JUDGMENT P.Patnaik, J. - In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing of the order passed by the opposite party no.2 vide Annexure-13 and further prayer is to direct the opposite parties, more particularly, the opposite party no.2 to extend the financial benefits as per the scheme in favour of the petitioner's institution and to allow the fund to be released in favour of the petitioner's institution for construction of boundary wall and hostels as has been sanctioned and released by the Central Government as the petitioner's institution is existing for the last 12 years and further the petitioner has prayed for direction to the opposite parties not to allow any EMRS to be established under Bisoi Block and not to release any fund in favour of any such institution since the petitioner's institution is a permitted and recognized institution functioning under Bisoi Block for the last 12 years and since one such type of institution is to be established in one Block. 2. The factual matrix in a nut shell is that the Central Government decided to establish Ekalabya Model Residential School (in short, 'EMRS') for ST students in the light of Jawahar Nabodaya Vidyalaya, Kasturaba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya and Kendriya Vidyalaya and accordingly they are to be set up in the States and Union Territories under the provisions of Article 275 (1) of the Constitution of India. The objective of Ekalabya Model Residential School is to provide quality education to the ST students in middle and high level in the remote areas in order to enable them to avail reservation in high and professional educational courses and jobs in Government, public sector and private sectors and also to have access to the best opportunities in education at par with the Non ST Population areas. As per the Scheme, EMRS are to be established in the Middle and Secondary Classes, i.e., Class-VI to Class-X and Higher Secondary Classes, i.e., for Class-IX and XII. The EMRS are to be affiliated either to the State or the Central Board of Secondary Education as desired fit by the State Government/Union Territory Administration. 3. In pursuance of the aforesaid scheme, the Managing Committee is to be constituted for each EMRS. The EMRS are to be affiliated either to the State or the Central Board of Secondary Education as desired fit by the State Government/Union Territory Administration. 3. In pursuance of the aforesaid scheme, the Managing Committee is to be constituted for each EMRS. As per the above scheme, the petitioner's Managing Committee set up one EMRS in the thickly populated ST area at Rengalbeda under Badamunda Gram Panchayat of Bisoi Block in the district of Mayurbhanj. The school was established in the year 2002 and as the permission by the competent educational authorities were not issued, the school was presenting the students to appear the High School Certificate Examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education Orissa under the correspondence courses since 2002. In order to avoid such difficulties, the President Zilla Parishad in its letter dated 11.04.2008 requested the Director, Secondary Education, Orissa for according permission in favour of the petitioner's school as evident from Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Opp.party no.3 in its letter dated 28.07.2009 granted its permission in favour of the petitioner's institution from the academic session 2008-09 vide Annexure-2. The application of recognition filed by the petitioner's insitutiton was considered by the Director, Secondary Education Orissa and a query was made in its letter no.31578 dated 14.08.2009 addressed to the Inspector of Schools to submit a report for grant of recognition in faovur of the petitioner's institution and accordingly the Inspector of Schools in its letter dated 23.09.2009 recommended for grant of recognition from the session 2008 as evident from Annexure-3 and 4 respectively. Opp.party no.3 extended its temporary recognition in accordance with sub-section (9) of Section 6 of the Orissa Education Act,1969 in favour of the institution vide letter dated 2367 dated 13.01.2011 and the Board of Secondary Education Orissa extended its recognition vide letter no.1195 dated 03.08.2012 as per Annexure-5 and 6 respectively. The Director, Secondary Education Orissa extended its temporary recognition in accordance with sub-section (9) of Section 6 of the Orissa Education Act,1969 in favour of the institution vide letter no.2367 dated 13.01.2011. The Inspector of Schools in its letter dated 06.02.2013 has extended its recognition to the hostel attached to the school in which the name of the petitioner's school finds place at sl. No.17 as evident from Annexure-7 to the writ petition. The Inspector of Schools in its letter dated 06.02.2013 has extended its recognition to the hostel attached to the school in which the name of the petitioner's school finds place at sl. No.17 as evident from Annexure-7 to the writ petition. It has also been averred that the State Government has allowed the land measuring an area of Ac.10.00 for construction of the residential school building on which the school building is