Jabalpur Vidyapeeth Higher Secondary School vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

In this petition, petitioner has called in question order dated 11.08.2018 passed by respondent no. 2 i.e. Recognition Committee in Second Appeal preferred by the petitioner.

The grievance of the petitioner is in respect of rejection of Second Appeal and non- renewal of recognition for High School and Higher Secondary School for Sessions 2018-2019 and 2019-2020.

Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that petitioner filed an application for renewal of recognition on 11.04.2018 along with late fees of Rs.20,000/-. Application filed by the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 01.05.2018 by respondent no. 4-Joint Director, Public Instructions, Jabalpur for non-fulfilment of Rule 6(3) of Madhya Pradesh Recognition of Secondary and Higher Secondary School Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as Rules of 2017). Rule 6(3) stipulates filing of an affidavit on stamp paper worth Rs.100/- giving details of land, its area, nature of possession on affidavit. Petitioner removed the objection and filed first appeal before Commissioner Public Instruction, Madhya Pradesh Bhopal. First appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 11.07.2018. It was mentioned in the order that petitioner school does not have Lecturer in Commerce and English. Petitioner removed this objection also and appointed Lecturer in Commerce and English. Petitioner filed second appeal before recognition-Committee i.e. respondent no.2. In minutes of meeting dated 6.08.2018, it was expressed by recognisition-Committee that petitioner institution fulfils the criteria laid by rules for reviewed of recognition and, therefore, recognition of petitioner institution is renewed for year 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 with condition that petitioner will file an affidavit that teachers serving in petition institution will not do teaching work in any other institution. Petitioner was waiting for formal order, but to his utter surprise he received an order dated 11.08.2018 by which Second Appeal for renewal of recognition was rejected on the ground that institution does not have subject wise trained staff. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that order dated 11.08.2018 is arbitrary and malafide in nature. On 6.8.2018, minutes of meeting reflect that institution fulfils all the conditions as laid down in Rules of 2017 and renewal of Recognition of petitioner institution for Sessions 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 was allowed on condition of filing an affidavit, but respondents took a somersault and vide order dated 11.8.2018 appeal was rejected. On the basis of these grounds, counsel for petitioner prayed for directions to respondents to renew the recognition of school for academic sessions 2018-2019 and 2019-2020.

Counsel appearing for the State Government opposed the prayer. It is argued by him that petitioner institution does not fulfil Rule 5(2)(b), 5(2) (c), 5(6), and 5.17 of the Rules of 2017.

The averments made and ground raised in the arguments by respondents is not reflected in the order dated 11.08.2018. Said order only says that petitioner-institution does not have subject wise trained staff. Order does not say anything about non-fulfilment of aforesaid rules by petitioner institution. Neither there is any mention of aforesaid rules in first appeal. Respondents cannot be allowed to take a ground which was not existing at the time of first appeal and second appeal and they cannot justify the impugned order by supplanting a new reason which is not there in the order. Moreover minutes of meeting dated 06.08.2018 reflects that petitioner-institution fulfils all the criteria laid down in Rules of 2017 and they were asked to furnish an affidavit within a period of one month that teaching staff will not be engaged in teaching in any other institution. On fulfilling such condition there will be renewal of recognition of petitioner institution. Respondents had failed to explain in the return that what prompted them to reject the second appeal on 11.08.2018 when on 06.08.2018, it was held that institution fulfils all the criteria under the Rules of 2017 for grant of recognition on condition of filing an affidavit. No reason is given in the order dated 11.08.2018 to defer to decision already been taken on 06.08.2018. The reasons given in the return does not have any basis in the order dated 11.08.2018.

In view of same, order dated 11.08.2018 is held to be arbitrary and, therefore, quashed. Respondents are directed that if, petitioner files an affidavit as laid down in the order dated 06.08.2018, then his case will be reconsidered by the Authority for renewal of recognition for academic sessions of 2018-2019 and 2019-2020.

With aforesaid directions, writ petition is disposed of.