Back
High Court Of Calcutta
A. K. MATHUR, J. K. BISWAS
WEST BENGAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION - Appellant
Versus
DAKHIRUDDIN KHAN - Respondent
C. A. N. 6532 Of 2001
Decided On : 05/07/2002
WEST BENGAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION - RECOGNITION OF SCHOOLS - GUIDELINES - SCHOOL BUILDING - INADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE - TEACHERS - APPOINTMENT - RECOGNITION REFUSED - COURT'S INTERFERENCE - CIRCULAR DATED 26.4.1978 - NON-OBSERVANCE - MANDATORY OR NOT - GRANT OF RECOGNITION - STATE'S RIGHT - GOVERNMENT CIRCULAR - POLICY DECISION - JUDICIAL REVIEW - COURT'S JURISDICTION - EXPERT BODY'S DISCRETION - INTERFERENCE - EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES - GOVERNMENT MACHINERY OR FUNDS - SUFFICIENCY - PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS - NECESSITY - COURT'S ROLE.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, challenged the order of the single judge directing the authorities to take steps for recognition of the school in question as per the provisions of law forthwith within two months from the date of communication of the order. The school authorities and some guardians of the wards of the school filed a writ application challenging the Memo issued by the Secretary, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, intimating that the recognition committee of the Board did not recommend the school for recognition.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the reasons given by the Board for refusing recognition to the school were relevant and could not be said to be irrelevant. The court further held that the circular issued by the State Government on 26th April, 1978, was a policy decision and could not be ignored as non-existent. The court also held that the grant of recognition was with the Government as the Government would have to extend the financial aid to the school and take an additional burden on the public exchequer. The court further held that the Government was in a better position to appreciate their financial condition and could lay down parameters for grant or refusing to grant recognition. The court also held that the establishment of school was against the circular issued by the Government, and no writ of mandamus could be issued to the Government or the Board to recognize the school.
Issues: 1. Whether the reasons given by the Board for refusing recognition to the school were relevant? 2. Whether the circular issued by the State Government on 26th April, 1978, was a mandatory or a policy decision? 3. Whether the grant of recognition was with the Government or the Board? 4. Whether the Government was in a better position to appreciate their financial condition and could lay down parameters for grant or refusing to grant recognition? 5. Whether the establishment of school was against the circular issued by the Government?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the reasons given by the Board for refusing recognition to the school were relevant and could not be said to be irrelevant. The court observed that the school was established in violation of Clause 2 (e) of the Government order dated 26th April, 1978, which prohibited the establishment of schools without prior permission of the Government or the Board. The court also observed that the school building was a kachcha construction with bamboo fencing and tile shed, which was not in accordance with the norms laid down by the Government. The court further observed that the number of class rooms was inadequate in view of the enrolment, and that the teachers had not been appointed in terms of the Government Rules. 2. The court held that the circular issued by the State Government on 26th April, 1978, was a policy decision and could not be ignored as non-existent. The court observed that the circular was issued by the State as a policy decision and that such a policy decision could not be ignored as non-existent. The court also observed that the circular was not mandatory, but that it had been issued by the State as a policy decision and that such a policy decision could not be ignored as non-existent. 3. The court held that the grant of recognition was with the Government as the Government would have to extend the financial aid to the school and take an additional burden on the public exchequer. The court observed that the Government was in a better position to appreciate their financial condition and could lay down parameters for grant or refusing to grant recognition. 4. The court held that the Government was in a better position to appreciate their financial condition and could lay down parameters for grant or refusing to grant recognition. The court observed that the Government was in a better position to appreciate their financial condition and could lay down parameters for grant or refusing to grant recognition. 5. The court held that the establishment of school was against the circular issued by the Government, and no writ of mandamus could be issued to the Government or the Board to recognize the school. The court observed that the establishment of school was against the circular issued by the Government, and no writ of mandamus could be issued to the Government or the Board to recognize the school.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed and the order passed by the learned single Judge was set aside.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge dated 22nd May, 2001 whereby the learned single Judge has set aside Memo No. S/631 dated 17th November, 2000 issued by the Secretary, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education and directed the authorities to take steps for recognition of the school in question as per the provisions of law forthwith within two months from the dated of communication of the order. Aggrieved against this order the present appeal has been preferred by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education.
( 2 ) THE Managing Committee of the Patharghata Junior High School (hereinafter referred to as the school), a school set up for the Class VIII standard, and some guardians of the wards of the said school filed a writ application challenging the Memo No. S/631 dated 17th November, 2000 issued by the Secretary, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. It was intimated to the school authorities that the recognition committee of the Board did not recommend the school for recognition. It may be relevant to mention here that the recognition committee of the Board took up the case for recognition of the school in pursuance of earlier writ petition filed by the management in which a direction was given by this Court on 15th February, 2000 for consideration of the recognition of the school. In pursuance of the aforesaid direction given by this Court on 15th February, 2000, the Board took up the matter for consideration and the same was placed before recognition committee of the Board which refused to recommend the school for recognition on the following grounds: 1. The school claims to have been established in 1983 in violation of Clause 2 (e) of G. O. No. 553-Edn (S), dated 26. 4. 78, moreover the school has only 29 decimal of land, which is inadequate and has been possessed in 1985 for which the date of establishment as claimed for cannot be accepted. 2. The school building is kachcha having bamboo fencing and tile shed;
( 3 ) THERE are five class rooms, but in view of the enrolment the number of room is inadequate.
( 4 ) THE teachers have not been appointed in terms of G. A. Rules.
( 5 ) THE State Government does not recommend the school for its recognition for lack of infrastructure. ?3. Aggrieved against this order passed by the Board the present writ petition was filed. The learned single Judge after considering the matter at length came to the conclusion that the reason given by the Board are not relevant as it was observed that the school is running with sufficient roll strength of students and the same has been recommended for recognition by the concerned Panchayat Samity and Nadia Zila Parishad. Secondly, it was found that the requirement of a Pucca construction is not necessary. It was observed that since the State Government has shown complete apathy by not setting up a school, therefore, it cannot be prudent to take such a strict view that kachcha building is not suitable for housing a school. It was further observed by the learned single Judge that teacher pupil ratio cannot provide a ground for denying recognition. The learned single Judge held that it is rather not better not to have an educational institution at all than to have an institution with higher number of students. For the above reasons the learned single Judge negated the State Government's objection with regard to lack of infrastructure. Therefore, the learned single Judge found that the Government has also not correctly approached the matter for not recommending the school for recognition. It was also observed by the learned single Judge that the authorities have not denied that the present school have office room, one common room, separate latrine for boys and girls students and necessary arrangement for drinking water apart from the five class rooms. It was also observed by the learned single Judge that the Board in similar circumstances has granted recognition to Vivekananda A
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
