Shri Ganesh Bal Vidyalaya High School Khargoon, Raisen vs State of M.P. and Others

Arun Mishra, J.

Petitioner in the instant case is praying for issue of writ of mandamus to the State Government to confer recognition for class 10th for the academic Session 2002-03 so that the students can appear as a regular students.

Petitioner Shri Ganesh Bal Vidhyalaya High School Khargoon, Raisen, Tehsil Bareli is imparting education to students upto Class 10th. Application was made for recognition of class 10th to the Board of Secondary Education, P/ 1 on 29.6.2001. Fee was deposited. Inspection was carried out on 23.1.2002. The State Government has asked as per letter P/2 dt.13.11.2002 to send the list of the schools which have been recognized by the Board. Information was to be sent by 26.11.2002. Collector Raisen sent the information P/3 on 26.11.2002. Case of the petitioner was recommended for recognition by the State Government is exercise of power u/s 9 of the M.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Adhiniyam 1965. Commissioner has also as per letter P/4 dt.29.11.2002 recommended the case of the petitioner. However, State has refused to extend exercise of power u/s 9 (4) in view of direction issued in M.C.C No. 1205/2002. Hence, present writ petition has been filed.

In the return submitted by the Board of Secondary Education it is pointed out that there were several deficiencies. Recognition was not accorded by the Board because of the departmental permission did not give the date for which permission was given. There was no trained teaching staff available in school. In the laboratory equipments were inadequate. There was paucity of the books in the library School lacked furniture. There was no proper facility of drinking water. Moreover, the gift deed showing the gift of 2 acres of land appeared to be invalid. The deed was sent for scrutiny and to see whether it was legally valid. However, there were number of discrepancies in the various documents submitted. Institution failed to comply with the standards laid down by the Board. This Court has issued direction in M.C.C. No.1205/2002 which are binding on the Board. Hence, application was rejected.

A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner pointing out that the departmental permission was given. Petitioner submits that the departmental permission was granted as per A/5. It is further submitted that there was no paucity of trained staff. List of teaching staff has been annexed. List of equipments in laboratory is also filed as A/7. List of books in library is A/8. Gift deed is A/9 and financial position is indicated in A/10 along with documents filed in A/9. Thus, the action of the State in not granting recognition u/s 9(5) and that of the Board is not in accordance with law and arbitrary.

The Board has produced for perusal the original file of the recognition. On 9.5.2002, the case of the petitioner for recognition for the academic session 2002-03 was rejected on the ground that rent note was not filed. There was several conflicts in the applications and the inspection report and the averments made in the application. Agreement for purchase was not registered. There was paucity of furniture, trained teaching staff was not available. Petitioner again represented to the Board. Yet another order was passed. School was informed telegraphically not to admit the students.

Petitioner has not assailed the orders passed by the Board of rejection of application for recognition. However, petitioner has prayed for direction to the State Government to accord permission u/s 9(4) of the Act of 1965.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusing the various documents and the file produced by the Board, it is clear that the Board has refused the recognition for the session 2002-03 as per order dt.9.5.2002 petitioner has not assailed the order passed by the Board of Secondary Education in the present writ petition. Petitioner has confined the prayer for issue of direction to the State to exercise the power u/s 9(4) of the Act of 1965. This Court in M.C.C. No.1205/2002 decided on 13.12.2002 by brother Dipak Mishra, J. has laid down the outer limit for exercising the power u/s 9(4) by the State Government as 30.9.2002.

The improvement made if any by the petitioner subsequent in point of time to rejection cannot enure for the benefit of the petitioner in on going academic session we are already in February 2003, examinations are going to be held in March/ April, 2003. Recommendations made in favour of the petitioner for the purpose of recognition are subsequent in point of time when period fixed in M.C.C. was over. In case the petitioner has made the improvement as suggested by the SDO and Collector that has to enure for the benefit in next academic session, not for the session which is going to be over. Since recommendation was made in November 2002, obviously the Government could not have exercised the power u/s 9(4) of Adhiniyam in view of the direction issued by this Court in M.C.C. No. 1205/2002 and otherwise also it was too late to exercise the power for grant of recognition for on going academic session 2002-03, such power is to be exercised by the State, must be exercised ideally before commencement of the academic session in question as on time bound basis the students are to be admitted. Thus, it cannot be said that on the basis of recommendation made in November 2002 petitioner was entitled for grant of recognition u/s 9(4) of the Act by the State Government. The State Govt. can not exercise power at any time putting the entire system and calendar topsy tervy. When admissions are to be made in July examination, forms to be filed by 30th September. Thus, action of the Board is not assailable. However, case of the petitioner for next academic session 2003-2004 is stated to be pending consideration before the Board. Same is directed to be considered in view of the improvements if any made by the petitioner so far and case be decided by 30th April, 2003.

With respect to centre Board has to act reasonably. No positive direction is required in such a sensitive matter. Particularly when petitioner has not enjoyed recognition cannot have right in the matter of fixation of centre. Matter is administrative. No interference is called in fixation of centre.