Important Point
The Court can either direct the statutory authority, where it is not exercising its discretion, by mandamus to exercise its discretion or when exercised to see whether it has been validly exercised. But it is not appropriate for the Court to substitute itself for the statutory authorities to decide the matter.

Headnote:Recognition of a Junior High Madrasah (Classes V to VIII) as High Madrasah (with addition of Classes IX and X)-Dispute as to pattern of staff-Management seeking approval of its 31 staff members from statutory authorities-Under consideration-Management filing writs leading to passing of impugned orders-Submission that material is on record and Court may decide it-Whether be accepted? (No)-Proper course-Matter be decided by the authorities concerned instead of Court-Direction issued accordingly-Let the case be listed after decision is placed in Court by authorities.
Held : It is not in dispute, in this case, that after the management sent its letter dated 6th August, 1992 for the approval of its 31 staff, viz., both teaching and non-teaching staff, both the District Inspector of School and the Secretary of Board sought for certain information through their letters dated 21st September, 1992. Instead of sending any reply, the management filed the writ petition in the High Court, leading to passing of the impugned orders. Thus, till this date the appellant-authorities have yet not exercised their discretion. Submission for the respondents was that this Court itself should examine and decide the question in issue based on the material on records to set at rest the long standing issue. We have no hesitation to decline such a suggestion. The Courts can either direct the statutory authorities , where it is not exercising its discretion, by mandamus to exercise its discretion or when exercised to see whether it has been validly exercised. It would be inappropriate for the Court to substitute itself for the statutory authorities to decide the matter. In the impugned orders, the High Court committed many manifest errors and was swayed by what preceded the present question, viz., inordinate delay in the recognition of High Madrasah. That chapter was a closed chapter after granting recognition as High Madrasah. Reference or the background what precedes the present issue may have relevance but to conclude on the said background without adverting to the question in issue cannot be sustained. On the perusal of the impugned order, we do not find that any consideration was given in the impugned orders on the issue in question. This apart, the High Court disposed of the main appeal on the date not fixed for the same, while disposing of the application. It seems that in the background of the anxiety of the management, in view of the various proceedings undertaken including contempt proceedings for implementing the learned Single Judge’s order, the court, instead of adverting to the question in issue, concentrated more to see the said 31 persons be approved within the specified time. As we have held above, without the statutory authority applying its mind for their approval and the impugned order not adjudicating the issue to question how the impugned orders could be sustained. The remote suggestion by the learned counsel for the respondents of the mala fide also cannot stand as we do not find, by firstly, any such allegation on record nor any such person by name has been impleaded as a party. Finally, we accept the suggestion of the learned senior counsel for the respondents that in case the matter is to be decided by the authorities instead of leaving this matter for parties to go to High Court again after such adjudication, if so advised, this matter be kept pending in the Court so that the matter may be finally decided here instead of the matter taking long circular route again. Accordingly, we direct the concerned authorities to decide the aforesaid question raised by making any inspections, as it deem fit and proper, after giving due opportunity to the management, decide the matter within four months and place its decision before this Court within three weeks thereafter, after giving copy of the same to the management. Let this case be listed after the aforesaid period for final disposal. (Paras 28 to 32)

Judgment

Misra, J.-Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against the judgments and orders dated 9th February, 1994 and 29th August 1995 by which the High Court directed the appellant-authorities to grant approval to the teaching and non-teaching staff including the Head Master (Mohd. Nuruddin Mallick) in the respective posts held by them in a Madrasah known as Bishalaxmipur Pune Saha Mastania Junior High Madrasah.

3. The present case is one of such unfortunate tug of war between the Management of an Educational Institution and the statutory authorities. Such situations are gradually rolling into spate of litigations crumbling the very base of the educational environment. It is either on account of factionalism within the management, each faction when in power trying to pour in his men contrary to the norms fixed or sometimes on account of authorities deliberately pulling the strings of the management for strifling reasons delaying the legitimate conferment of rights of the teachers, staff or the institution. Education is the foundation of the prosperity of any country, it shapes its future by inculcating discipline, culture and the spirit into the youth. If the very foundation of education is involved in long drawn out litigation, the very hope and aspiration of the youth for the future is lost. Every contribution by any person entrusted with such noble service may be teacher, management or staff, whether Government functionaries or statutory authorities has to render service with dedication and with the sole objective to render service to the nation and in doing so eliminate, if any, strifling conflicts to reach the objective in accordance with law. Any action by all such has to be shunned and an atmosphere to be created which is conducive to the healthy atmosphere for the students. With this now we proceed to examine this case.

4. For establishing either Junior or High Madrasah which consists of four levels of classes, namely, class V to VIII as well as High Madrasah which have two levels, namely, classes IX and X, the sanction of the State Government/West Bengal Madrasah Board is necessary. The appellants are State of West Bengal, the President and the Secretary of West Bengal Madrasah Education Board, renamed as West Bengal Board of Madrasah Education. The case set up by the appellants is that the staff pattern as well as the required qualifications of teaching and non-teaching staff of Madrasahs as prescribed from time to time. The circulars also lay down conditions under which a Madrasah may be permitted to open additional class units or sections. The staff pattern for additional class units when approved are also prescribed. Where a Junior High Madrasah is upgraded as a High Madrasah, no fresh approval is required for teachers whose appointments have already been approved by the Board as teachers of the Junior High Madrasah. The Bishalaxmipur Pune Shah Mastania Junior High Madrasah (for short ‘said Madrasah’) was recognised by the Board with effect from 1st January, 1971 as Junior High Madrasah (Classes V to VIII). The staff pattern originally approved was six teaching (including Head Master) and two non-teaching staff. Opening of additional class units were approved from time to time and by 1981 posts of three additional teachers and one additional non-teaching staff had been sanctioned. As a result, the Junior High Madrasah had the approval for a total of nine teaching (including Head Master) and three non-teaching staff. The said Madrasah opened classes IX and X without any approval/sanction for the same. It appears that the Board from time to time granted ad hoc special permissions for the Class X students to appear at the school final examinations. In 1981, the writ petitions being C.R. No. 2391 (W) of 1981 and C.R. No. 14594 (W) of 1981 were filed by Mohd. Nuruddin Mullick for an order directing the authorities to recognise the said Madrasah as a High Madrasah (i.e. Classes V to X). In these writ

Click Here to Read the rest of this document