The court established that only the Director holds the authority for reconstituting the governing body of educational institutions, and any action taken by the Regional Director in this regard is unauthorized and an abuse of power.

JUDGMENT :

BISWANATH RATH, J.

1. Factual background involving the case is that pursuant to disposal of W.P.(C) No.34818 of 2020 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide its order dated 18.12.2020, it is disclosed, the Regional Director, Higher Education, Bhubaneswar has undertaken an exercise in the matter of re-constitution of the Governing Body of the Regional College of Management, Bhubaneswar, in the purported exercise under the direction of this Court in disposal of W.P.(C) No.34818 of 2020 and also claiming to be in exercise of power conferred on it under Section 7 (2) of the Odisha Education Act, 1969 so also in exercise of power under Rules 21, 23 & 24 of the Orissa Education (Establishment, Recognition and Management of Private High Schools) Rules 1991, hereinafter called as, “Act 1969” and “ Rules 1991” respectively.

2. The Writ Petition bearing W.P.(C) No.16762 of 2021 involves a challenge to the impugned order of the Regional Director of Higher Education vide Annexure-11. Other two Writ Petitions also confined to same relief as claimed in W.P.(C) No16762 of 2021.

3. Assailing the impugned order, Mr.A.Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner-Establishment taking through the pleadings involving the present writ petition, reading together with the development taking place in the re-constitution of the Governing Body, the very same Establishment, vide Annexure-7 on 07.01.19 and at this stage of the matter also reading through the provision at Rule 23 of the Rules 1991 advanced his submission that first of all looking to Annexure-4 directed to be disposed of in W.P.(C) No.34818 of 2020, further reading through the disclosures through paragraph-6 of the Writ Petition therein, raised following serious questions, if there is locus standi of such person ?, the contents in Annexure-4 if it already contains a proposal required to be considered ?, If it is submitted in terms of Rule 23 of the Rules 1991 ? And further if there was time for reconstitution of the Governing Body considering as Governing Body already existed, it was not due to expire? It is in the above circumstance, reading through Annexure-11 Mr.Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel contended that there has been not only mechanical but illegal consideration in taking a decision at Annexure-11 and that too by an incompetent Authority. Mr.Mohanty, further alleged that the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No34818/2020 had absolutely no locus standi not only that the Petitioner therein filed the Writ Petition in whole suppression of material facts, it even did not involve the Parties likely to be affected by such order, further also behind back of necessary Parties. It is at this stage of the matter, bringing through the further material available in the W.P.(C) No.446 of 2022, again reading through the requirement of provision of Rule 23 of the Rules 1991, bringing to the notice of this Court through Annexure-4 in W.P.(C) No.446 of 2022, bringing reference to Annexure-7 in W.P.(C) No.16762 of 2021, Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel claimed that as per the requirement of provision of Rule 23 on the term of the existing Governing Body to expire, there is presently pendency of a claim of the Institution in the matter of reconstitution of the Governing Body, which is valid in the eye of law. It is in the circumstance Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel claimed for setting aside the impugned order at Annexure-11 and requiring appropriate direction to be passed by this Court.

4. It is here taking this Court to Annexure-4 in the Writ Petit