ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK W. P.(C) NOs. 2667, 12186 AND 19993 OF 2010 AND W.P.(C) Nos. 1696 AND 2439 OF 2011 In the matter of applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ------------- In WPC 2667/2010 Chittaranjan Mohanty and others …… Petitioners -Versus- State of Orissa and others …… Opp. Parties For Petitioners : M/s. Biswajit Mohanty-1, P.K.Mohapatra, A.Panda & S.J.Mohanty. For Opp. Parties : Standing Counsel (School and Mass Edn. Deptt.) M/s. B.P. Satpathy,B.Nayak, A. Sahoo, S.Pradha , D.N.Rath, S.Mahunta, P.Rout & S. Rath. (for intervenors) In WPC 12186/2010 Chittaranjan Mohanty and others …… Petitioners -Versus- State of Orissa and others …… Opp. Parties For Petitioners : M/s. Biswajit Mohanty-1, P.K.Mohapatra, A.Panda, S.J. Mohanty & D.D.Sahu. For Opp. Parties : Standing Counsel (School and Mass Edn. Deptt.) M/s. Biraja Pr. Satapathy, B.K.Nayak, A.K. Sahoo & S.Pradhan. (For Caveator ). In WPC 19993/2010 Chittaranjan Mohanty and others …… Petitioners -Versus- State of Orissa and others …… Opp. Parties For Petitioners : M/s. Biswajit Mohanty-1, P.K.Mohapatra, A.Panda, S.J.Mohanty & D.D.Sahu. For Opp. Parties : Standing Counsel (School and Mass Edn. Deptt.) M/s. B. Routray, Sr. Advocate, D.K.Mohapatra, B.B.Routray, D.Routray, S.Das, P.K. Sahoo, K.Mohanty, S.Jena & S.K.Samal (for intervenors) M/s. J.K.Rath, Sr. Advocate, S.N. Rath, P.K. Rout, D.N.Rath & S.Mahunta. (For intervenors) In WPC 1696/2011 Suresh Chandra Das and others … Petitioners -Versus- State of Orissa and others … Opp. Parties. For petitioners: M/s. B. Routray, D.K. Mohapatra, B.B. Routray, S.Jena, P.K.Sahoo, S.Das, R.P. Dalai, S.K.Samal & S.Mahunta. For opp. parties: Standing Counsel (School and Mass Edn. Deptt.). M/s. B.R. Sarangi & S.N.Jena (for intervenors). 2 In WPC 2439/2011 Santilata Kar and others …. Petitioners -versus- State of Orissa and others ….. Opp. Parties For petitioners: M/s. S.N.Rath, D.N.Rath & P.K. Rath. For opp. parties: Standing Counsel (School and Mass Edn. Deptt.) M/s. B.Mohanty-I, P.K.Mohapatra, A.Panda, S.J.Mohanty & D.D.Sahu. (For intervenor) ----------------------- Decided on 03.05.2011. ----------------------- P R E S E N T : THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE M. M. DAS M.M. DAS, J. The aforesaid writ petitions are series of applications filed by the members of the Managing Committee of a recognized Upper Primary School, namely, Vira Surendra Sai Vidya Mandir, V.S.S. Nagar, Bhubaneswar. 2. Facts involved in the aforesaid cases disclose a sorry state of affairs with regard to managing an Upper Primary School in the capital city of Bhubaneswar and allegations are made relating to forcibly restraining a recognized Managing Committee from functioning as such and managing the affairs of the school. 3 W.P. (C) No. 2667 of 2010 3. Bereft of unnecessary details, it will suffice to narrate the facts from a point when a duly constituted Managing Committee of the said school was approved upon reconstitution on 10.7.2007 as per the letter at Annexure-2 in W.P. (C) No. 2667 of 2010. The reconstituted Managing Committee made several representations to the Headmaster through the petitioners 1 to 6 in W.P. (C) No. 2667 of 2010 requesting him to call the first meeting of the Managing Committee. As no meeting was convened by the Headmaster, it filed W.P. (C) No. 9352 of 2007. However, the said writ petition was withdrawn on the ground that they will approach the Director, Elementary Education and the District Inspector of Schools. On 20..5.2008, the Headmaster Shri B.K. Rout wrote a letter to the Inspector of Schools that he has not been able to convene the first meeting as he did not have the names and addresses of the new members and the petitioners 1 to 6 in W.P. (C) No. 2667 of 2010 have resigned between January to April, 2007 as they were not willing to continue as members. Thereafter, several correspondences were made between the authority and the Headmaster, who was repeatedly directed to convene the meeting. The petitioners 1 to 7 filed W.P. (C) No. 9483 of 2008 seeking a direction of this Court to the opp. parties to convene the first meeting of the reconstituted Managing 4 Committee. The said writ petition was disposed of on 30.7.2008 directing the Headmaster to convene the first meeting within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the said order. The Headmaster even after receiving the said order did not convene the meeting. The above petitioners again filed W.P. (C) No. 12127 of 2008 to restrain the Headmaster, Shri B.K. Rout from