ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner, who is the out-going Managing Committee of Gram Panchayat High School, Andola in the district of Bhadrak, has challenged the constitution of the Managing Committee of the said school and consequent appeal pursuant to the order of the Director Secondary Education, Orissa dated 4-6-2010 (Annexure-11). The petitioner has also prayed for a direction for approval of the constitution of the Managing Committee as proposed by the petitioner under Annexures-5, 6 series and 7 series. 2. The facts leading to the present writ petition are as follows: The Grama Panchayat High School, Andola in the district of Bhadrak was established in the year 1997 as per the provisions of the Orissa Education Act and Rules made thereunder (hereinafter referred to as the Act and Rules respectively). The recognition of the school was accorded by the prescribed authority on 7-1-2010. The Board of Secondary Education, Orissa has also granted recognition to the school to present its students in the High School Certificate Examination from the academic session 2004-2005. Since the school is the first school under Basudevpur Block in the district of Bhadrak, the school received Block Grant from the Government after Grant-in-Aid Order, 2004. However, the school has not yet received grant-in-aid. After establishment of the school, the educational agency which was registered under the Societies Registration Act constituted a Managing Committee to manage the affairs of the school as per the prescribed Rules. The petitioner is the so called Secretary of the Managing Committee of the School, represented by Sri Muralidhar Nayak and one Ratnakar Barik is the President of the Managing Committee. It also reveals from the Annexure-3, the Office Order No. 1245 dated 7-1-2000, that temporary recognition has been accorded to the school for the academic session 1999-2000 on fulfillment of the following conditions: (i) Acquisition of land a site not less than Ac. 3.00 where the school building is situated; (ii) Construction of fire proof building; (iii) M. C. duly approved by the competent authority. (iv) Required number of trained and qualified teacher is to be appointed. (v) The school must have a play ground. It further reveals from the record that a General Body meeting was held on 22-11-2003. 3.00 where the school building is situated; (ii) Construction of fire proof building; (iii) M. C. duly approved by the competent authority. (iv) Required number of trained and qualified teacher is to be appointed. (v) The school must have a play ground. It further reveals from the record that a General Body meeting was held on 22-11-2003. In the said meeting, it was resolved to approve the name of the members of the Managing Committee and the date was fixed to 5-12-2003 to elect the Secretary and President of the said Managing Committee. Accordingly, the names of the members of the Managing Committee have been sent for approval of the prescribed authority. The prescribed authority has not taken any action for approval of the said Managing Committee and after completion of 3 years again another resolution was passed on 25-10-2006 requesting the Director to approve the constitution of the Managing Committee and the said resolution was also communicated to the Inspector of Schools, Bhadrak. Likewise, on 20-11-2009 again the Managing Committee was constituted and proposal was sent to the prescribed authority for approval. While the matter stood thus, the Inspector of Schools, Bhadrak Circle in his letter dated 24-2-2010 (Annexure-8) directed the Headmaster of the neighbouring High School i.e., R. D. High School Jaykrushnapur for submission of panel of names for reconstitution of the Managing Committee of the school in question, which is impugned in the present writ petition. The petitioner filed their objection before the prescribed authority on such illegal action of the Inspector of Schools to avoid further complicacy vide letter No. 100 dated 24-4-2010 (Annexure-9) and during pendency of such objection, the Managing Committee of the school was constituted and approved by the Director, Secondary Education vide order dated 4-6-2010 (Annexure-11), which is impugned in the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Rule 25 of the 1991 Rules, procedure has been prescribed for constitution of the Managing Committee. Accordingly after the establishment of the School, the educational agency constituted a Managing Committee for management of the institution and they have sent the proposal along with the name of the Members of the Managing Committee for approval of the competent authority from time to time even after the expiry of the terms of the out-going Managing Committee. Accordingly after the establishment of the School, the educational agency constituted a Managing Committee for management of the institution and they have sent the proposal along with the name of the Members of the Managing Committee for approval of the competent authority from time to time even after the expiry of the terms of the out-going Managing Committee. However the completent authority without taking steps for approval of the Managing Committee has ignored the proposal of the educational agency and the further resolution of the Managing Committee regarding its reconstitution. Therefore, under the rules, there is no provision prescribed that the Inspector of Schools will take step to reconstitute the Managing Committee. Therefore, constitution of the Managing Committee of the school and its approval dated 4-6-2010 (Annexure-11) is illegal and liable to be interfered with. 4. The opposite party No. 5 being the Secretary of the approved Managing Committee filed a counter affidavit stating therein that in the year 2006 the Inspector of Schools directed the S. I. of Schools for submission of panel of names for constitution of the Managing Committee as the previous Managing Committee failed to pass a proposal after completion of its terms. In the meantime, due to differences fighting between the members of the earlier Managing Committee, the administration of the school has ruined. The Headmaster has lodged an F. I. R. for theft of all the school records etc. and charges-sheet has already been filed against ex-President of the Managing Committee in G. R. Case No. 81 of 2008. When on repeated request the Managing Committee failed