functioning. While the school was so continuing steps are being taken by opposite party no.4 for extending financial help for construction of boundary wall of new Eklabya Model Residential School at Bhatachatra under Biosi Block of Mayurbhanj District ignoring the legitimate claim of the petitioner for which recommendations have been made by the Hon'ble Minister, Tribal Welfare as evident from Annexures-8 and 9 to the writ petition. Further it has also been averred that the petitioner's school has got permission, recognition and has been continuing and functioning from 2002. In the event the new school is permitted to be established, it will not only create unhealthy competition, but also would affect the existence and functioning of the petitioner's school. It is submitted that when the application and proposal of the petitioner's institution for extending all benefit as provided by the Central Government to the EMRS having been duly recommended by the competent authority is pending with authorities, not extending such benefit to the petitioner's institution and extending the same to a new school, which is yet to be established is arbitrary, whimsical and therefore, needs the interference of this Court. The petitioner's institution has also made a representation to the opposite party no.2 vide Annexure-11.Being aggrieved by the non response to the representation, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.11090 of 2013 and the said writ petition was disposed of on 31.01.2014 with direction to the opposite party no.2 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 12.12.2013 within a period of four weeks and till a decision is taken on the representation of the petitioner, funds shall not be disbursed to any of the new institutions as evident from Annexure-12 to the writ petition. The petitioner filed a Misc. The petitioner filed a Misc. Case No.4011 of 2014 in the disposed of writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.11090 of 2013 and the matter was listed for orders on 11.03.2014 and on the request made by the State opposite parties, the matter was directed to be placed on 26.3.2014 and while the above misc. case was pending, an office order was passed by the opposite party no.2 on 24.03.2014 vide Annexure-13. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order under Annexure-13, the aforesaid writ petition has been filed by invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Mr. J.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted with vehemence that the impugned order under Annexure-13 has been passed bereft of proper appreciation facts and law. Since the petitioner's institution is functioning within the State of Orissa and the petitioner's institution has been permitted and recognized to be established and has been affiliated to Board of Secondary Education, Orissa the view taken by the opposite party no.2 that all Ekalabya Model Residential Schools established by Orissa Model Tribal Education Society (in short, "OMTES") are to be affiliated to CBSE for secondary classes and the medium of instruction is English, is incorrect and contrary to the guideline as issued on 14.12.2009 under Annexure-14 to the writ petition. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the plea taken by opposite party no.2 that since the petitioner's institution is affiliated to the Board of Secondary Education Orissa, therefore, it is not to be given the benefit of the funds meant for EMRS and the same is incorrect in view of the guideline issued by the State Government. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the petitioner's institution is existing for the last 12 years. At this juncture establishing a school within 8 Km from the present school would not only be detrimental to the present school but also would create undue conflict between the two institutions and as well as the pupil of the locality. Further learned Senior Counsel submits that the statement made by opposite party no.2 in paragraph-7 of the order is absolutely misconceived and misleading one. When the petitioner's institution is continuing with the approval of the State Government, there is no cogent reasons as to why proposal for EMRS Bhatachatra was sent by the authorities for the approval of the Central Government. When the petitioner's institution is continuing with the approval of the State Government, there is no cogent reasons as to why proposal for EMRS Bhatachatra was sent by the authorities for the approval of the Central Government. Therefore, the order passed by the opposite party no.2 is neither sustainable nor tenable in the eye of law. 5. Controverting averments made in the writ petition, the counter affidavit has been filed by opposite party nos.2 & 4 wherein it has been submitted that the Ekalavya Model Residential Schools (EMRS) were set up to provide quality education to tribal students under Article 275(1) of the Constitution of India. As per the guidelines of Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Govt. of India, the registered education society of the State Government and the Union Territory Administration are to be engaged to set up EMRS. Accordingly, Odisha Govt. in ST & SC