AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
All these petitions are being decided by this common order as common question of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions. However, for the
sake of brevity, the facts is narrated in W.P. No.14343/2016 (Dr. Lohiya Manch Siksha Samiti Gangeo, Rewa Vs. State ofM.P. and Others) has been
reproduced as under.
The petitioner is a registered education society, registered under provision of Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973. The
petitioner’s society is running Janta Higher Secondary School, Jorout, DistrictRewa for imparting the education w.e.f. 1982-1983 having being the
recognition and affiliation from the State Government as well as the Board of Secondary Education M.P., Bhopal. The recognition was granted to the
petitioner’s school under the provision of Madhyamik Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1965 as well as the Manyata Vinimay revised from time to time and the
recognition was being renewed from time to time. The State Government as per the notification dated 11.02.2015 in M.P. Gazette has framed the new
rules of recognition namely Madhya Pradesh Madhyamik Evam Uchhatar Madhyamik Shala Niyam, 2015 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Niyam
2015’) for the purpose of granting new recognition and for extension of the recognition introducing the several provisions. Under rule 4.2. of the
said Niyam, respondent no.4 is nominated the competent authority for extension of the recognition and the procedure for application is also provided
under rule 6. However, so far as, renewal application for recognition is concerned, it is provided under the Rule 6.9 of the Niyam 2015 that nothing is
required to produce accept to any change in infrastructure. The petitioner’s society has submitted an application for renewal of recognition for the
year 2016-2017 in which the inspection was done by the authority nominated by the respondent, the Sankul Principal of Government Excellence Boy
Higher Secondary School Manigawan, Rewa who having found that the sufficient infrastructure as well as the teaching staff and, therefore,
recommended for renewal of recognition for the year 2016-2017 in his inspection report. However, in contrary to inspection report, respondent no.4
passed the order dated 15.04.2016 rejected the renewal of recognition application, alleging certain defects.
Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner’s society filed a first appeal under Rule 12.2 of the aforesaid Rules stating that the school was
recognized for the year 2015-2016 as alleged above as the petitioner has deposited the recognition fee as required the school was shown in the portal
of list of recognized institution, the students already allowed as regular students for high school and higher secondary school examination 2015-2016
and the result has also been declared as regular students. However, ignoring all material and the legal aspect, respondent no.3 vide order dated
10.07.2016 has rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a second appeal before respondent no.2 and he
appeared before the appellate authority along with all requisite documents, but respondent no.2 vide order dated 10.08.2016 rejected the said appeal.
Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the ground on which the second appeal preferred by the petitioner is
rejected is incorrect. He submits that the allegation for not having qualified teacher is absolutely illegal and it is contrary to the rules as the petitioner
submitted list of teaching staff in which the most of the teachers are post graduateand so far as recognition is concerned, the learned senior counsel
submits that the petitioner already submitted an application for recognition for the year 2015-2016, however, the said application was neither rejected
nor allowed. However, the name of the petitioner institution appears on the portal of recognized institution and the Board has also permitted the
petitioner to admit the students and these students also appear as a regular students in the examination, for such reasons, it cannot be said that the
petitioner is not having a recognition for the year 2015 and 2016. He further submits that the case of the petitioner is covered under rule 6.9 of the
Niyam, 2015 which relates to the renewal of recognition. As per this Rules, the petitioner is not required to produce the documents relating to the
building and land as there is no change in the infrastructure. In such circumstances, he submits that the petitioner has already having a recognition for
the year 2014-2015 and in the year 2015-2016, the petitioner submitted an application for renewal of the recognition which was neither allowed nor
rejected by the respondent and, therefore, it shall be deemed to be granted. He submits that the appellate authority had failed to consider all the
documents produced by the petitioner while rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The petitioner institution is having a recognition for last 34
years, whereas in similar circumstances the renewal of recognition cancelled by the Collector, Bhind twice in respect of the 5 schools in District Bhind
has granted recognition twice.
Respondents no.1 to 4 have filed their reply and in the reply they have stated that the institution has applied for renewal of recognition for the
Session 20162017 but that have been rejected for the reason that the petitioner did not fulfill the requirement for granting recognition for the Session
2016-2017. As the petitioner does not have the recognition for the Session 2015-2016 accordingly, for the next Session 2016-2017 recognition cannot
be granted. So far as, granting of recognition to the other institution for the year 2016-2017 is concerned, a decision has been taken in the meeting
headed by the concerned Minister on 20.05.2016. It is stated that the institution which have applied for renewal of recognition and their appeal has
been dismissed without informing them and temporary renewal was granted in pursuant to the instruction dated 17.07.2014, the said institution would
apply till 10.06.2016 and recognition for the year 20162017 they may apply for and file appeal before the appellate authority. The respondents states
that in the case of the petitioner, he has not submitted an appeal before the appellate authority but directly applied for granting recognition for the
Session 2016-2017 but in absence of any recognition for Session 2015-2016 their application for renewal of recognition has been rejected.
Respondent no.5 has also filed the reply and in the reply he has stated that the State Government has enacted the Niyam 2015. Rule 4 of the said
Niyam provides that in case an application for grant of fresh recognition is received, the District Education Officer submits proposal to the Collector
and thereafter, the Collector decides to grant recognition or not. In case, renewal of recognition, the matter is decided by the District Education
Officer. Rule 5 provides that only those institution which are registered under the Central or State Firms and Societies Act or are registered under the
M.P. Loknyas Adhiniyam and whose byelaws permit the institute to undertake educational activities. The grant of recognition is provided underrule 6
of the Rules which states that the application for grant of fresh recognition or renewal of recognition has to be submitted before the District Education
Officer along with all relevant documents that have been mentioned in Rule 6, thereafter a committee is to be constituted for the purpose of inspection
of the documents and District Education Officer is required to decide the application with a period of seven days and thereafter proposal along with
his opinion is sent to the Collector. The Collector shall decide whether to grant recognition or not within a period of 10 days of receiving the proposal
from the District Education Officer. Rule 12 of the Niyam, 2015 provides for appeal against the order of non grant of recognition and, therefore,
second appeal lies before the Commissioner. The respondent has further stated that for the Session 2015-2016 and Session 2016-2017, the District
Education Officer has issued the orders on 15.04.2016 and 10.07.2016 wherein the recognition of the institution has been withdrawn due to not
fulfilling the formalities.
