JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J. The seminal question that hinges for consideration of this Court is as to whether there is any concept of composite college in the Orissa Education Act, 1969 and the Orissa Education (Establishment, Recognition and Management of Private Colleges) Rules 1991? 2. Sans details, the case of the petitioner is that Abhimanyu Samanta Singhar College, Balia in the district of Jajpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘College’) was established in the year 1987. +2 Arts wing of the college got concurrence by the State Government from the academic session 1988-1989. +2 wing of the college got permanent recognition from the session 2003-2004. While the matter stood thus, +3 Arts wing was opened in the year 1991 by the same educational agency and got temporary recognition from the session 1990-1991. +3 Science wing got recognition from the session 2003-2004. Permanent recognition was granted to +3 Arts wing from the session 2003-2004 and Science stream from the session 2004-2005 respectively. +2 and +3 wings are running in one college campus and one building. One Governing Body has been managing the affairs of two wings. One Principal is managing the affairs of the college. The petitioner is at functioning as Principal-in-Charge and Secretary of the college. Thus, the college in question is a composite college. It is further stated that in the proceedings of four workshops organized by the Department of Higher Education in September 2009, a decision was taken for bifurcation of +2 and +3 wings, vide Annexure-4. Since the staffs were appointed basing upon the combined/composite workload, i.e., both +2 and +3, difficulties were experienced by various composite colleges that if the combined workload would not be taken into account, then some employees, who were appointed on the basis of the combined workload, will be declared surplus and debarred to receive Grant-in-Aid against +3 wing. In view of the same, when the bi-furcation process was not completed, the petitioner approached this Court earlier in W.P.(C) No.29881 of 2011 for verification of the combined workload as per para 9-C of the Grant-in-Aid Order of 1994 in respect of left out employees of +3 wing. The said writ application was disposed of on 28.11.2011 with a direction to the Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 6.7.2011. Till yet no such decision has been taken. The said writ application was disposed of on 28.11.2011 with a direction to the Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 6.7.2011. Till yet no such decision has been taken. In the meantime, +3 wing of the college has been notified to receive 40% block grant from the State Government. The appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff of +3 wing has been approved by the Director, Higher Education, Odisha-opposite party no.2 vide office order no.44762 dated 12.11.2012. It is further stated that the Regional Director of Education vide its letter no.16273 dated 24.8.2012 intimated the Principals of all the Colleges of the State where +2 and +3 wings are operating in the same campus to function amidst harmony and solidarity in every sphere as complete bi-furcation process has not yet been finalized at the Government level. A direction has been issued to the respective Principals of the composite colleges to extend mutual cooperation to achieve academic excellence of the institution with the available faculty members. While the matter stood thus, opposite party no.2 by its order dated 14.9.2012 intimated the Principal-in-Charge of + 2 wing to function as DDO in respect of +3 wing of the colleges until further orders and they were also requested to draw and disburse the salary of approved G.I.A. staff of + 3 wing. Though the petitioner’s college is running in one campus having both +2 and + 3 wings, the petitioner has not yet been given power of drawing and disbursing authority. It is further stated that the Sub-Collector-Cum-President of the Governing Body by its letter dated 1.9.2012, vide Annexure-8, intimated opposite party no.2 to consider the composite status of the college till bi-furcation process is completed at the Government level. But then opposite party no.2 while approving the staff position vide its office order dated 12.11.2012 intimated the Sub-Collector-cum-President of the Governing Body to recommend the name of the senior most approved teaching staff of + 3 wing for approval as Principal-in-Charge of the college. The same is contrary to law in view of the fact that though opposite party no.3 is the senior most approved teaching staff of + 3 wing, he is junior to the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed on 30.7.1987 whereas opposite party no.3 was appointed on 27.4.1992. The same is contrary to law in view of the fact that though opposite party no.3 is the senior most approved teaching staff of + 3 wing, he is junior to the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed on 30.7.1987 whereas opposite party no.3 was appointed on 27.4.1992. The petitioner has been functioning as Principal of the college in respect of +2 and + 3 wings. Apart from that for opening of +3 Arts, Science and Commerce stream, the petitioner has incurred a loan amount of rupees five lakhs and odd which has to be repaid before the process of bi-furcation is completed. With this factual scenario, the writ application has been filed for issuance of writ of mandamus to the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to function as DDO in respect of +3 wing of the college for the purpose of drawal and disbursement of salary in favour of the approved staff of +3 wing. 