Development Department has formed a registered society namely, Odisha Model Residential Tribunal Education Society (OMTES) for the purpose as per Annexure-A/2. Further it has been submitted that the School started by the private management committee of the petitioner was set up in 2002 on their own cost without seeking prior permission from OMTES, under the administrative control of ST & SC Development Department, Govt. of Odisha. This is in clear violation of the guidelines issue by the Ministry of Tribunal Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi. The plea taken by the petitioner in the aforesaid para is not in consonance with the guidelines formed by Govt. of India as per letter dated 28.09.2010 regarding revised guidelines at Annexure-B/2. It has been further submitted that after due approval of site for construction of new EMRS by Govt. of India under the provision of Article 275 (1) of Constitution, the boundary wall at new EMRS, Bhatachhatra, Rairangpur in the district of Mayurbhanj has been started. Further it has been submitted that to provide quality and higher education to the tribal students in the scheduled area, Govt. in ST & SC Development Department have proposed for establishment of 118 numbers of EMRS in 118 numbers of tribal sub plan block. Accordingly, necessary proposals have been submitted to Ministry of Tribunal Affairs (MOTA) for their kind concurrence. In the meantime, Govt. of India have already approved 16 nos. of EMRS in the scheduled block of State of Odisha including EMRS at Bhatachhatra in Mayurbhanj District. Accordingly, necessary proposals have been submitted to Ministry of Tribunal Affairs (MOTA) for their kind concurrence. In the meantime, Govt. of India have already approved 16 nos. of EMRS in the scheduled block of State of Odisha including EMRS at Bhatachhatra in Mayurbhanj District. Funds have been released for construction of boundary wall at EMRS at Bhatachhatra. The plea taken by the petitioner to extend the benefits to this existing school is not consistent with the guidelines of MoTA, so the question of benefits as desired by the petitioner does not arise. Since all EMRS have been set up by OMTES after funds sanctioned under Article 275(1) of the Constitution of India, under no circumstance a privately initiated school can be taken over as EMRS. Further it has been submitted that all EMRS established by OMTES have been affiliated by CHSE for secondary classes and medium of instruction is English as per guideline issued by Govt. of India. This has also been approved by the Board of Governors of OMTES held on 16.11.2010, Xerox copy of the proceedings of the 16th meeting of the Board of Governors of Orissa Model Tribunal Educational Society held on 16.11.2010 has been filed by Annexure-D/2. 6. Controverting averments made in the writ petition, the counter affidavit has been filed by opposite party no.5 wherein it has been submitted that the selection of location for construction of EMRSs is made by the State Government and the Central Government sanctions funds to the State as per the provisions of the Guidelines in vogue. In the state of Odisha, a total of 21 EMRSs have been sanctioned so far. Out of which, 13 EMRSs are functional and the remaining are under various stages of construction. Five EMRSs have been sanctioned only this year and their locations have not yet been intimated by the State Governments. Two EMRSs have been sanctioned in the Mayurbhanj District of Odisa State. Out of which, one EMRs at Dhanghera is already functional and the other one at Rairangpur Sub-Division, which was sanctioned during 2012-13 is under construction. The petitioner's institution is a private institution and has nothing to do with the EMRs scheme administered by the Central Government. The petitioner's School was never sanctioned by the Central Government. Nor did the Ministry sanction any fund in favour of the petitioner for construction of the school in question. The petitioner's institution is a private institution and has nothing to do with the EMRs scheme administered by the Central Government. The petitioner's School was never sanctioned by the Central Government. Nor did the Ministry sanction any fund in favour of the petitioner for construction of the school in question. As per guidelines, there is no obligation on the part of the respondents to provide funds to the privately managed institutions mandatorily. There is also no inhibition per se for construction of any new institutions in the vicinity of the petitioner's institution. The Government is committed for educational development of tribal's across the country. In the Government run EMRSs, only tribal students are enrolled and all facilities including boarding, lodging etc are provided free of cost. So far as sanction of EMRs at Rairangpur SubDivision is concerned, it is submitted that a specific request was made by the then Minister in charge of ST & SC Development, Minorities & backward classes Welfare, Odisha State vide his D.O. letter dated 23.3.2012 (annexed as Annexure-B), wherein it was stated that "Mayurbhanj District of Odisha which happens to be the largest district of Odisha with 26 blocks and more than 13 lakhs tribal population. Only 1 EMRS at Dhanghera of Mayurbhanj District has been found to be insufficient to cater to the requirements and demands in Mayurbhanj District. There is a requirement of EMRS for the more backward sub-divisions of Mayurbhanj like Rairangpur and Karanjia". Keeping in view the specific request made the Minister in-charge, the sanction of the Ministry was issued vide letter dated 12/15.10.2012 for construction of an EMRS at Rairangpur (annexed as Annexure-C). It has been further submitted that the petitioner's School is not covered under the EMRS Scheme of Central Government and thus is not entitled for any automatic benefit under the Scheme. 