AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Devi Prasad Singh, J.
In these writ petitions, the common question of law and facts are involved, hence with the consent of parties, counsel, these writ petitions are decided by a common judgment.
The short question involves in the present writ petitions are that whether an institution or college has got power to admit the students for the various courses or subjects (In the present case for the courses or subjects of High School and Intermediate) without prior recognition by the competent authority (Board) ? In case admission of students are done in unrecognized subjects then whether such students can be permitted to appear in examination?
The brief facts of the case are that the institutions in question are recognized institutions under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and the regulations framed thereunder. These institutions are receiving grantinaid from the State Government and admittedly the provisions contained in U.P. Intermediate Education. Act (in short referred as an ''Act'') and the regulations framed thereunder as well as the circulars issued by the State Government in pursuance to the power conferred by the Act are binding upon the institutions in question.
The Committee of Management, Sant Kanwar Ram Inter College, Asit Nagar, Ratapur Road, Raebareli has filed Writ Petition No.927(M/S)/2006 on the ground that the institution in question has been duly recognized to impart the education to the subject of Science long back. An application was moved for recognition of the additional subjects in Arts Group for Intermediate classes. In response to the letter dated 15th of September, 2005 sent by opposite party No.4, the petitioners of the said writ petition has sent a letter dated 17.11.2005 (Annexure No.4 to the writ petition) informing the respondent Board that necessary formalities have been completed and an amount to the tune of Rs.3,000/ was deposited. The D.I.O.S., Raebareli has sent a letter dated 23th of September 2005 for recognition of the institution in question for certain additional subjects for Arts group in Intermediate classes. After receipt of the leter dated 23rd of September, 2005 sent by the D.I.O.S., Raebareli, by the impugned order dated 16tt of February 2006, respondent No.4 has granted recognition to the petitioners'' institution w.e.f. the year 2008. According to petitioners'' counsel, 280 students were admitted who were studying in Class XII in Arts group and in the absence of any recognition, they could not have been able to appear in Board''s examination. Obviously, the students of petitioners'' institution who claimed to appear in Board''s examination of Class XII must have been admitted in Class XI in the session 20042005.
It appears that the purpose for recognition to appear the students in Class XII in Board''s examination from 2008 was to permit to admit the students from the session 20062007 in Class XI, so that after two years of their studies, they shall be able to appear in Board''s Examination of the year 2008.
It has been submitted by the petitioners'' counsel that in a number of cases where the State Government has granted recognition from the year 2006, was modified to permit the students to appear in Board''s examination in the year 2005 as per Government Order dated 12th of August, 2004, copy of which has been filed as Annexure No.9 to the writ petition. It has also been submitted by the petitioners'' counsel that the State Government has provided by the order dated 30th of August, 1997 that the institution which deposits the fees of the students for unrecognized subjects, shall be permitted to appear in Board''s examination of the year 1998.
Certain orders have been placed on record where the recognition granted from the year 2007 by the respondents was preponed for 2006 as is obvious from the various orders, copies of which have been filed with the Supplementary Affidavit. It has been provided by the Government Order dated 20th of September, 2005 that the students who were failed in the examination of the year 2005, shall be permitted to appear in the examination as regular students who were registered in the institution concerned in Class IX and Class XI.
Writ Petition No.770(M/S)/2006 has been filed by the Committee of Management of Jan Kalyan Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalya, Kallipur, district Gonda where the respondent Board has not permitted the students of the institution in question to appear in the Board''s Examination of High School for the year 2006 as regular students. According to the petitioners'' counsel, 440 students have been studying in Class X and the D.I.O.S., Gonda by the letter dated 24th of July. 2004 (Annexure No.3 of the writ petition) has informed the respondent Board that the petitioners'' institution has completed all the necessary formalities for recognition of High School classes. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 7.10.2005, recognition has been granted for the High School classes to the petitioners'' institution from the year 2007. It appears that the purpose for granting recognition from the year 2007 is to enable the petitioners'' institution to admit the students in Class IX from the year 20052006. Same plea has been raised by the petitioenrs'' institution in the present writ petition that the respondent Board has preponed the date for grant of the recognition in some of the cases after considering representations.
