The Managing Committee of Kaduamagura U.P. (M.E.) School vs State of Orissa and Others

Pradip Mohanty, J.—All these four writ applications at the instance of respective Managing Committees of the Schools in question involve common questions of law and fact and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioners'' case is that the U.P. (M.E.) Schools established by the respective Managing Committees were granted permission. In the order granting permission, some conditions were imposed which were required to be complied with by the Managing Committees. After the schools in question were granted permission, the Managing Committees submitted applications for grant of recognition and on consideration of the same, the petitioner-Schools were granted temporary recognition. It is alleged that the petitioner-schools fulfilled the conditions mentioned in the temporary recognition orders for which the petitioners submitted applications for grant of permanent recognition, but the Director-Opp. Party No. 2 instead of according permanent recognition, has passed the impugned order according temporary recognition. It is stated in the impugned orders that the question of permanent recognition would be considered as soon as the Management of the Schools appoint one trained Graduate as Headmaster and one trained Intermediate as Assistant Teacher (one of them shall have Science qualification up to +2 level) in their Schools and fulfil other conditions prescribed in Section 6A(1) of Orissa Education (Amendment) Act, 1994. Such orders passed by the Director (Opp. Party No. 2) have been challenged in these writ applications.

A counter has been filed by the opposite parties in which it has been stated that 55 U.P. Schools which were functioning before enactment of the Orissa Education (Establishment, Recognition and Management of Private Upper Primary Schools) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as ''1991 Rules'') were considered for permanent recognition by a High Power Committee and they were accorded temporary recognition with a stipulation to fulfil the staffing pattern, that is to say, one trained graduate Headmaster and one trained Intermediate Assistant Teacher (one of them shall have Science qualification up to +2 level), failing which, permanent recognition would not be granted to them. It has been further stated that the petitioner-Schools did not comply with the conditions as required by the Director''s letter dated 18.3.1994, as a result of which, permanent recognition could not be granted as per law prior to coming into force of 1991 Rules. For non-fulfilment of the standard staff and other conditions prescribed in Section 6-A(1) of the Orissa Education (Amendment) Act, 1994, temporary recognition was granted for the academic Session 1994/95 in favour of 55 U.P. (M.E.) Schools including the petitioner-Schools.

On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the sole question arises for consideration is whether the authorities are justified in insisting upon appointment of qualified teachers as a condition precedent for according permanent recognition. In order to appreciate this question, it is necessary to have a bird''s eye view over the relevant provisions of the Orissa Education (Amendment) Act, 1994 and the 1991 Rules which are governing the field.

Section 6 of Orissa Education (Amendment) Act, 1994 provides for recognition of educational institution. Section 6-A lays down the conditions for recognition. Section 6-A(1)(g) which provides for staffing pattern is quoted below :

"Section 6-A(1). No educational institution shall be eligible for recognition u/s 6 unless it fulfils the following, conditions namely :

(a) to (f) : ***

(g) qualified teachers and non-teaching employees selected in accordance with the prescribed procedure as per the prescribed yardstick have been appointed;"

This Act came into force on 4.7.1994. Before that, the 1991 Rules were governing the field. Rule 15 thereof provided for grant of recognition and Rule 15(2) stipulated the conditions to be fulfilled. Rule 15(2)(f), which provided the norms of recognition is quoted below :

"Rule 15(2)(f) : The full strength of qualified teachers as required under Sub-section (2) of Section 7-B and in accordance with the norms laid down in Schedule-I must have been appointed;"

Sub-Sections (1) and (2) of Section 7-B of the Orissa Education (Amendment) Act, 1994 are quoted hereunder :

"7-B. Appointment of qualified teachers :

(1) The State Government or any officer or authority authorised by it may prescribe the qualifications to be possessed by persons for appointment as teachers including the norms relating to the requirement of such teachers in different categories of private educational institutions.

(2) Every private educational institution shall appoint qualified teachers and non-teaching staff by making selection in accordance with the procedure and criteria prescribed by the State Government".

Schedule-I of the 1991 Rules prescribes the norms for recognition of an Upper Primary School. Sl. No. 9 thereof, which is relevant, is quoted hereunder :

"9. Teachers :

(a) One-trained Graduate Headmaster.

(b) One I.A./I.Sc. with C.T. Training.

Note : One of the teachers shall be Science student atleast up to Higher Secondary (+2)/Intermediate level."

From a bare reading of the above provisions, it is crystal clear that there is no inconsistency between the 1991 Rules and the Orissa Education (Amendment) Act, 1994 with regard to staffing pattern. While considering the application for permanent recognition, the 1991 Rules were in force. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in the impugned order under Annexure-5 granting temporary recognition with the stipulation that the grant of permanent recognition to the petitioner-Schools will be considered as soon as they fulfil other conditions as to the appointment of qualified teachers. The aims and objects of the above Act and Rules are to maintain the academic standard and quality of teachings are concerned. Thus, the opposite parties have rightly decided not to grant permanent recognition to the educational institutions whose Management or Managing Committees do not fulfil the above staffing pattern. During the course of hearing, Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioners by referring to the order dated 20.4.2001 passed in OJC No. 8978 of 1995, The Managing Committee of Majhi Patana U.P. (M.E.) School v. State of Orissa and Ors. submitted that these writ petitions may be disposed of in terms of the said order. As it appears, while passing the above order, the aforesaid provisions of the 1991 Rules and the Orissa Education (Amendment) Act, 1994 were not noticed and considered. As such, it is a judgment per incuriam. Otherwise also, the schools in question have obtained permission with effect from the Session 1992/93 and as such the 1991 Rules are applicable to the petitioner-Schools. In such view of the matter, the order passed in OJC No. 8978 of 1995 cannot be held to be applicable to the instant case.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the claim for grant-in-aid. The claim for grant-in-aid will be considered by the authorities in accordance with taw.

For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petitions are devoid of any merit and are dismissed accordingly.

P.K. Mohanty, J.—I agree.