAC/Munici¬pality in which the school is established should be taken as a member of the School Committee, but in the case at hand the concerned ward member has been ignored. Again as required under Rule 11(3) of the said Rules, one of the Headmasters of the neighbouring schools should preside over the meeting. In the present case even though the headmaster of a neighbouring school was present he was not asked to preside over the meeting. On the other hand, one Ratnakar Patra who is not eligible to be the President, presided over it.The president of the School Committee ought to have been elected/selected in a subsequent meeting. But in the case at hand he was selected/elected on the very date on which the other members of the School Committee were selected/elected. As envisaged under Rule 14 of the 2000 Rules in case of any dispute in the approval and functioning of the School Committee of a Primary School the D.I. of Schools is the appel¬late authority. In the case at hand since the very formation of the School Committee was challenged by guardians of some of the students before the D.I., he called for a report from the con¬cerned S.I. of Schools and on being satisfied with the report submitted, cancelled the School Committee rightly. 4. Admittedly, the Ward Member concerned has not been made a member of the School Committee. The Headmaster of the neigh¬bouring school even though was present in the PTA meeting was not asked to preside over it. Rule 11(3) of the 2000 Rules requires that the resolution of the meeting reflecting the names of the members of the School Committee shall be submitted to the S.I of the Schools for approval. The Headmaster of the neigh¬bouring school even though was present in the PTA meeting was not asked to preside over it. Rule 11(3) of the 2000 Rules requires that the resolution of the meeting reflecting the names of the members of the School Committee shall be submitted to the S.I of the Schools for approval. In the present case as found from the writ petition the resolution was sent to the D.I. of Schools instead of the S.I. of the Schools but the latter approved it. As reported by the S.I. of Schools he did not approve the School Committee. Again as per the said rule the President of the School Committee ought to have been elected/selected from among the School Committee members on a date subsequent to the date of election of the members.But in the present case the members of the School Committee and the President were elected/selected by the members of P.T.A. on the same date.Admittedly, some of the members of the PTA were not noticed to participate in the elec¬tion/selection of the members of the School Committee. So the School Committee was not constituted as per the 2000 rules. While visiting the school in question Opp.Party No.5 casually signed some records including the resolution forming the School Commit¬tee. So the Committee presumed that it was approved and accord¬ingly the President thereof entered into agreement with the District Project Co-ordinator for construction of a building for which Rs.2,00,000/- had been sanctioned. As found from Annexure-G/4, guardians of some of the students challenged the formation of the School Committee before the D.I. (opp.Party No.4), on receipt of which he called for a report from Opp.Party No.5 and being satisfied that the School committee was not formed and approved in accordance with law he cancelled it, which has been confirmed by the Collector. Since the School Committee was not formed and approved in accordance with rules, no right accrued in favour of the members including the president thereof to be heard before cancellation of the Committee. Under the facts and circum¬stances of the case it cannot also be held that opp.party No.4 had no power to cancel the School Committee. In view of the discussions made above, we do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly the same stands dis¬missed. P. K. MOHANTY, J. I agree. Petition dismissed.