Writ Petition No.2830(M/S)/2006 has been filed by 15 students who are studying in Sant Kanwar Ram Pratap Inter College, Asit Nagar, Ratapur Road, Raebareli claiming that they may be permitted to appear in Board''s examination in Intermediate Arts Group of the year 2006. Writ Petition No.927(M/S)/2006 has been filed by the Committee of Management of the same institution, hence it shall not be necessary to consider the factual dispute separately. The relief claimed by the petitioners shall be covered by the outcome of W.P. No.927(M/S)/2006.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners while assailing the impugned orders submits that after filling the application forms for recognition of subjects in question, the institution has admitted the students in Class XI and Class IX respectively for the various courses expecting that it shall get the recognition for the subjects in questions.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that after submission of the application forms for recognition in accordance to the provisions contained in Regulation 7 of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, the institutions were entitled to admit the students in Class XI or Class IX, as the case may be.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment of this Court decided by Hon''ble Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 28th of February, 2006 passed in W.P. No.5735 (M/SV2005Mahesh Singh Saraswati Inter College v. State of U.P. and others, where this Court has directed the State Government to permit the students of the institution concerned to appear in Intermediate Examination subject to fulfillment of the conditions laid down by the State Government vide order dated 27th of April, 2005. while allowing the writ petition, Single Judge of this Court (Hon''ble Mr. Justice S.N. Shukla) though held that the Rules and Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act has got statutory force in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases reported in (1975) 1 SCC 421, Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raguvanshi and (1988) 4 Supreme Court Cases 734, Vidva Dhar Pandey v. Vidyut Grih Siksha Samiti and others, but neither any finding has been recorded nor it has been considered as to whether before the prior recognition in accordance to the regulations, the Committee of Management has got right to admit the students and in case, admits the students in violation of the regulations, whether such students will have got right to appear in the examination?
Before considering the question involved in these writ petitions, it shall be appropriate that the relevant provisions contained in the Act may be considered.
According to the provisions contained in Section 7 of the Act, U.P. High (School) and Intermediate Board (in short referred as Board) has got power to prescribe course of instructions, text books etc. for High School and Intermediate classes. Certificate of diploma is also granted by the Board after completion of study. It is the Board which is empowered to recognize instructions for the purposes of examinations.
Section 7A further empowers to provide recognition of an institution in any new subject or for any higher class. For convenience, Sections 7 & 7A of the Act are reproduced as under:
"7. Power of the Board Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Board shall have the following powers, namely:
(1) To prescribe course of instructions, text books, other books and instructional material, if any, for the High School and Intermediate classes in such branches of education as it thinks fit;
(1 A) To publish or manufacture, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of others or otherwise, all or any such text books, other books or instructional material;
(2) To grant diplomas or certificaties to persons who
(a) have pursued a course of study in an institution admitted to the privileges or recognition by the Board, or
(b) are teachers, or
(c) have studied privately under conditions laid down in the regulations and have passed the examinations of the Board under like conditions;
(3) To conduct examinations at the end of the High School and Intermediate Course.
(4) To recognize instructions for the purposes of its examinations;
(5) to admit candidates to its examinations;
(6) To demand and receive such fee as may be prescribed in the regulations;
(7) To publish or withhold publication of the results of its examination wholly or ion part;
(8) To cooperate with other authorities in such manner and for such purposes as the Board may determine;
(9) To call for reports from the director on the condition of recognized institutions or of institutions applying for recognition;
(10) To submit to the State Government its views on any matter with which it is concerned;
(11) To see the schedules of new demands proposed to be included in the budget relating to institutions recognized by it and to submit, if it thinks fit, its views thereon for the consideration of the State Government;
(12) To do all such other acts and things as may be requisite in order to further the objects of the Board as a body constituted for regulating and supervising High School and Intermediate Education."
"7A. Recognition of an institution in any new subject or for a higher class Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (4) of Section 7
(a) the Board may, with the prior approval of the State Government, recognize an institution in any new subject or group of subjects or for a higher class;
(b) the Inspector may permit an institution to open a new section in an existing class."
