The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 18791 of 2022 Satyaranjan Nayak …. Petitioner Mr. C.R. Pattnaik, Adv. State of Odisha and others -versus- …. Opp. Parties Mr. R.C. Pattnaik,, Standing Counsel appearing for the S&M.E. Deptt. CORAM: JUSTICE A.K.MOHAPATRA ORDER 11.01.2023 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. C.R. Pattnaik, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. R.C. Pattnaik, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the S&M.E. Department. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed therewith. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayers:- Order No. 03. “Under such circumstances it is therefore pay that your Lordship’s would be graciously pleased to admit this Writ application, call for records from the authority concerned and after going through the same may be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, the nature of Certiorari direction/directions quashing letter of B.E.O. Bahanga dated 27.5.2022 under Annexure-3 as well as the show letter of B.E.O. dated 24.6.2022 under cause Annexure-4 series. the in Page 1 of 6 And further may issued a Writ of Mandamus directing the opp. parties not to merge their school with the Bishnumohan Primary School Paikastha which is a satellite school and also further may direct the authority to release the mid-day-meals and favour of his School known Smt. dresses Prabhasini Pray School, Gopalpur which has been illegally stopped by the Block Education Officer; in And further may pass any other order(s), direction(s) as this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper to give relief to the petitioner.” 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner’s School is very old school of the locality and the students nearby villages come to the school for education. It is further contended that, according to the Government record, students strength of the school is 35 and it has better facility for imparting education in the locality. However, the Government of Odisha took a decision vide Resolution dated 11.03.2020 to nationalize the schools at primary as well as upper primary level and to merge satellite school with the lead schools so that it can be managed efficiently. Such decision of the Government vide Resolution dated 11.03.2020 was challenged before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.7124 of 2021 and a coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 04.05.2021 was quashed the Resolution of the Government pertaining to merger of the schools and, accordingly, Opposite Parties are directed to restore back the position of the school in question as before and provide necessary infrastructure for smooth running of the same. The Petitioner had also approached this Court
Decision
earlier by filing W.P.(C) No.7124 of 2021 which was disposed of in the light of the judgment dated 04.05.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No.27401 of 2020. Page 2 of 6 5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that despite disposed of earlier writ petition dated 04.05.2021 in the light of order passed in W.P.(C) No.27401 of 2020, the authorities have not taken steps for demerger of the school and provide necessary infrastructure for smooth running of the Petitioner’s school. Accordingly, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing present writ petitioner. 6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the School & Mass Education Department, on the other hand, submits that a counter affidavit on behalf of the Opposite Party No.5 has been filed wherein they have stated that the School & Mass Education Department, Government of Odisha has preferred a Writ Appeal No.417 of 2021 challenging the judgment dated 04.05.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No.27401 of 2020 and batch of other cases. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.07.2021 was pleased to stay operation of the impugned judgment by the coordinate Bench. Therefore, the preliminary ground, therefore, taken in the writ application is that the basis of the order passed in Petitioner’s previous writ petition has been stayed by Division Bench of this Court. Further, referring to Paragraphs-7 and 8 of the counter affidavit, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the School & Mass Edcuation Department submitted that pursuant to the guideline prepared by the State Government for consolidation/merger of the schools, the District Level Consolidation Committee took a decision and decided to merge the Petitioner’s School with another school, i.e., Bishnumohan Primary School under Bahanaga Block. It is also contended in Paragraph-8 of the counter affidavit that the strength of the Petitioner’s school is 35 for the year 2019-20 whereas the strength of lead school is 32 having sufficient class rooms with Page 3 of 6 infrastructure and there is an open space for construction of new building in future. Accordingly, it is stated that the lead school is the present case was decided on the basis of the joint enquiry report of ABEO and the BEO, Bahanaga and, accordingly, the school has been merged in the Bishnumohan Primary School. In such view of the matter, the School & Mass Education Department submitted that there is no error or illegality on the part of the Opposite Parties while taking the decision to physical merger of the School as has been done in the present case. 7. In reply to the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the School & Mass Education Department, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner’s school is a very old school and going by students strength of both the schools, as has been admitted in the counter affidavit, the Petitioner’s school should have been considered as a lead school. However, the Opposite Parties have acted contrary to the guidelines by accepting Bishnumohan Primary School as a lead school. Accordingly, the present school, i.e., Smt. Pravashini Mishra Primary School has been merged in the lead school. He also contended that the present school has sufficient adequate infrastructure for development of the school. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that neither at the time of preparation of the report nor taking a final decision any opportunity was provided to the Petitioner to put-forth his case. 8 . On perusal of the counter affidavit, it does not appear that the Petitioner or the villagers where the school is situated were ever given an opportunity by the Opposite parties. 9. Considering such submissions, this Court is of the considered view that the authorities before physical merger of the Page 4 of 6 school should have been given an opportunity of hearing to the management of both schools as well as the Local Village Committee of both the schools to ascertain the public view in the matter. Further, it appears that the conditions which are attached to the physical merger have not been properly adhered to. Therefore, this Court is also of the view that the final decision shall be taken after providing opportunity to the concerned school management as well as the village committee keeping in view the interest of the students of the locality which is the paramount consideration in the present case. 10. In view of the aforesaid analysis of fact, this Court dispose of the writ petition by directing the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.4-Distrcit Education Officer, Balasore by filing the grievance petition taking all the grounds along with supporting documents. Opposite Party No.4 is further directed to conduct an inquiry by giving an opportunity to both the School Management as well as the villagers of both the locality and submit a report before the District Level Merger Consolidation Committee. The District Level Merger Consolidation Committee is also directed to consider the matter by taking into consideration the report of the District Education Officer as well as other factors which are material considering the interest of the students. Accordingly, if required, it is open for the District Level Merger Consolidation Committee shall take a decision in the matter keeping in view the interest of the students in the locality. 11. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also raise a points that the authorities are not paying the salary and not providing put the students under the midday meal scheme. Considering such allegation, it is open for the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Page 5 of 6 Party No.4, who is the competent authority and in the event the Petitioner approaches before the Opposite Party No.4, the Opposite Party No.4 shall take a decision in the matter in accordance with law. Let the entire exercise be carried out within a period of two month from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 12. A free copy of this order be supplied to the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the School & Mass Education Department. Debasis (A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Page 6 of 6