The petitioner filed the rejoinder and in the rejoinder he stated that the petitioner’s school was granted temporary recognition for the year 2014-
2015 and no recognition was granted for the year 2015-2016, however, respondent have not placed on record any documents to show that the
application submitted by the petitioner for recognition for the year 2015-2016 is either being allowed or rejected, it is also to be noted that no notice has
been given to the petitioner as required under the Madhyamik Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1965. In the present case, the petitioner’s institution has
admitted the students for the year 2015-2016 and they were allowed to appear in the examination as regular student and their results have been
declared by respondent no.5 which can be done only on having recognition of the school concerned. The name of the petitioner institution is also
included in the list of recognized institution published in the list of recognized institution in the portal for the year 2015-2016. This shows that the
petitioner’s institution was having recognition for the year 2015-2016.
The petitioner has also filed an application i.e. I.A. 3735/2017, for taking documents on record.
In the aforesaid application, the petitioner stated that the Viniyam 2010 does not make any distinction as sought to be advanced by the respondents
that there is some basic difference between the ‘temporary recognition’ and ‘recognition.’ It provides that the recognition will be granted
initially for two years and thereafter renewed for three years as per regulation 7 of the Viniyam, 2010. Therefore, grant of ‘temporary
recognition’ would deemed to be grant of ‘recognition’. The ‘temporary recognition’ cannot be construed to be adverse order against
which the petitioner was obliged to file an appeal. The petitioner has applied for renewal of recognition for the year 2015-2016. The statement made
by the respondents in the impugned order that no recognition was granted in the year 20152016 is based on no record and is ipso facto perverse. The
petitioner school was treated as a recognized school for the year 2015-2016 and the students were allowed to appear as regular students. The new
Niyam has been enacted by the State Government in the year 2015 where were brought into effect from 11.02.2015 and, therefore, the application
submitted by the petitioner for recognition is to be considered under the Niyam of 2015.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In the present case, the petitioner is a registered education society, registered under
Provision of Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973. The petitioner’s society running a school in the name of Janta Higher
Secondary School, Jorout, District Rewa w.e.f. 1982-1983. The petitioner has submitted an application for renewal of recognition in the year 2016-
2017 which has been rejected by the respondents vide order dated 15.04.2016 on the ground that:-
“1. That, the petitioner’s institution is not having recognition for the year 2015-2016.
For the year 2014-2015 having a ‘temporary recognition’.
The teachers does not possess the necessary qualification and the petitioner has not filed audit report of last year and details as per Section 27 of
the Act.â€
The petitioner submitted an appeal against this order before the Collector. The Collector vide order dated 10.07.2017 has rejected the said appeal,
against which second appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner along with all relevant documents but it was dismissed on the same
grounds. The State Government enacted the Niyam known as Niyam of 2015. The Rule 4.2 of the said Niyam states that for renewal of the
recognition, the District Education Officer will be the competent authority. The Rule 6 provides for the procedure for granting the recognition. As per
rule 6.2 provides that the application should be accompanied with the sanctioned building plan and the completion certificate. As well as the rule 6.7.2
provides that the applicant is required to file list of teachers as per their subjects and education qualification.
The rule 6.9 submits for the purpose of renewal of recognition, the applicant is not required to file the documents relating to the land and building but
he required to file a copy of the photograph of the constructed building, audit report and details regarding the equipments in the laboratory and also if
there is any alteration is made. In the present case, as per the petitioner, the society running a society from the year 1982-1983 the ‘temporary
recognition’ for the year 2014-2015 was granted and for the year 2015-2016, the petitioner submitted an application for recognition, but the same
was not either rejected or allowed by the Board. The Board has allowed the petitioner to admit the students. The students have appeared in the
examination and their result was also declared by the Board as regular student. The name of the petitioner’s institution was also shown on the
portal of the Board. All these facts shows that the petitioner is having a deemed recognition for the year 2015-2016. The second ground on which the
respondents have rejected the application is that the teachers are not having a requisite qualification. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner has already given the list of teachers before the respondents who are well qualified. It is further to be noted that when the petitioner
has submitted his application for renewal of the recognition for the year 2015-2016, the inspection was done and a recommendation was made for
renewal of the recognition for the year 2015-2016. However, for the reasons known to the respondents no certificate regarding the recognition has
been granted in favour of the petitioner.
Thus, the case of the petitioner being a case of renewal of recognition and not a new recognition. The first appellate authority as well as the
second appellate authority while considering the appeal have not at all considered this aspect of the matter and passed a non-speaking order without
considering the documents submitted by the petitioner.
In such circumstances, I allowed all these writ petitions. The impugned orders dated 15.04.2016 (Anenxure P-4), 10.07.2016 (Annexure P-5) and
10.08.2016 (Annexure P-7) are hereby set aside. Respondent no.3 is directed to reconsider the appeal preferred by the petitioner within a period of
one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and before passing the order, respondent no.3 shall also given an opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner.
Accordingly, all these writ petitions are allowed without any order as to costs.
Certified copy as per rules.