Under Section 9 of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, the State Government has got power to communicate its views to the Board and it shall be the duty of the Board to report the State Government to the action taken on its part. The State Government has got power to issue appropriate orders or directions if the Board does not take any decision within a reasonable time on any subject matter of the dispute. For convenience, Section 9 of the Act is reproduced as under:
"9. Powers of State Government (1) The State Government shall have the right to address the Board with reference to any of the works conducted or done by the Board and to communicate to the Board its views on any matter with which the Board is concerned.
(2) The Board shall report to the State Government such action, if any, as it is proposed to take or has been when upon its communication.
(3) If the Board does not, within a reasonable time, take action to the satisfaction of the State Government, the State Government may, after considering any explanation furnished or representation made by the Board, issue such directions consistent with this Act as it may think fit, and the Board shall comply with such directions.
(4) Whenever, in the opinion of the State Government, it is necessary or expedient to take immediate action, it may, without making any reference to the Board under foregoing provisions, pass such order or taken such other action consistent with the provisions of this Act as it deems necessary, and in particular, may by such order modify or rescind or make any regulation in respect of any matter and shall forthwith inform the Board accordingly.
(5) No action taken by the State Government under subsection (4), shall be called in question."
Chapter VII of the Regulations deals with the matters relating to recognition to the institutions by the Board. In pursuance to the Regulation 2 of the Regulations, a Committee has been constituted to prescribe norms and rules for granting recognition to the institutions. Regulation 3 of the Regulations provides that an application for grant of recognition for the institution shall be made in the prescribed form filled in and signed by the authority concerned and must reach the Secretary of the Board not exceeding 31st of August of the year of preceding year in which it proposes to open classes. In pursuance to the provisions contained in Regulation 4 of the Regulations, the D.I.O.S. shall forward the application forms after making necessary enquiry to the Board for recognition.
Under Clause 16, 20 & 20A of the Regulation 5, it has been provided that admissions shall be done only in those subjects for which the recognition has been granted. It has been further provided that the District Inspector of Schools after receipt of application forms for recognition of various subjects upto 31 st May of the calendar year shall send the same to the Board with his own comments by 31 st of May of the year. The Board by 31st of May of the calendar year shall decide every application form for recognition of the subjects positively. Under Regulation 1 0, 1 0 Ka, 10Cha, 10Chha, 10Ta, It has been provided that a presumption of the recognition shall be deemed from the date when the Board in its meeting decides and pass order for recognition. Only in those subjects colleges shall start classes for which recognition has been granted. The admissions shall be done only of those students for which recognition has been granted i.e. in boys college, only boys students and in girls college, only girls students.
Thus, from a combined reading of the provisions contained in Chapter 7 of the Regulation of the Intermediate Education Act, it appears that a college can not start classes of the subjects unless the recognition has been granted and communicated by the Board for the respective subjects. For convenience, relevant portion from Chapter VII of the Regulation as printed in the year 2003 in a book tilted as "Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh Niam Sanghrah, 19892003 (October, 2003 Tak Ke Sansodhan Sahit) is reproduced as under:
A combined reading of Regulations referred hereinabove reveals that the colleges will have got no right to admit the students until or unless the recognition is accorded. Clause 16 of Regulation 5 categorically provides that the admission of students in subjects, for which no recognition has been granted by the Board, shall be unlawful and an action may be taken for such irregularity.
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon few lines of Clause 16 of Regulation 5 of the Act and submits that merely moving of an application for recognition shall entitle for the colleges to admit the students in respective subjects. The argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners seems to be misconceived. The combined reading of the provisions contained in Chapter 7 of the Regulation shows that for the purpose of granting recognition, it shall be necessary that a college should fulfil the certain conditions and provide necessary infrastructure. Unless the infrastructure is provided upto mark duly verified and accepted by the Board, a college can (not) be permitted to admit the students. Regulation 11 (Ka) and 11 (Ch) specifically indicates that classes may be started only in those subjects for which the Board grants recognition. Except in the recognized subjects, the colleges will have no right to start classes and admit students. In case the admissions are done, then such students will have no right to appear in the Board''s examination.
