Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 553 (ORI)

Ambika Girls High School v. State of Orissa

2007-07-18

P.K.TRIPATHY, R.N.BISWAL

body2007
ORDER :- Heard. 2. Annexures 10 and 11, the two orders leading to same consequence with respect to Ambika Girls High School at Kans under Nilgiri Police Station is under challenge. It reveals from Annexures 10 and 11 that the State Government took a policy decision to merge educational institution having inadequate student strength with nodal educational institutions of the like nature, i.e. High Schools and Colleges respectively. Consequent upon that decision as per order Annexure-11, schools as per list were directed to be merged with different education circle, and in paragraph 19 Ambika Girls High School, Kans was directed for merger with Ambika Girls High School, Durgapur. Both being aided educational institutions, Ambika Girls High School, Durgapur was recorded as adjacent Nodal School. 3. Sri Sanjay Kumar Barik, a member of the then Managing Committee of the Ambika Girls High School, Kans filed this writ application mentioning it to be on behalf of the Managing Committee. In the counter, opposite party/State denied to the status of the petitioner to represent the institution for the purpose to sue or to be sued. In the rejoinder though the petitioner has stated that minus the President and the Secretary of the Managing Committee, the other members of the Managing Committee passed a resolution authorizing the petitioner to represent the Managing Committee and the Institution, but no such document has been filed. Therefore, we find that the objection to the maintainability of the writ petition by the petitioner is well taken. 4. Notwithstanding the aforesaid circumstance, we consider the merit of the case on the basis of submission of Mr. M. K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner. Relying on the ratio in the case of The Managing Committee, Sharada Bihar High School v. State of Orissa, 1989 (II) OLR 401, petitioner argues that concept of merger of two aided educational institutions is not provided in the Act and in the event an educational institution falls short of the standard, it may be de-recognized and/or the grant-in-aid may be withdrawn respectively under Sections 6-B and 7-D of the Act. Mr. Rath, learned Standing Counsel for the Schools and Mass Education Department, on the other hand, argues that the action under Annexures-10 and 11 is a policy decision of the Government and it is not controlled by the provisions in the Orissa Education Act, 1969 (in short 'the Act'). Mr. Rath, learned Standing Counsel for the Schools and Mass Education Department, on the other hand, argues that the action under Annexures-10 and 11 is a policy decision of the Government and it is not controlled by the provisions in the Orissa Education Act, 1969 (in short 'the Act'). He also relies on the case of Renubala Patra v. State of Orissa, OJC 15976 of 2001, decided on 10-12-2001 by a Division Bench of this Court presided by Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Hon'ble Justice R. K. Patra, J. That is a non-reported decision and therefore a Xerox copy with attestation thereof has been filed as Annexure-A/3. 5. In the case of Sharada Bihar High School (supra), the action of the Government in merger of two non-aided private educational institutions was called in question and this Court held that when those educational institutions are not controlled or managed directly or indirectly by the Government, at best steps may be taken for withdrawal of recognition and not to pass an order of merger. In the case of Renubala Patra (supra) the same order under Annexure-11 with respect to another educational institution was under challenge and this Court held that:- "We find from Annexure-1 that the Government have taken note of all the relevant aspects while deciding for abolition or merger of the Schools in cases where the student strength had fallen very low or their number has become negligible. Considering the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that in passing Annexure-1 order, the Government had acted unfairly or against public interest. No doubt having a separate Girls' School in the area might have been desirable but that does not mean that the Government should not consider the viability of existence of a separate school especially in a village like the one in question. We cannot, therefore, say that there is arbitrary exercise of power by the Government in directing that the Girls' School be merged with the High School already existing in the village. This is all the more so since it is seen that the strength in the Girls' School has fallen below 50." 6. We cannot, therefore, say that there is arbitrary exercise of power by the Government in directing that the Girls' School be merged with the High School already existing in the village. This is all the more so since it is seen that the strength in the Girls' School has fallen below 50." 6. It is stated in the counter and learned Standing Counsel points out that Ambika Girls High School, Durgapur situates at a short distance of half a kilometer from Ambika Girls High School, Kans, that is a relevant factor to be considered while assessing the policy decision of the State Government. 7. Section 11 of the Act provides for pupils' strength sub-section (3) thereof is applicable to the present case, because the school situates in a scheduled area. It reads hereunder :- "11. Pupils strength - (1) and (2) xxx xxx xxx (3) In the case of High Schools, the minimum roll strength of pupils for each standard or class shall be forty which shall be twenty five if such schools are located in Scheduled Areas." 8. In the additional affidavit filed by the opposite parties it has been indicated that the roll strength of Ambika Girls High School, Kans was as follows :- Year Class-wise roll strength Total No. of students appeared in HSC examination. VIII IX X 1998-1999 15 23 14 52 08 1999-2000 15 23 14 52 12 2000-2001 11 23 13 47 08 Aforesaid facts and figures clearly establish that the roll strength was below the minimum provided in the above quoted sub-section (3) of Section 11. 9. The aided educational institution has the advantage of getting salary components of teaching and non-teaching staff from the Government funds. The policy decision taken by the Government for proper utilization of the Government funds spend as grant-in-aid by asking for merger cannot be termed to be unreasonable or illegal. On the other hand it is found beneficial to the educational environment and proper utilization of the Government funds as well as utilization of the teaching and non-teaching staff by giving them employment in other schools. 10. Section 6-B speaks of withdrawal of recognition and Section 7-D speaks of withdrawal of grant-in-aid. The order of merger, as in the present case, is beyond the aforesaid provisions because of the policy decision of the State. Withdrawal of grant-in-aid affects the teaching and non-teaching staff receiving the grant-in-aid. 10. Section 6-B speaks of withdrawal of recognition and Section 7-D speaks of withdrawal of grant-in-aid. The order of merger, as in the present case, is beyond the aforesaid provisions because of the policy decision of the State. Withdrawal of grant-in-aid affects the teaching and non-teaching staff receiving the grant-in-aid. Petitioner, who neither represents the Managing Committee nor the teaching and non-teaching staff, cannot advance a contention detrimental to the interest of the teaching and non-teaching staff without adding them as parties to the writ petition. For the reasons indicated above, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.