SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 296

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:M/s. Arpan Mishra, Amritansh Vats, Shivam Anand, Arpan Maryash Ekka, Amartya Choubey, Aashish Choudhary, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Shubham Mishra, A.C. to S.C. (Mines)-II

Administrative orders must contain reasoning to ensure legality and proper evaluation of statutory compliance; failure to do so renders the order susceptible to review.

Headnote:(A) Bihar Non-Government Secondary School (Taking Over of Control and Management) Act, 1981 - Section 3(3) - Jharkhand State Financial Educational Institutions (Grants) Act, 2004 - Jharkhand State Unaided Educational Institution (Grant) Rule, 2004 - Petitioner-school's claim for government takeover denied due to cryptic order without reasoning - Administrative orders must contain reasoning per settled law, ensuring statutory obligations are met - Petitioner's compliance with conditions for takeover acknowledged, prompting remand for new decision. (Paras 5-9)

(B) Writ - Scope - A court may only examine the legality of the order and not the merits of administrative decisions. (Paras 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner-school, established in 1985, sought a takeover by the government after fulfilling statutory requirements, but previous applications were rejected without adequate reasoning.

Findings of Court:
The rejection order is set aside, and the matter is remanded for reconsideration based on supplementary affidavits and compliance documentation.

Issues: Whether the order denying the petitioner-school's claim was valid given the lack of reasoning and compliance with the statutory obligations.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that administrative orders must articulate reasons, failing which their legality may be questioned, and remanded the case for proper evaluation and decision by the Director within a specified period.

Result: Order set aside; matter remitted for reconsideration.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top