In view of above, the colleges imparting education of the High School and Intermediate shall have no right to start classes in any subject unless prior recognition is granted by the Board. Merely, submission of an application for recognition in certain subjects without prior approval from the Board shall not give any right to the Committee of Management or Principal of the College to admit the students in subjects concern.
During the course of arguments, it was submitted by the petitioners'' counsel that after submission of application forms for recognition of the subjects, usually, the D.I.O.S. permits a college to start classes. In case, it is so, then such action on the part of the D.I.O.S. is wholly illegal and is not permissible under law. In case, any D.I.O.S. permits an institution to start classes in certain subjects merely after sending the recommendation in pursuance to the provisions contained in Chapter VII of the Regulation, then such action on the part of the D.I.O.S. amounts to misconduct, may create a ground to initiate disciplinary proceedings being an act done in violation of provisions contained under the regulation referred herein above. Any student admitted in subjects without prior recognition of the Board merely on the permission granted by the D.I.O.S. orally or in writing shall not create a ground to make such a student eligible to appear in Board''s examination.
While considering the provisions contained in Chapter VII of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, it shall always be incumbent to consider the entire regulations as a whole and not in a piecemeal. Undoubtedly, a combined reading of the provisions contained in Chapter 7 of the Regulation framed under the Intermediate Education Act provides that no student can be admitted in a college unless prior recognition is accorded by the Board.
It is a settled law that while interpreting a statutory provision, the entire section or the whole of the statute should be considered. The provisions should not be considered in a piecemeal or ignoring other related provisions. It is a further settled law that a construction which would leave without effect any part of the language of a statute will normally be rejected. (Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes. 12a Edition page 36)
This principle has been followed by the House of Lord reported in AG v. HRH Prince Ernest Auggustus, 1957 (1) All er 49 (HL) as well as by the Apex Court in the cases reported in AIR 1992 SC1. Mohan Kumar Singhania v. Union of India. 1974(1) SCC 596. M/s Gammon India Ltd, and others v. Union of India and others (Para 19). AIR 1978 SC 995. M/s Punjab Beverages Ltd., Chandigarh v. Suresh Chand and another (Para 5), AIR 2002 SC 829, Kailash Chandra and another v. Mukundi Lal and others (Para 10) and AIR 2000 SC 66. Grasim Industries Ltd and another v. State of M.P.
Now coming to the individual cases, in Writ Petition No.927(M/S)/2006, the D.I.O.S., Reabareli has sent a letter dated 23rd of September, 2005 for recognition of the institution in question for certain additional subjects for Arts group in Intermediate classes. After receipt of the letter dated 23rd of September, 2005, by the order dated 16th of February, 2006, recognition was granted to petitioners'' institution from the year 2008. Meaning thereby the students can appear in Board''s Examination which shall be held in the year 2008. The impugned order does not seems to suffer from any impropriety or illegality. Granting of recognition in the month of February. 2006 means the institution in question should have admitted the students in classes for the session 20062007 to enabling them to appear in Board''s examination in the year 2008. Accordingly, the admission of students by the institution in question in the year 20042005 was not permissible under law as discussed hereinabove.
Similarly, granting of recognition by the Board to the college in question which has filed the writ petition No.770(M/S)/2006 by the order dated 7th of October, 2005 to appear the students in Board''s examination in the year 2007, does not seems to suffer from any impropriety or illegality. Since, the recognition was granted in October, 2005 then only thereafter the college in question could have admitted the students in Class IX and the students so admitted will have got right to appear in Board''s examination in the year 2007.
