Back
1981 Supreme(Ori) 143
High Court Of Orissa
N. K. Das And R. C. Patnaik, JJ.
GODAVARIS MAHABIDYALAYA - Appellant
Versus
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION (H.E.), ORISSA - Respondent
Orl. Jurn. Case 544 Of 1981
Decided On : 12/14/1981
B.K.NAYAK, G.RATH, N.C.PANIGRAHI
The court's decision highlights the importance of providing a reasonable opportunity to be heard before taking administrative action that adversely affects an individual or organization. The court also clarified the scope of the DPI's powers under Section 11 of the Orissa Education Act, 1969, and the interpretation of Section 7 and Article 130 of the Orissa Education Code.
Headnote:
ORISSA EDUCATION ACT, 1969 - SECTION 11 - SUPERSESSION OF GOVERNING BODY - VALIDITY - NOTICE TO GOVERNING BODY - REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY - RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 7 AND ARTICLE 130 OF ORISSA EDUCATION CODE.
Fact of the Case:
The governing body of an aided college was superseded by the Director of Public Instruction (DPI) under Section 11 of the Orissa Education Act, 1969. The college challenged the order, arguing that the DPI lacked jurisdiction, the charges against the governing body were not covered by Section 11, and proper notice was not given.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the DPI's order was illegal and quashed it. The court found that the charges against the governing body were not substantial and did not warrant supersession under Section 11. The court also held that the DPI failed to provide the governing body with a reasonable opportunity to show cause before issuing the supersession order, violating the rules of natural justice.
Issues: 1. Whether the DPI had jurisdiction to supersede the governing body under Section 11 of the Orissa Education Act, 1969? 2. Whether the charges against the governing body were covered by Section 11? 3. Whether the DPI provided the governing body with a reasonable opportunity to show cause before issuing the supersession order?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 11 of the Orissa Education Act, 1969, empowers the DPI to supersede a governing body only if it has neglected or failed to perform its duties under the Act or the rules made thereunder. The court found that the governing body had not neglected or failed to perform its duties and, therefore, the DPI lacked jurisdiction to supersede it. 2. The charges against the governing body related to alleged violations of Article 130 of the Orissa Education Code, which governs the constitution and functioning of governing bodies. The court held that these alleged violations did not amount to neglect or failure to perform duties under the Act or the rules, and therefore, did not warrant supersession under Section 11. 3. The court held that the DPI failed to provide the governing body with a reasonable opportunity to show cause before issuing the supersession order. The court noted that the DPI had sent notices to individual members of the governing body, but not to the governing body as a whole, and that the notices did not specify the charges against the governing body. The court also noted that the DPI had not considered the governing body's response to the notices before issuing the supersession order.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the DPI's order of supersession, and directed that the governing body be reinstated.
DAS, J.
( 1 ) PETITIONER No. 2 is the Member and Secretary of petitioner No. 1 which is an aided college. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the jurisdiction of the opposite party, the Director of Public Instruction (H. E.), Orissa superseding the governing body of petitioner No. 1. The case of the petitioner is that the governing body of the college was reconstituted on 26-7-1979, under An-nexure-1. The governing body was managing the affairs of the college properly. Under political pressure, some disturbances were created through some teachers of the institution. On 19-2-81 opp. party No. 1 issued a notice under Section 11 (1) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 framing charges against the governing body and asking to show cause why the governing body should not superseded. Eleven members of the governing body showed cause, but in spite of that the opposite party superseded the governing body. It is stated that the order superseding the governing body as well as the action of the opposite party are illegal, mala fide and without jurisdiction and the order has been issued under political pressure exercised by some local politicians. It is further asserted that the charges framed against the governing body are not covered by the provisions of Section 11 of the Orissa Education Act and, as such, the order of supersession is illegal.
( 2 ) IN the return filed on behalf of opposite party it is contended that the action of the opposite party was according to the provisions of Section 11 of the Orissa Education Act and the Rules thereunder. The governing body mismanaged the affairs of the institution and, therefore, charges were framed and explanations were called for. Eleven members out of fourteen showed causes which were considered and found to be not satisfactory and, as such, the opposite party, in exercise of powers under Section 11 of the Act, has superseded the governing body. The action of the opposite party is neither mala fide nor illegal and there was no political pre-sure. The charges framed against the governing body were valid charges. The explanations were considered and after that the impugned order was passed. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioners, it is stated that there has been no proper notice to show cause to the governing body and some persons who have already ceased to be members of the governing body have been noticed. Even though the governing body has intimated the opp. party relating to election of new members of the governing body, the opp. party remained silent and there has been no disapproval of the same.
( 3 ) BY Annexure-1 dated 26-7-1979, Government has reconstituted the governing body with thirteen members of whom one Dr. S. N. Patra has been described as "v. C. S. Nominee". One Shri C. M. Mishra has been nominated as President of the governing body. It is stated that Capt. S. S. Satrusalya (No. 12 in Annexure-1) has resigned. It is not disputed that from the middle of 1978, proposal for reconstitution of the governing body has been sent to the opp. party and in pursuance to that the order under Annexure-1 was passed.
( 4 ) IT is further not disputed that one member was nominated for three years whose term was continuing by the time the proposal was sent by the governing body, but had already expired by the time the order under Annexure-1 was passed.
( 5 ) ANNEXURE-2 is the notice sent to fourteen persons. It is stated by the petitioners that there has been no notice at all to the governing body as such. Notice has been issued to individuals only. Undoubtedly, there is no mention as to who is the President or who is the Secretary of the managing committee, It is contended by the learned Additional Government Advocate that notice to all these persons substantially amounts to notice to the governing body, because it has been mentioned in Annexure-2 that the governing body of the college failed to perform its duties and being called upon to show cause why the go