operating the Bank account of the school and also filed Contempt Application, being CONTC No. 1201 of 2008 for non-compliance of the order dated 30.7.2008 passed in W.P. (C) No. 9483 of 2008. A Writ Appeal, being W.A. No. 199 of 2008 was filed by the said Headmaster challenging the order dated 30.7.2008 passed in W.P. (C) No. 9483 of 2008 as well as the order dated 22.9.2008 passed in Misc. Case No. 10185 of 2008. The Writ Appeal was dismissed on 4.11.2008. Only thereafter, the Headmaster on 5.11.2008 requested the members of the reconstituted Managing Committee to attend the first meeting to be held for electing the President and Secretary of the Managing Committee as admittedly, the school is an unaided school. It is alleged by the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 2667 of 2010 that on the said date, at the behest of the Headmaster, some unruly crowd prevented them for holding the meeting by locking up of the front gate of the school premises, upon which, the District Inspector of Schools also made a report on 30.11.2008. In CONTC No. 1201 of 5 2008, the Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar was directed to take immediate steps for convening the first meeting of the reconstituted Managing Committee within a period of three weeks. This Court on 10.12.2008 in the said contempt application made an observation that the Headmaster was trying to put a Monkey’s wrench in complying with the direction of this Court. Some typographical errors crept in the said order passed in the contempt application. On 19.12.2010, Misc. Case No. 235 of 2008 was filed for correction of the said typographical error, which was done by order dated 24.12.2008. In spite of the said order, the same being not complied with, CONTC No. 145 of 2009 was filed. On 2.2.2009 the Sub-Collector intimated that the first meeting of the Managing Committee shall be held on 9.2.2009. On the said date, however, it is alleged that the ex-Headmaster, B.K. Rout and many others did not allow the members of the Managing Committee to enter inside the school premises for which, a further contempt application, being CONTC No. 273 of 2009 was filed. Ultimately, the first meeting of the Managing Committee was held on 25.2.2009 in the office of the Sub- Collector, where the petitioner no. 4 - P.C. Pattnaik was elected as the Secretary and the petitioner no. 5 – Shri B.B. Ray was elected as the President of the reconstituted Managing Committee. On 1.3.2009, a Parents Steering Committee/general 6 body of parents, which according to the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 2667 of 2010 was illegally constituted, resolved not to accept the reconstituted Managing Committee and not to allow the members of the said committee to function as the Managing Committee of the school. Such resolution has been annexed as Annexure-A to Misc. Case No. 20734 of 2010. On 17.3.2009, the Sub-Collector handed over the complete charge to the newly constituted Managing Committee, which initiated disciplinary proceeding against the Headmaster in–charge, B.K. Rout and Senior Assistant Teacher Shri Hrudananda Behera on 25.3.2009. Ultimately, the services of the said two teachers were terminated by the Managing Committee. On 18.1.2010, the members of the reconstituted Managing Committee made a representation to the State – opp. party no. 1 to count the tenure of the said Managing Committee from 25.2.2009 on which date, the first meeting of the said committee was held and the Secretary and President were elected. As no action was taken, some of the said members filed W.P.(C) No. 2667 of 2010 with a prayer to count the tenure of the reconstituted Managing Committee from 25.2.2009.In M.C. No. 2189 of 2010, filed in W.P. (C) No. 2667 of 2010, a direction was issued that the Managing Committee shall continue to function as the Managing Committee of the school until further orders and the said order is still continuing. 7 W.P.(C) No. 12186/2010 4. This writ petition has also been filed by the members of the reconstituted Managing Committee of the school with a prayer to issue a writ/direction directing the opp. parties to carry out immediate inspection of the school as per the provisions of Orissa Education Code. W.P.