Rural Institute of Vs President,Bse,Odish

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 25063 of 2014

Regional Institute of Open ..... Petitioner Schooling Mr. S. Mohapatra, Advocate -versus- President, B.S.E., Odisha & ..... Opposite Parties Ors. Mr. B. Dash, Advocate (Opp. Party No. 2) Mr. A.K. Pandey, Advocate (Opp. Party No. 3)

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER

¶5

23.10.2024

¶6

Order No. 36

¶7

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶8

Heard Mr. S. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Bibhudhendra Dash, learned counsel appearing for the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha-.

¶9

Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia challenging office order dtd.06.12.2024 so issued by Board of Secondary Education, Cuttack-Opp. Party Nos. 1 & 2 under Annexure-16. Vide the said order Opp. Party-Board declined to issue the equivalency of HSC examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha in favour of the Petitioner-Institution on various grounds.

¶10

Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed on the ground that Petitioner-Institution is not a member of the Council of Board of School Education (COBSE), New Delhi.

¶11

Page 1 of 3.

¶12

4.1. It is contended that as found from Annexure-7 so issued by COBSE, name of the Petitioner-Institution was reflected at Sl. No. 14(a). It is contended that on the face of such notification issued by COBSE under Annexure-7, the ground on which claim of the Petitioner was rejected by the Board is not sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, it is contended that the impugned order needs interference of this Court.

¶13

Mr. B. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the Board of Secondary Education on the other hand contended that even though in the communication issued under Annexure-7 name of the Petitioner-Institution was included vide Sl. No. 14(a), but while issuing subsequent notification by the self-same COBSE under Annexure-10, Petitioner’s name was deleted from the list. It is also contended Annexure-7 was issued for a temporary period and it is not in the nature of permanent membership so issued by COBSE. It is accordingly contended that since the Petitioner-Institution is not a member of COBSE, which is apparent under Annexure-10, the Board after due consideration of the claim passed the impugned order under Annexure-16.

¶14

Mr. A.K. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No. 3 on the other hand contended that Petitioner-Institution is not a member of COBSE and Annexure-7 was issued only in view of the fact that Petitioner-Institution is a sister organization of Chhatisgarh Open School. But, subsequently while issuing Annexure-10, necessary correction has been made by deleting the name of the Petitioner from the list of members affiliated to COBSE. It is accordingly contended that Petitioner-Institution is/was never a Member of COBSE.

¶15

Page 2 of 3.

¶16

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that claim of the Petitioner was rejected vide the impugned order dtd.06.12.2024 under Annexure-16 pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 14.11.2014 in W.P.(C) No. 14308 of 2014. As found from the impugned order Opp. Party-Board rejected Petitioner’s claim on the ground that Petitioner-Institution is not a member of COBSE and the syllabus is also not the same as prescribed by the Board.

¶17

7.1. This Court considering the submission and the fact that the Petitioner-Institution is not a member of Board as contended by the learned counsel appearing for COBSE, which is not disputed is of the view that no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the Board in rejecting the Petitioner’s claim vide the impugned order. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dt.06.12.2014 so passed under Annexure-16 and dismiss the writ petition.

¶18

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge

¶19

Sneha

¶20

Signature Not Verified

¶21

Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 23-Oct-2024 19:15:12

¶22

Page 3 of 3.

Rural Institute of v. President,Bse,Odish

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rural Institute of v. President,Bse,Odish

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pramod Ku.Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Nrusingha Charan Kar Vs State of Odisha

Diptimayee Acharya Vs State of Orissa

Mc of Madan Mohan Vs State and Ors.

Hemanta Ku.Hota Vs State and Anr.

Adwaita Sahoo Vs State and Ors.