7. Rejoinder of the petitioner to the counter affidavit filed by opposite party nos.2 and 4 wherein it has been submitted that according to the scheme, no prior permission is required to be obtained from OMTES. Prior permission to establish an institution is required to be obtained from the Education Department and accordingly in the year 2008 permission was granted in favour of the petitioner's institution vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The petitioner school has been presenting students in the HSC Examination. Prior permission to establish an institution is required to be obtained from the Education Department and accordingly in the year 2008 permission was granted in favour of the petitioner's institution vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The petitioner school has been presenting students in the HSC Examination. The petitioner-school is also recognized by the educational authorities as an existing EMRS at Rengalbeda in the district of Mayurbhanj. After the permission to establish the institution was received, they are to apply for recognition and after the institution got recognition they have to apply for the affiliation from the concerned Board of the State Government or Central Government. 8. Rejoinder of the petitioner to the counter affidavit filed by opposite party no.5 wherein it has been submitted that the petitioner's institution is entitled to get such benefits as it is the only institution in the Block which is functioning since 2002. But instead of extending and releasing such benefit in favour of the petitioner's institution as the authorities have shown the petitioner's institution step motherly attitude and wanted to provide such benefit to an imaginary institution, therefore, wrong has been committed and the petitioner's institution has been discriminated. 9. Mr.Y.S.P. Babu, learned Additional Government Advocate on behalf of the State, apart from reiterating the submission made in the counter affidavit has stoutly defended, the impugned order under Annexure-13. Learned Additional Government Advocate on behalf of the State has vociferously submitted that the impugned order under Annexure-13 has been passed by cogent and justifiable reasons. Therefore there is absolutely no infirmity or illegality to warrant interference. 10. Mr. M.K. Badu, learned Central Government Counsel by referring to various paragraphs of the counter affidavit has assiduously supported the action of the Central Government. 11. Mr. G.N. Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party nos.6 to 8 however, has defended the decision of the State Government vide Annexure- 13. Learned counsel for opposite party nos.6 to 8 further submits that because of the interim order passed on 21.04.2014 the interest of opposite party no.6 to 8 have been adversely affected. 12. 11. Mr. G.N. Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party nos.6 to 8 however, has defended the decision of the State Government vide Annexure- 13. Learned counsel for opposite party nos.6 to 8 further submits that because of the interim order passed on 21.04.2014 the interest of opposite party no.6 to 8 have been adversely affected. 12. After hearing for the respective parties and on perusal of the records, there is absolutely no doubt or debate that the Article 275(1) of the Constitution of India confers power on the Central Government for site selection for construction of EMRS which has been done by the Government of India , thereafter funds have been sanctioned. In the instant case, the petitioner's institution has been functioning since 2002 have obtained permission and recognition and the students of the schools have also appeared the annual H.S.C. Examination. 13. After approval of Government of India, the EMRS has been established in the State as per the revised guideline issued by the Government of India, the MOTA has released the funds under the Article 275(1) of Constitution of India in favour of the Secretary, OMTES and since the funds have been released for construction of boundary wall of EMRS at Bhatachhatra, this Court is not inclined to tinker with the impugned order under Annexure-13, since this Court is of the considered view that Annexure-13 is not fraught with illegality or impropriety or irrationality so as to warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition sans merits is dismissed. However, dismissal of the writ petition will not preclude the petitioner to agitate the matter before the appropriate authorities.