3. Pursuant to issuance of notice, a counter affidavit has been filed by opposite party no.2. The sum and substance of the case of opposite party no.2 is that the petitioner, being the senior most approved teaching staff of +2 Junior College, was allowed to function as Principal-in-Charge of the said Junior College with financial power to function as DDO with regard to +2 Junior College by order dated 28.6.2004, vide Annexure-9. +2 Junior College was admitted into Grant-in-Aid fold with effect from 2004 in terms of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 2004, vide Government Notification No.7732/HE, dated 20.2.2004. While the matter stood thus, +3 wing of the college was admitted into the Grant-in-Aid fold with effect from 20.1.2009 in terms of the Grant-in-Aid Order, 2008. Pursuant to the policy decision of the State Government for the year 2009, +2 and +3 aided colleges of the State were bi-furcated, for which +2 Junior Colleges and +3 Degree Colleges became separate institutions having individual identity. Thereafter opposite party no.2 used to approve separate Principals for + 2 Junior Colleges and + 3 Degree Colleges. The respective Governing Bodies have been requested to recommend the names of senior most approved teaching staff of +2 Junior Colleges and +3 Degree Colleges. Thereafter opposite party no.2 used to approve separate Principals for + 2 Junior Colleges and + 3 Degree Colleges. The respective Governing Bodies have been requested to recommend the names of senior most approved teaching staff of +2 Junior Colleges and +3 Degree Colleges. On the basis of the recommendation of the respective Governing Bodies, the senior most approved teaching staff of +2 Junior Colleges and + 3 Degree Colleges have been approved to function as Principal– in-Charge of +2 Junior Colleges and +3 Degree Colleges with financial power to function as DDO in respective colleges. The petitioner, who has been approved to work as Principal in-Charge of the +2 Junior College, is at present functioning as DDO in respect of said college. His claim to continue as DDO in respect of +3 Degree College is not justified since +3 Degree College is a separate institution having separate entity and identity. It is further stated that +3 Degree College was admitted into Grant-in-Aid fold by Government notification dated 20.1.2009. Thereafter, opposite party no.2 by its letter dated 12.11.2012 requested the President of the Governing Body of +3 Degree College to recommend the names of senior most approved teaching staff for approval as the Principal-in-Charge of +3 Degree College. Further by order dated 3.12.2012, this Court has passed an interim order directing opposite party no.2 to allow the petitioner to function as Principal-in-Charge with financial power of DDO with regard to the staff of +3 Degree Colleges. In obedience to the said order, the petitioner was allowed to function as Principal-in-Charge with financial power of DDO with regard to approved staff of +3 Degree College. It is further stated that petitioner, who has been approved as the Principal-in-Charge of +2 Junior College, is not entitled to function as the Principal-in-Charge of separate college i.e.,+3 Degree College. Opposite party no.3 has also filed a counter affidavit taking the similar stand to that of opposite party no.2. The petitioner has also filed a rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavits filed by opposite parties 2 and 3. 4. Heard Mr. K.K. Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for opposite party nos.1 and 2 as well as Mr. S.K. Das, learned Advocate on behalf of Miss. S. Ratho, learned Advocate for opposite party no.3. 5. Mr. 4. Heard Mr. K.K. Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for opposite party nos.1 and 2 as well as Mr. S.K. Das, learned Advocate on behalf of Miss. S. Ratho, learned Advocate for opposite party no.3. 5. Mr. Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the name of college is Abhimanyu Samanta Singhar College. The college in question is a composite college having +2 and +3 wings. The college is functioning in one campus and one building. The concept of composite college is contemplated in the Orissa Education Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), but the State Government without amending the law and basing on the workshops organized by the Higher Education Department have taken steps for bi-furcation of +2 and +3 wings. Till today the bifurcation process has not been completed. The petitioner, being the approved Principal-in-Charge of the college, is functioning as the Principal-cum-Secretary of the College. He is the senior most lecturer of the college and the DDO in respect of both +2 and +3 wings. In view of the fact that bifurcation process has not been completed, the petitioner, who is the approved Principal-in-Charge of the college, may be allowed to function as DDO of the said college. He further submitted that on a combined reading of Sections 5(2)(b) & 5(2)(c) and Section 6 (II) of the Act, a conclusion is irresistible that the concept of composite college is contemplated in the Act. Elaborating the submission, he submitted that +3 wing of the college was opened by the same educational agency and as such the institution had been upgraded. For all intents and purposes, the college is a composite college. 6. Per contra, Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate as well as Mr. Das, learned counsel for opposite party no.3 contended that there is no concept of composite college in the Act or the Orissa Education (Establishment, Recognition and Management of Private Colleges) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules’). 