Orissa High Court
Governing Body Of Balasore vs State Of Odisha And Others on 1 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P. (C) No. 23983 of 2021
Governing Body of Balasore .... Petitioner
Law College
Mr. D.N. Rath, Adv.
-Versus -
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
ORDER
01.10.2021
Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to
quash the order dated 23.06.2021 under Annexure-14, by
which the A.D.M., Balasore has been appointed as Special
Officer of the Balasore Law College as an interim measure in
order to exercise the administrative and financial powers of
the governing body of the college until further orders or till
the reconstitution of the governing body of the College as per
Rule, and also the order dated 30.07.2021 passed by opposite
party no.3 under Annexure-16, by which the recommendation
made by the outgoing governing body for reconstitution of the
governing body has been rejected.
3. Mr. D.N. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that the outgoing governing body of the Balasore
Law College passed resolution prior to expiry of 90 days in
terms of the provisions contained in Rule-23 of the Orissa
Education (Establishment, Recognition and Management of
Private Colleges) Rules, 1991 for reconstitution of the
governing body by recommending certain names on
29.03.2019 under Annexure-5 series for approval. But the
same was not acted upon for some reasons or other and in the
meantime Rules have been amended and, as such, the same
have come into force on 01.09.2020 vide Annexure-10. After
the amendment of the Rules, the outgoing governing body,
which had lost its tenure, recommended some names on
20.10.2020 under Annexure-11 for reconstitution of the
governing body. When such recommendation was pending for
consideration, Annexure-14 dated 23.06.2021 has been passed
by the Regional Director of Education appointing the A.D.M.,
Balasore as Special Officer of the College as an interim
measure, in order to exercise the administrative and financial
powers of the governing body of the college until further
orders or till the reconstitution of the governing body of the
college as per Rule. When the recommendation made pursuant
to amended Rules dated 20.10.2020 under Annexure-11 has
not been acted upon, the petitioner had earlier approached this
Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 18751 of 2021, which was
disposed of vide order dated 29.06.2021, directing opposite
party no.3 to take final call on the request for reconstitution of
the governing body pursuant to Annexure-11 by completing
the entire exercise within a period of one month from the date
of communication of a copy of the order by the petitioner and
the effect of appointing the A.D.M. as Special Officer shall
remain operative for a period of six weeks. In compliance of
the said order, the order impugned in Annexure-16 dated
30.07.2021 has been passed rejecting the recommendation
made by the alleged outgoing governing body for
reconstitution of the same pursuant to Annexure-11 dated
20.10.2020. It is contended that the order under Annexure-16
dated 30.07.2021 cannot and could not have been rejected
with regard to approval for reconstitution of the governing
body of Balasore Law College on the basis of the
recommendation made by the outgoing governing body, rather
if for some reason or other the Regional Director of Education
does not agree any of the names, he should have called upon
the outgoing governing body to suggest new names for
consideration for reconstitution of the governing body. Instead
of doing so, he rejected the recommendation of the names for
reconstitution of the governing body of the Balasore Law
College pursuant to Annexure-11 dated 20.10.2020, which is
not legally tenable. It is further contended that as the
resolution was passed during continuance of the tenure of the
outgoing governing body, if any names were recommended by
the outgoing governing body, the same should have been
taken into consideration and if any difference of opinion was
there, the outgoing governing body should have been
consulted with in the matter. To substantiate his contention, he
has relied upon the order passed by this Court in the case of
Krushna Chandra Patra v. State of Orissa (W.P.(C)
No.10546 of 2010 disposed of on 16.12.2010), wherein this
Court observed that the Director, Higher Education, instead of
taking a decision with regard to reconstitution of the
governing body, could not have issued the order dated
22.03.2010. It also transpires that the same had been done on
vague assertions and the allegations made by the local
M.L.A., which were not duly enquired into and subsequent
thereto the Director, Higher Education by office order dated
21.05.2010 rejected the proposal furnished by the outgoing
governing body of Dhenkanal Law College, Dhenkanal by
holding that the same deserves no merit for consideration, for
which the petitioners challenged the said order in W.P.(C)
No.10546 of 2010. But the question which is germane to be
considered in the present writ petition is that admittedly the
outgoing governing body has lost its tenure in the year 2019
and, as such, during its tenure, before expiry of 90 days,
certain names were recommended for reconstitution of the
governing body pursuant to letter dated 29.03.2019 under
Annexure-5 series. If the same has not been acted upon, they
might have some grievance, but they kept silence for a period
of one year and, as such, in the meantime the Rules have been
amended and by the time Rules were amended, the governing
body though lost its tenure, but recommended certain names
for reconstitution of the governing body on 20.10.2020 under
Annexure-11. Whether the governing body, which has lost its
tenure, has right to recommend the names in terms of the
amended Rules or not, that is to be adjudicated in the present
writ petition. Further, it is contended that even if tenure of the
outgoing governing body was over, till a committee is
reconstituted and/or Special Officer is appointed under
Section 7-A(3) of the Orissa Education Act, the outgoing
governing body is to continue and, therefore, the
recommendation made on 20.10.2020 is well within the
jurisdiction of the outgoing governing body, as the Special
Officer was appointed only on 23.06.2021 under
Anneuxre-14.
4. Mr. D.N. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner
seeks time to satisfy the Court, that even though the tenure of
the outgoing governing body was over in the year 2019, it can
recommend fresh names before appointment of Special
Officer by the authority concerned, by citing some judgments
to that extent by the next date.
5. List after three weeks. Judgments be cited by that
date.
Ashok (Dr. B.R. Sarangi)
Judge