It has been pleaded and submitted during the course of the arguments by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in some of the colleges where the recognition was granted from the year 2006 enabling the students of the respective colleges to appear in Board''s examination, students were permitted to appear by the State Government from the year 2005. Similarly, from time to time, the State Government has preponed the date. All such actions on the part of the State Government seems to be an act done in violation of the provisions contained in the Regulations referred herein above. The State Government has got no right to pass an order which is against the statutory provisions as discussed herein above. The power granted to the State Government under Section 9 of the Intermediate Education Act is a power which may be utilized in case the Board fails to take any action in accordance to law or the provisions contained in the Intermediate Education Act or Regulations framed thereunder. Accordingly, in case, inspite of having full infrastructure and capabilities and compliance of rules, for any reason, whatsoever, the Board fails to grant recognition, then the State Government may pass appropriate order to meet the ends of justice. Power to do a certain thing does not mean that the thing may be done in violation of any statutory provision or Rule or Regulation,
In case, in an institution or college, the students have been admitted without prior recognition of the Board or the State Government, as the case may be the Government has got no right to pass an order in pursuance to the power conferred by Section 9 of the Intermediate Education Act to grant permission to the students to appear in Board''s examination of such an institution. In case, the students have been admitted in unrecognized subjects by the colleges, the State Government has got no jurisdiction or right to pass an order to permit such students to appear in Board''s examination. Any order passed by the State Government in such circumstances, shall be nullity in law and the Board will have a right to raise protest by not permitting such students to appear in the examination. Needless to say that the standard of examination is prime concern for the society. Standard of education corelates with the infrastructure which includes the qualified teachers, class rooms and other paraphernalia provided by Rules or Regulations. In the absence of such infrastructure provided by the Chapter VII or any other provision of law, colleges or institutions have got no right to admit the students.
In case, any admission is being done in violation of the Rules or Regulation or the statutory provisions, then for such act, appropriate action may be taken against such colleges or the Principal in accordance to law which may include the action to derecognize such institutions.
In case reported in (2005 (23) LCD 1601). Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Avadh University. Faizabad v. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sadar. Faizabad and others, I have an occasion to decide the similar question of law where it has been held that any admission done beyond the last date of admission or the admission of students beyond the sanctioned strength shall call for action against the Committee of Management which may result into its derecognition.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon an unreported judgment of this Court dated 28th of February. 2006 passed in W.P. No.5735(M/S)/2005 where it has been held that grant of recognition to appear in Board''s examination after 2 years is not permissible under Intermediate Education Act and the Regulations framed thereunder. Hon''ble Single Judge of this Court while allowing the writ petition has relied upon and considered the provisions relating to disposal of the applications by the Board relating to recognition of institutions. However, the regulation referred hereinabove which provides that no admission shall be granted in any institution without prior recognition has been not considered. It appears that the attention of this Court was not drawn by the learned Standing Counsel towards the statutory provisions referred hereinabove which provides that a college shall not admit students until or unless recognition is accorded by the Board. The judgment and order dated 28th of February, 2006 delivered by Hon''ble Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.5735(M/S)/2005 as well as some other judgments decided on identical grounds, seems to be per incuriam. Per incuriam means inignoranceof, as settled by the Apex Court in the cases reported in (2005) 1 SCC 608, Sunita Devi v. State of Bihar: (2004 4 SCC 590, State v. Ratan Lal Arora: AIR 1975 SC 907, Maheshwar Prasad & ors. v. Kanhaiya Lal.
Whenever any judgment is delivered without considering the statutory provisions contained in the Act or Statute, it shall be per incuriam and shall lack the binding effect.
In view of above, the judgment cited by petitioners'' counsel delivered by Hon''ble Single Judge of this Court referred hereinabove, does not seems to extend any help as the findings recorded by the Hon''ble Single Judge are the contrary to the statutory provisions contained in the Act and the Regulations framed thereunder and the settled proposition of law as discussed hereinabove.
In one another unreported case decided by Hon''ble Single Judge of this Court at Allahabad by the judgment and order dated 24th of February, 2004 passed in WJR No.34503/2003, Ramesh Kumar and others v. Secretary, Board of High Schools and Intermediate Education. U.P. Allahabad and others, with connected petitions, this Court has taken serious note of the fact that the students are admitted by the Committee of Management in an unrecognized institution without prior approval. This Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar and others v. Secretary. Board of High School and Intermediate Education. U.P. Allahabad and others (supra) proceeded to held as under:
"......It is seen that several thousand students have been permitted to appear in Board examinations in unrecognized groups. In the last year, i.e. 2003, about 48,860 students were permitted. If may be mentioned here that the institutions where the subjects have not been recognized or the groups have not been given recognition, there is no infrastructure nor sufficient teachers to impart education. Nonetheless these institutions as a routine manner have been admitting students in unrecognized subjects groups and under the interim orders of this Court or otherwise have been successful in ensuring that the students are permitted to appear in the Board examinations."