(C No. 19993 of 2010 5. This writ petition has been filed by the members of the reconstituted Managing Committee of the above school with prayer to issue a direction to the opp. parties to ensure that the reconstituted Managing Committee functions smoothly without any hindrance. In Misc. Case No. 18572 of 2010 arising out of this writ petition, a direction was issued to the Inspector of Schools to make an inspection of the school with regard to the allegations made in the writ petition and submit a specific report thereon before this Court. It was further directed that if he finds that any outsiders are collecting fees from the students on account of admission, readmission or tuition fees, he shall inform the I.I.C., Saheednagar Police Station by lodging an F.I.R. to that effect immediately against such persons. The Inspector in-charge submitted a report pursuant to the order of this Court to the effect that on his inspection made on 1.12.2010 and 4.12.2010, he found that the 8 school in question is an unaided recognized Upper Primary School under the administrative control of the District Inspector of Schools, Bhubaneswar. It appears that 459 students from Class KG-I to Class – VIII are reading in the school in two shifts. As per staff attendance register, 25 nos. of staff are now working in the school. The Managing Committee of the school has been approved by the D.I. of Schools, Bhubaneswar by order dated 10.7.2007 pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 3.5.2007 in W.P. (C) No. 19704 of 2004 and as ascertained by him, the approved Managing Committee is not functioning properly due to dispute. He found that the school is managed by a committee named as “Parents’ Steering Committee” constituted in a general body meeting on 16.11.2008. The said committee consists of ten members, who were all parents. The children of four members out of them passed out in the meanwhile. The said Steering Committee is presently managing the school. The parents, therefore, may not be treated as outsiders. There is no provision for constitution of “Parents’ Steering Committee” under the Orissa Education (Establishment, Recognition and Management of Private Upper Primary Schools) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) and the same has not been approved by any competent authority. Therefore, the said committee has no valid approval behind it. The said committee 9 has taken different decisions in different meetings for management of the school, collection of funds and management of finance etc. Even in resolution taken on 6.3.20099, the said committee has decided to print receipt books for collection in the name of Parents’ Steering Committee, to open a joint account in the name of two guardians, to constitute a four member finance committee, to approve all actions taken by “Parents’ Steering Committee” every two months, to pay salary to teachers and staff, to deposit EPF subscription and to audit the accounts by a Chartered Accountant. Such receipt books have been used with effect from 13.3.2009 for collection of fees from the students. The committee has paid salary of all the staff. They have maintained financial statement and have opened an account in the Syndicate Bank, but they refused to disclose the account number on the ground that if the account is seized, they will face inconvenience in managing the school. W.P. (C) No. 1696 of 2011 6. This writ petition has been filed by ten petitioners claiming themselves to be the guardians of the students, who are prosecuting their studies in the said school with a prayer to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or a direction to the Director, Elementary Education, Orissa to constitute the Managing Committee in accordance with the provisions of section 21 of the 10 Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 2009” ). W.P.(C) No. 2439 of 2011 6. This writ petition has been filed by the 14 petitioners claiming themselves to be the teaching staff of the above school with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus or a direction to the opp. parties to constitute the Managing Committee of the school within a reasonable time to be stipulated by the Court as per the provisions of the Act, 2009 or in the alternative to direct the opp. party no. 2 – Director to reconstitute the Managing Committee as per the Orissa Education Act and the Rules within a reasonable time to be stipulated. 7. Various Misc. Cases have been filed in each of the writ petitions by the respective parties to intervene in the writ petitions filed by the opposition parties. 