SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1992 Supreme(Ori) 112

High Court Of Orissa
B. L. HANSARIA, R. K. PATRA
PRAFULLA KUMAR MATIA MISHRA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA - Respondent
ORIGINAL JURDN.  3928  Of  1988
Decided On : 09/11/1992

Advocates Appeared:
B.K.PATNAIK, H.PANDA, K.K.SWAMY, P.C.BISVAL, R.C.ROUT, S.C.DAS GUPTA

The Government's decision to shift the M. E. Section was purely administrative and the Court could not interfere with it unless it was arbitrary, mala fide, or violated statutory provisions.

Headnote:

EDUCATION - SHIFTING OF M. E. SECTION - ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION - JUDICIAL REVIEW - ORISSA EDUCATION CODE, ARTS. 174, 176 (2) - ORISSA EDUCATION ACT, S. 27 (4).

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners challenged the Government's decision to shift the M. E. Section of Panigengutia-Siarimalia U. G. M. E. School to Panigengutia Talasahi U. P. School, claiming it was done without reason and violated an earlier agreement.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the decision to shift the M. E. Section was purely administrative and the Government, being the best judge of the situation, had taken the decision after considering all relevant facts. The Court found no statutory provision governing the shifting of M. E. Sections and that Arts. 174 and 176 (2) of the Orissa Education Code were not applicable.

Issues: 1. Whether the Government's decision to shift the M. E. Section was arbitrary or mala fide? 2. Whether the decision violated Arts. 174 and 176 (2) of the Orissa Education Code?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that there was no evidence of arbitrariness or mala fide in the Government's decision and that it was taken in good faith and based on relevant considerations. 2. The Court held that Arts. 174 and 176 (2) of the Orissa Education Code did not apply to the decision to shift the M. E. Section.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Government's decision was not arbitrary or mala fide and that it did not violate any statutory provisions.

PATRA, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners in this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India seek to challenge the Government decision directing shifting of M. E. Section of Panigengutia-Siarimalia U. G. M. E. School (earlier known as P. S. M. E. School) to Panigengutia Talasahi U. P. School, as communicated by the Inspector of Schools, Dhenkanal in his letter dated 18-8-1988, Annexure-4.

( 2 ) THE petitioners state that in a public meeting some people belonging to six neighbouring villages agreed to amalgamate Siarimalia L. P. School with the local M. E. School in July, 1975 and renamed it as 'panigengutia-Siarimalia P. S. M. E. School. The District Inspector of Schools in the letter dated 31-7-1975, Annexure-2 intimated the said decision to the Block Development Officer who took necessary steps in the matter. The petitioners allege that later the District Inspector of Schools recommended the shifting of M. E. Section of Panigengutia Siarimalia P. S. M. E. School to Panigengutia Talasahi U. P. School and to upgrade the latter to one M. E. School by renaming it Panigengutia U. G. M. E. School. On the basis of the said recommendation, the Inspector moved the Director, Elementary and Adult Education for doing the needful. It is contended that the shifting of M. E. Section vide Annexure-4 has been done without assigning any reason which has resulted in annulment of an agreed decision taken in July, 1975. The petitioners' apprehension is that this may create lawlessness in the locality.

( 3 ) THE inspector of Schools, opposite party No. 3, has filed counter affidavit justifying the shifting of M. E. Section vide Annexure-4. Some villagers of Panifengutia (both Talasahi and Uppersahi) and Ronthapat had filed an application in this Court for intervention. The Court allowed their prayer and permitted them to file counter affidavit which they had done. Besides, disputing existence of any agreement of July, 1975 as claimed by the petitioners, their stand in common is that Government decided to open one P. S. M. E. School at Panigengutia by integrating one pre-existing primary school of Panigengutia with a proposed unrecognised Panigengutia M. E. School. As per the said decision Panigengutia M. E. School was opened was one trained graduate Headmaster was appointed to joint that school by the Inspectorate letter dated 22-1-1975, Annexure-B/3. The Headmaster also joined the school on 31-1-1975. The Block Development Officer, however, without any authority directed the Headmaster to shift Panigengutia P. S. M. E. School from the Primary School premises to the private unrecognised M. E. School premises. Against such unauthorised action of the Block Development Officer, the inhabitants of Panigengutia represented the educational authorities to remedy the wrong done to them following shifting of Panigengutia P. S. M. E. School. The result of representations was that a joint spot inquiry was conducted by the District Inspector and Inspector of Schools. It was found by them that Panigengutia U. P. School which was up-graded in the year 1974-75 for the benefits of the students of Panigengutia was being held in a 'kutcha' structure of Siarimalia in the name of Panigengutia Siarimalia U. C. M. E. School with a roll strength of mere 67 in all the seven classes. The low roll strength was due to the fact that there was no feeding U. P. School at Siarimalia. They were of the view that the two primary Schools one at Tala Panigengutia and another at Upper Panigengutia were without any facility of M. E. School and during the rains, the village Panigengutia (originally so named) remained water-logged and totally cut off from Siarimalia. On account of its bad location students of Panigengutia were denied the benefit of getting education of M. E. standard. The joint inquiry further revealed that there was another M. E. School at Talabarana which could easily cater the need of both the villages Siarimalia and Talabarana situated within one kilometer. In t









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top