Again this Court in the aforesaid case has proceeded to held as under:
":....these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to ensure that no students who has taken admission in an institution where the subject or group has not been recognized, is allowed to appear in the High School or the Intermediate examinations from the year 2005. Further, in order to check that the institutions in the State of U.P. do not dupe and mislead the innocent students and play with their future, every institutions should be directed to prominently and permanently display the notice mentioning therein the groups and subjects for which the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P., Allahabad has granted recognition and to admit the students only in such recognized groups and subjects. Further the concerned District Inspector of Schools should make periodical inspection of the institution to see that such notice is prominently and permanently displayed and admission of any student has not been made by the institution in any unrecognized subjects or groups."
Thus, it has been the consistent view of this Court that no admission should be granted in unrecognized subjects. But it appears that the authorities have been failed to discharge their statutory duties to check such malpractices prevailing in the institutions.
In the present case, by the interim order dated 28th of February, 2006, students were permitted to appear in the examination with the rider that their result shall not be declared. It appears that when the interim order was passed by this Court, learned Standing counsel had not drawn the attention of this Court to the aforesaid settled proposition of law. The question arises whether the student should be put to suffer for no fault on their part and the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit. i.e., an act of Court shall prejudice no man is an important one. The maxim "is founded upon justice and good sense: and affords a safe and certain guide for the administration of the law", said Cresswell J., in Freeman v. tranah (12 CB 406). An unintentional mistake of the Court which may prejudice the cause of any part must and alone could be rectified.
In a case reported in (2003) 8 SCC 648, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. State of M.P., their Lordships of Apex Court proceeded to held as under:
"The maxim of equity, namely, actus curiae neminem gravabit an act of Court shall prejudice no man, is found upon justice and good sense which serves a safe and certain guide for the administration of law. The other relevant maxim is, lex non cogit ad impossibilia the law does not compel a man to do what he cannot possibly perform. The law itself and its administration is understood to disclaim as it does in its general aphorisms, all intentions of compelling impossibilities, and the administration of law must adopt that general exception in the consideration of particular cases. (See: U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Imtiaz Hussain. (2006) 1 SCC 380; Sheikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab v. Kumar. (2006) 1 SCC 46; Mohammed Gazi v. State of M.P.. (2000) 4 SCC 342 and Gursharan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee. (1996) 2 SCC 459)."
The aforesaid principle of law has been again approved by the Apex Court in another case reported in (2006) 281ITR 305 (SC), Krishnasway S. Pd. v. Union of India.
In the cases reported in (1991) 4 Supreme Court Cases 279, Dr. Ku. Nilofar Insaf v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others and (2004) 2 Supreme Court Cases 105, R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of U.P. and others, their Lordships of Hon''ble Supreme Court on identical grounds allowed the declaration of the result, where the students were admitted and appeared in the examination taken in pursuance to the order passed by the Court. Relevant portion from the judgment of R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of U.P. and others (supra) is reproduced as under:
"28. In this case we find that the appellant had joined Regional Engineering College in the year 1992. He completed the course of his studies in the year 1996 under the interim orders of (sic the High) Court which were subject to the final orders to be passed in the writ petition. No purpose, would be served in withholding the declaration of the result on the basis of the examination already taken by him or depriving him of the degree in case he passes the examination. In terms of the orders passed by the Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Milind we direct that his result be declared and he be allowed to take his degree with the condition that he will not be treated as a Scheduled Caste candidate in future either in obtaining service or for any other benefits flowing from the caste certificate obtained by him."
In view of above, without creating any precedent, it shall be appropriate that respondents may be directed to declare the result of petitioners'' college forthwith so that they may not suffer with serious consequences. However, the declaration of the result of the students shall not preclude the authorities from taking action in accordance to law against the Committee of Management or the Principal of the Institution in question who had admitted the students without prior recognition from the Board.
