IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.
Antodaya Adivasi Ucch Vidyalaya Deogana - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Jharkhand - Respondent
W.P.(S) No. 2604 of 2018
Decided On : 02-04-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner established school seeks government takeover. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. previous legal proceedings regarding school takeover. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. requirements for administrative decisions must be transparent. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. prior decisions do not inhibit new evaluations. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. writ petition disposed with directives for compliance. (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT :
DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. In the instant writ petition the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs: -
A. For issuance of an appropriate writ/writs order/orders, direction/directions or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the decision dated 24.11.2017 (Annexure-18) of the High-Level Committee as constituted by the Department of School Education and Literacy, Govt. of Jharkhand in the context of the petitioner- school relating to its taking over control and management by the Government by which the said committee took decision simpliciter holding that it is not within the domain of the committee to take any decision relating to take over the petitioner school by the Government contrary to the Government's unaided Educational policy as grants are given, which being misconceived, misconstrued, illegal and contrary to its own decision in the light of the undisputed fact and finding that the petitioner -school established on 02.10.1981 and was granted permission for its establishment on 19.02.1985 under section 3(3) of the Bihar Non-Government Secondary School (Taking Over of Control and Management) Act, 1981 (hence forth 1981 Act) after several inspection and inquiries by the concerned officers with recommendation for taking over the school by the Government and since then the petitioner- school has been functioning and the action taken in exercise of the power under the said section 3(3) of the 1981 Act shall have the binding force also and in violation of the Hon'ble court's order dated 18.10.2016 in W.P.(S) No. 3349 of 2015.
B. For issuance of appropriate writ/writs order /orders, direction/directions or a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to Take Over the control and management of the petitioner-school in view of the fact that the petitioner school has been granted permission for its establishment U/s 3(3) of the 1981 Act, on certain conditions of transfer of land and assets to be made in terms of Section 3(3) of the said 1981 Act in the name of Government, which conditions have been fulfilled by the petitioner school and despite the same owing to inaction and negligence final notification relating to recognition of the petitioner school could not have been made in spite of the representation of the petitioner-school no decision has been taken by the State by issuing a formal notification under section 3 (3) of the Act for taking over the management of the school although all the formalities for handing over the school to State has been completed 3 decades before inspite of all the formalities completed, Govt is not taking over, thus frustrating the entire purpose and also depriving the teachers who are contributing on meager payment; though there has been no impediment for recognition of the petitioner-school.
C. For issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for payment of salary and other consequential benefits to the Teachers and Non-Teaching Staffs engaged in the Petitioner-School.
D. For issuance of an appropriate writ /writs ,order/orders, direction/ directions or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order contained in memo no 2156 dated 30.07.2018 (Annexure-20) issued by the respondent no 3 by which the order has been passed refusing the claim of the petitioner -school as to take over by the Government holding that Jharkhand Unaided Educational Institution (Grant) Act 2004 is in vogue and contrary to the same no decision can be taken which being irrational, misconceived, misconstrued and illogical in view of the fact that no dis
Mohinder Singh Gill Versus Chief Election Commission New Delhi
Administrative orders must contain reasoning to ensure legality and proper evaluation of statutory compliance; failure to do so renders the order susceptible to review.
The court emphasized the principle of equality in state actions, ruling that the government's discretion to take over schools must not result in discriminatory treatment against institutions similarl....
The court established that an institution's right to grant-in-aid crystallizes under earlier government orders, and arbitrary denial based on newer policies violates constitutional rights.
The importance of following committee recommendations, principles of natural justice, and equal treatment of institutions in grant-in-aid decisions.
The High Courts in India have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus to compel the performance in a proper and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Go....
The court emphasized the importance of compliance with grant-in-aid conditions and the violation of principles of natural justice in administrative decisions.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.