to reconstitute the Managing Committee after expiry of its term, the Inspector of Schools, Bhadrak Circle directed the Headmaster of the neighbouring High School to constitute the Managing Committee as per the statutory provision. Consequently, the Managing Committee was reconstituted and it was approved since 4-6-2010 and functioning smoothly without any objection whatsoever from the date of approval and the said Managing Committee was constituted after giving notice for a public meeting for re-constitution of the Managing Committee of the School and the Headmaster of the neighbouring school was appointed as observer of the said meeting. Thereafter, the members of the Managing Committee elected its President and Secretary of the Managing Committee. Thereafter, the members of the Managing Committee elected its President and Secretary of the Managing Committee. Since, there was no valid Managing Committee of the school from the year 2007 and the so called Managing Committee had not been approved by the prescribed authorities since 2007, it cannot be said that the Managing Committee will continue for an indefinite period ignoring the statutory provision regarding the term of the Managing Committee which is only three years. An additional counter affidavit has also been filed by the said opposite party No. 5 on 14-2-2012 stating therein that the recognition granted by the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa to present its student to appear in the examination for the academic sessions 2007-08, 2008-09-10 reveals that there was no Managing Committee of the School. Therefore, when there is no allegation against the present Managing Committee, the same need not be quashed. 5. Considering the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, it appears that the school received temporary recognition for the academic session 1999-2000 with a condition that the Managing Committee is to be approved by the competent authority. Thereafter nothing has been revealed from the record that at no point of time the Managing Committee of the School has been approved by the prescribed authorities. 6. From the Orissa Education (Establishment, Recognition and Management of Private High Schools) Rules, 1991 it appears that under Rule-13 the application for grant of recognition under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act shall be made to the prescribed authority in Form-II indicating the particulars of the Managing Committee constituted for management of the institutions in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Sub-section (2) of Section 13 states that every application for recognition shall be accompanied by the following documents namely: (a) an attested or photostat copy of the letter granting permission to establish the school. (b) a site plan of the School; (c) a sketch plan of the area of the Grama Panchayat or the Urban area with the location of the School. (b) a site plan of the School; (c) a sketch plan of the area of the Grama Panchayat or the Urban area with the location of the School. (d) a ground plan of the building showing the standards accommodated in each room; (e) copies of the documents providing title of the Managing Committee of the School over the site; (f) a document proving that the required fixed deposit has been made by the Educational Agency in the name of the school and pledged in favour of the concerned Inspector of Schools; (g) a statement in Form No. III giving the details of Managing Committee; (h) particulars of the Teachers appointed in the School; and (i) a statement showing extent of fulfilment of the conditions stipulated in the order granting permission under Section 5; (j) an affidavit attesting that all information furnished in the application and the statements appended to the application are true or correct to the best of the knowledge of the deponent; and (k) an undertaking that the institution has adequate financial resource to meet the salary and other cost of the educational institution and that it shall not claim grant-in-aid from State Government as required in sub-section (2) of Section 6-A. 7. In the present case, as stated above, the prescribed authority while granting recognition has stipulated a condition that the Managing Committee has to be approved by the prescribed authority and after 2000 on- wards no document has been filed either by the petitioner or any of the opposite parties to show that the Managing Committee, which has been approved by the authorities has completed its full term and before the expiry of the said terms have passed a resolution regarding reconstitution of the Managing Committee as prescribed under Rule 27. Further a school must have a Managing Committee for proper management of its affairs and to look after the interest of the student and to provide them education and a school will not run without a Managing Committee. Therefore, rightly the opposite parties have taken step to constitute a Managing Committee. Admittedly, the present Managing Committee was constituted as per the Rules and it was approved by the prescribed authority pursuant to the order dated 4-6-2010 (Annexure-11) and since the approved Managing Committee is functioning since 2010 smoothly without any objection, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. 8. Admittedly, the present Managing Committee was constituted as per the Rules and it was approved by the prescribed authority pursuant to the order dated 4-6-2010 (Annexure-11) and since the approved Managing Committee is functioning since 2010 smoothly without any objection, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. 8. The petitioner though has stated in the writ petition that the out-going Managing Committee have sent a resolution for approval of the Managing Committee from time to time i.e., 3 years intermittedly but the prescribed authority has not approved such Managing Committee. The petitioner sat over the matter without pursuing the same, which amounts to rejection of the proposal by the prescribed authority. That apart, the petitioner has also not challenged the inaction of the authorities regarding acceptance of its proposal before any forum. Therefore, on the ground of delay also, this Court is not inclined to entertain the grievance of the petitioner. Accordingly the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No cost. Petition dismissed.