From the controversy discussed hereinabove as well as from the material on record, it appears that the menace to admit the students in unrecognized subjects in the State of U.P. has not been stopped inspite of directions issued by this Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar and others v. Secretary. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. Allahabad and others (supra). It is unfortunate that the categorical directions issued by this Court have not been implemented by the State Government and the students are being admitted in the colleges or schools in the State of U.P. without prior recognition from the competent authority. At the sake of repetition, needless to say that admission of students in unrecognized subjects shall ruin the academic atmosphere in the State of U.P. and may be a set back to the educational system to maintain the standard of education. Accordingly, while summarizing the law on the present controversy, the State Government is further directed to take necessary steps to tone up the administration associated with educational institutions as under:
FINDINGS
(1) The colleges or the institutions have got no right to admit the students without prior recognition of the Board and any admission done without prior recognition of the Board shall not entitle the students of the college concern to appear in Board''s examination.
(2) In case, any Principal or the Committee of Management of the college or institution admits students without prior permission of the Board in unrecognized subjects, then the authorities will have got right to derecognize such institution or college and appropriate disciplinary action may be taken against the Principal of such institution or college in accordance to law for misconduct.
(3) The D.I.O.S. has no right to permit a college or institution to start the class in any subject even if an application for recognition in subject concerned has been submitted and forwarded to the Board. Classes can be started only after grant of recognition by the Board and in case, any D.I.O.S. or Basic Shiksha Adhikari or an officer permits to start classes in unrecognized subjects, then it shall.amount to misconduct and appropriate action may be taken against such D.I.O.S. or Basic Shiksha Adhikari or the officer concern by the competent Authority.
(4) While exercising power under Section 9 of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, the State Government has got no power to pass an order to permit the students of an institution to appear in the examination who were admitted in the respective course without prior recognition. Any order passed by the State Government in violation of the any provisions contained in Chapter VII of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, shall be nullity in law and the Board will have got right not to permit such students to appear in the examination where the recognition has not been granted of the subject in question.
(5) The power conferred by Section 9 of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act is enabling provisions and does not empower the State Government to pass any order against the statutory provisions contained in the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and the Regulations framed thereunder.
(6) State Government is directed to ensure that the application form of admission and information brochure of every college or the institutions situated in the State of U.P. should categorically indicate the subjects for which recognition has been granted either by the U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education or any other recognized Board or Council or authority constituted in accordance to law. The particulars relating to recognition of subjects shall also be displayed at conspicuous place or adjacent to office of the Principal or Headmaster of the College or school on a board of reasonable size as decided by the Government. In case, any school or college does not comply with this direction, D.I.O.S. or Basic Shiksha Adhikari or the Government or the Examining Body may take appropriate action to derecognize and stop the functioning of such college may be by use of force.
Since, it has been brought into the notice of this Court that the admissions are being done in violation of the Rules or Regulations, hence, the State Government is directed to issue orders or circulars keeping in view the findings recorded and directions issued hereinabove to prevent the abuse of process of law by the Principal or the Committee of Management of the institution or college as well as D.I.O.S. or other authorities, in the State of U.P. expeditiously and preferably within a period of 2 months.
The State Government is further directed that in case the D.I.O.S. or the Basic Shiksha Adhikari or the competent authority of the district fails to comply with the directions issued hereinabove in its letter and spirit, it may be treated as misconduct and appropriate action may be taken up in accordance to service rules.
Subject to observations and directions issued hereinabove, the opposite parties are directed to declare the result of the students of the petitioners'' institution who were appeared in the examination in pursuance to the interim order passed by this Court with all consequence benefits without creating any precedent. Writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
Let a Copy of this judgment be sent to the Secretary, Department of Education, Govt. of UP. Lucknow forthwith for compliance.
Let a compliance report be submitted by the State to this Court on or before 11th of October, 2006.
The case shall be listed for the purpose of consideration of compliance report on 12th of October, 2006.
Learned Standing Counsel may inform the State Government accordingly.
Subject to aforesaid directions, the writ petitions are disposed of finally. No order as costs.
(Ordered accordingly)