8. Mr. R.K. Rath, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. (C) Nos. 2667, 12186 and 19993 of 2010 submitted that though section 7(4) of the Orissa Education Act prescribes that a Managing Committee shall continue in office for a term of three years from the date of its approval by the prescribed authority under sub-section (2) and shall be reconstituted in accordance with law, but juxtaposing this section with rule 28 (2) of the Rules, which provides that the first 11 meeting of the reconstituted Managing Committee shall be convened immediately on receipt of approval of the prescribed authority under sub-rule (1) by the Headmaster/teacher in- charge of Headmaster of the school and the District Inspector of Schools, shall preside over the said meeting for election of President of the Managing Committee, these provisions clearly show that unless the meeting of the reconstituted Managing Committee is convened by the Headmaster and the President and Secretary are elected, for all practical purposes, the reconstituted Managing Committee cannot start to function. He, therefore, submitted that on the facts of these cases, it would be clear that though the Managing Committee was approved with effect from 10.7.2007, but in effect, it was made functional only when repeated orders were passed by this Court in previous writ petitions and contempt applications were filed, and, ultimately, the first meeting was held on the intervention of this Court by directing the Sub-Collector to convene the meeting as late as on 25.2.2009. Mr. Rath further submitted that applying the doctrine of purposive interpretation, it would be appropriate to hold that though section 7 (4) of the Act mentions that the tenure of the reconstituted Managing Committee is for three years from the date of its approval, but to manage the affairs of the school is only possible after holding of the first meeting of the said 12 Managing Committee in which meeting, there shall be election of its President and Secretary. Hence, the said tenure of three years should be calculated from the date, when the first meeting was convened and the President and Secretary were elected, which, in the instant case, is from 25.2.2009. Mr. Rath further contended that as reported by the Inspector of Schools pursuant to the direction of this Court, the Parents’ Steering Committee is an illegally constituted body which cannot be permitted under any circumstances to manage the affairs of the school. 9. Mr. Routray and Mr. J.K. Rath, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. (C) Nos. 1696 and 2439 of 2011 vehemently urged that once the tenure of the Managing Committee has already expired by counting three years from the date of its approval, it cannot be contended that the said period can be extended under any circumstances, as law does not provide for such extension. 10. Without entering into the above dispute, as this Court finds that there is series of disturbances in managing the affairs of the school in question, in spite of the fact that the Inspector has reported that the disturbance in the management has not affected imparting of education in the school to the students and further considering the fact that pursuant to an interim order, the reconstituted Managing Committee was 13 permitted to function until further orders, for which they have not submitted any proposal for reconstitution of the Managing Committee before ninety days from the date of expiry of its term as per Rule 27 of the Rules, it would be appropriate to allow the said Managing Committee to submit a proposal for reconstitution of the Managing Committee within a period of three weeks from today by holding a meeting of the said Managing Committee and taking a resolution to that effect in accordance with Rule 27 of the Rules. Such proposal as per the resolution should be submitted by the elected Secretary of the said Managing Committee, i. e., Shri Purna Chandra Pattnaik, petitioner no. 4 in W.P. (C) No. 2667 of 2010 as per Rule 27 (2) of the Rules. Upon submission of such proposal and within a period of four weeks therefrom, the prescribed authority shall take a final decision thereon with regard to reconstitution of the Managing Committee in accordance with law. Till reconstitution of the Managing Committee, i.e., for a period of seven weeks from today, the Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar shall manage the affairs of the school. All the parties are restrained from creating any disturbance with regard to management of the affairs of the school by the Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar. 14 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, all the writ petitions are disposed. Consequently, all pending Misc. Cases also stand disposed of. …………………… M.M. Das, J. Orissa High Court, Cuttack. May 3rd, 2011/Biswal. 15 16 17 18