A circular letter issued by a government department without the force of law and without providing for any consequence in relation to any school which might have been started without obtaining any permission from the government or the board cannot be used to deny recognition to a school.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against a judgement and order dated 7. 11. 97 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners claiming, inter alia, the following reliefs:"a) For a writ of or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents, their subordinates or agents to cancel, reject, withdraw or rescind from the impugned order dated 15. 12. 94 passed by the Assistant Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Annexure 'h' to the writ application rejecting the proposal for recognition of the proposed Kumarganj Junior High School, Kumarganj, Malda, and to give recognition to the said Junior High School without any delay. b) For a writ of or in the nature of Mandamus directing the Secretary, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education to accord recognition to Kumarganj Junior High School from V to VIII Class out of 16 quotas of Malda District, at an early date, was allowed. "

( 2 ) THE basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.

( 3 ) A school by the name of Kumarganj Junior High School was established at Village -Kumarganj in the District of Malda as far back in the year 1984. Since then, the authorities of the school had been filing representations for recognition of the said school. Admittedly, an inspection was made by the District Level Inspection Team on or about 12. 4. 94. In the said inspection, the roll strength of students was recorded as follows:boystotalgirlstotalgeneral+sc+stgeneral + SC + ST1991-92 42 + 5 + X= 4741+6+471992-93 45 + 9 + X= 5456 + 12 +681993-94 56 + 10 + X= 6656 + 11 +67number of students present on the date of inspection :-12-4-1994vboys -- 21girls -- 14=35vi" 6"23=29vii"14" 9=23viii"17"6=23

( 4 ) IN the said report, it had been further stated that there were 7 teaching and 2 non- teaching staff. The said report revealed that there are 8 primary schools which are within the range of 2 to 3 Kms. and whose requirements are fulfilled by the school in question.

( 5 ) THE writ petitioners had filed writ petition before this Court, as earlier their application for grant of recognition had not been considered for a long time. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the direction made by this Court, an order dated 15. 12. 1994 as contained in annexure 'h' to the writ application was passed in terms whereof the writ petitioners' representation for grant of recognition of the said school was rejected stating:"this school was established in 1984 without prior permission from the Government or Board. Enrolment of the school is not satisfactory. "

( 6 ) BEFORE the learned trial Judge, admittedly no affidavit in opposition was filed. Statements made in the writ application were, therefore, not contreverted. The learned trial Judge after having considered the entire fact came to the conclusion that the school in question fulfils the criteria for recognition. The learned trial Judge further took into consideration the fact that the schools similarly situated and which had been established after 26. 4. 78 had been granted recognition. In the aforementioned situation, the learned trial Judge directed:0"in the circumstances ultimately the question that poses before this Court is whether the communication of the Assistant Secretary to the Government of West Bengal dated 15. 12. 94 and the subsequent decision of the Board of Secondary Education as communicated by the annexure-I should be allowed to stand. Since I have shown that the relevant school fulfils all the requirements of recognition excepting that it came into existence spontaneously due to the exigency of the situation and due to the utmost effort of inhabitants of the locality, must get its due recognition from the Board of Secondary Eduction. "

( 7 ) MR. Dilip Kumar Samanta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has raised a short question in support of this appeal. Learned counsel has taken us through the circular letter bearing No. 553-Edn (s) dated 26th Apr