7. The subject matter of dispute is no more res-integra. An identical matter came up before this Court in the case of Governing Body of Dola Gobinda Braja Kishore Mohavidyalaya Vrs. State of Orissa and others (OJC No.1486 of 1994, disposed of on 7.8.1995). 7. The subject matter of dispute is no more res-integra. An identical matter came up before this Court in the case of Governing Body of Dola Gobinda Braja Kishore Mohavidyalaya Vrs. State of Orissa and others (OJC No.1486 of 1994, disposed of on 7.8.1995). Interpreting the provisions of the Act and the Rules, the Division Bench of this Court in paragraph-7 of the judgment held thus: “xxx xxx xxx On perusal of the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules, it is clear to us that under the scheme of things therein Junior Colleges/Higher Secondary Colleges and Degree colleges are to be managed as separate entities with separate governing body. The concept of a ‘composite college’ as stated by the petitioner does not appear to be contemplated under the Rules.” 8. In Governing Body of Ratanpur Science Degree College, represented through its Secretary Sri Purandar Biswal Vrs. State of Orissa and others, 2012 (Supp.-I) OLR-666, the learned Single Judge following the ratio laid down in Dola Gobinda Braja Kishore Mohavidyalaya (supra) came to hold that concept of composite college does not appear to be contemplated under the Rules. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the said judgment in Writ Appeal (Civil) No.570 of 2011 before a Division Bench of this Court, which was eventually dismissed. Thereafter, the matter was carried to apex Court. The S.L.P. was also dismissed. Dola Gobinda Braja Kishore Mohavidyalaya (supra) was followed in Anil Kumar Mohanty Vrs. State of Orissa and others (W.P.(C) No.8065 of 2013, disposed of on 9.2.2016) and the same view was taken. 9. It is apt to state here that in Governing Body, D.R. Nayapalli +2 College Vrs. State of Orissa and others and batch (OJC No.4581 of 1997 disposed of on 4.7.2003) and Jitindranath Das Vrs. State of Orissa and others (W.P.(C) No.3378 of 2010, disposed of on 18.10.2012), a contrary view was taken. 10. There is seeming contradiction between the decision in the cases of Dola Gobinda Braja Kishore Mohavidyalaya (supra), Governing Body of Ratanpur Science Degree College (supra) and Anil Kumar Mohanty (supra) and the decision in the cases of Governing Body, D.R. Nayapalli +2 College (supra) and Jitindranath Das (supra). 10. There is seeming contradiction between the decision in the cases of Dola Gobinda Braja Kishore Mohavidyalaya (supra), Governing Body of Ratanpur Science Degree College (supra) and Anil Kumar Mohanty (supra) and the decision in the cases of Governing Body, D.R. Nayapalli +2 College (supra) and Jitindranath Das (supra). The decision in the case of Dola Gobinda Braja Kishore Mohavidyalaya (supra) that the concept of composite college does not appear to be contemplated under the Rules, has not been brought to the notice of the Bench in the case of Governing Body, D.R. Nayapalli + 2 College (supra) and Jitindranath Das (supra). 11. Before proceeding, further it is apt to state here the concept of per incuriam. The Latin expression “per incuriam” literally means “through inadvertence”. In State of U.P. V. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd., (1991) 4 SCC 139 , the apex Court in paragraph-40 of the report held thus:- “40. ‘Incuria’ literally means ‘carelessness’. In practice per incuriam appears to mean per ignoratium. English courts have developed this principle in relaxation of the rule of stare decisis. The ‘quotable in law’ is avoided and ignored if it is rendered, in ignoratium of a statute or other binding authority.” 12. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the apex court in the case Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. (supra), this Court holds that judgment in the case of Governing Body, D.R. Nayapalli +2 College (supra) and Jitindranath Das (supra) are per incuriam. 13. The submission of Mr. Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner that since +3 wing of the college had been opened up by the same educational agency, the institution had been upgraded and that +2 and +3 wings are running in one campus and one building, an inference can be drawn that the college is a composite one. The submission is difficult to fathom. Opening higher classes, new streams new optional subjects, additional sections or increase the number of students to be admitted or introduce Honours Courses in new subjects in a recognised private educational institutions or up-gradation of the institution as envisaged under Section 5(2)(b) and Section 5(2)(c) cannot be construed to mean that the concept of composite college is contemplated in the Act. 14. In M/s. Bilkesh Parveen Vrs. State of Orissa and another, 2007 (I) OLR-133, upon which such reliance is placed by Mr. 14. In M/s. Bilkesh Parveen Vrs. State of Orissa and another, 2007 (I) OLR-133, upon which such reliance is placed by Mr. Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner, the question arose for approval of the appointment of the petitioner and payment of grant-in-aid. The judgment was delivered in different context. The same has no direct bearing to the facts of the present case. 15. The logical sequitur of the analysis made in the preceding paragraphs is that the concept of composite college does not appear to be contemplated under the Orissa Education Act, 1969 and the Orissa Education (Establishment, Recognition and Management of Private Colleges) Rules 1991. It is a misnomer. The writ petition, sans merit, is dismissed. No costs.