JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Bhatia, J.

1. Heard Sri Prashant Chandra, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ansuman Singh the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 08.10.2021 passed by the committee constituted under the Government Order whereby the request for grant of No Objection Certificate to the petitioner has been rejected.

3. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner claims to be running a school which is recognized up to Class 8th by the State of U.P. and the petitioner, on account of enhancement of the students, desirous of obtaining affiliation with the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE for short), applied before the CBSE for grant of affiliation.

4. It is argued that in terms of the requirements as enumerated by the CBSE, the petitioner possesses all requisite criterias for grant of affiliation. As the Rules framed by the CBSE for grant of affiliation require the production of a NOC from the State of U.P., the petitioner applied for grant of NOC, which has been rejected and which is under challenge.

5. The counsel for the petitioner argues that in terms of the requirements of both the CBSE and ICSE, wherein a requirement for obtaining a NOC is specified, the State Government has issued a Government Order wherein, the procedure for grant of NOC, desired by various schools, is specified. The said GO provides for constitution of a Committee comprising of four persons which shall look into the issue with regard to the application for grant of NOC and shall pass orders thereupon. No further guidelines have been framed as to how and in what manner the said committee shall proceed to grant the NOC, thus, it is left to the discretion of the committee to either grant the NOC or to refuse the same.

6. It is on record that in pursuance to the application filed by the petitioner for grant of NOC, one of the Members of the Committee namely the DIOS of the district carried out some investigation and based upon the same submitted its report on 16.11.2019. The Joint Director of Education, Lucknow vide his order dated 16.11.2019 itself, quoting the report as submitted by the DIOS proceeded to reject the application of the petitioner. The reasoning as contained in the order of rejection dated 16.11.2019 are quoted herein below:

1- **’kklu }kjk Hkwfe dk vf/kxzg.k fo|ky; gsrq fd;k x;k FkkA bl fLFkfr esa Hkwfe dk iz;ksx ek/;fed f’k{kk ifj”kn] mRrj izns’k ls ekU;rk izkIr fo|ky; ds fufeRr gh vkSfpR;iw.kZ gSA ;fn fo|ky; dh Hkwfe dks izcU/kra= }kjk fdlh vU; ‘kSf{kd iz;ksx gsrq fy;k tkuk gS rks mldh vkSipkfjd vuqefr l{ke vf/kdkjh Lrj ls vkfLr;ksa dk viO;; fuokj.k vf/kfu;e&1974 dh laxr /kkjkvksa ds vUrxZr izkIr dh tkuh vfuok;Z gS] tks fd fo|ky; izcU/kra= }kjk ugha dh x;h FkhA**

2- ‘k~jh ;ksxs’oj _f”kdqy b.Vj dkst] esgUnhxat y[kuÅ dh izca/k lfefr ds lfpo ‘k~jh lqo~jrksa etwenkj }kjk mŒ izŒ ‘kSf{kd laLFkk;sa ¼vkfLr;ksa ds viO;; dk fuokj.k½ vf/kfu;e 1974 dk mYya?ku dj gq, fo|ky; dh dqy Hkwfe ¼22 ch?kk] *12 fcLok] 10 foLokalh½ dh vk/kh Hkwfe yxHkx 29914-77 oxZ ehVj esllZ Mh yksVlZ fcYMlZ ,oa dkyksukbtlZ dks csp nh x;hA

3- mik/;{k y[kuÅ fodkl izkf/kdj.k y[kuÅ ds i=kad&747@117@14 fnukad 28-08-201 }kjk fn;s x;s fu.kZ; esa Li”V fd;k x;k gS fd f’k{kk ds mi;ksxkFkZ ‘k~jh ;ksxs’oj _f”kdqy b.Vj dkst esgUnhxat y[kuÅ }kjk yxHkx 22 ch?kk] 12 fcLok] 10 foLokalh Hkwfe izkf/kdj.k ;kstuk ds vUrxZr vtZu ls eqDr dh x;h Fkh] ftlesa ls vk/kh ls vf/kd Hkwfe yxHkx 31]918-80 oxZ ehŒ Hkwfe lkslkbVh ds lfpo ‘k~jh lqo~jrks etwenkj }kjk /kks[kk/kM+h ,oa tkylkth djds djksM+ks :i;s esa futh YkkHk gsrq vkoklh; ,oa O;olkf;d mi;ksx ds fy;s csp nh x;h] tks fd voS/kkfud ,oa voS/k gSA

4- fo|ky; iz/kkukpk;Z }kjk dkbe la[;k 0525 fnukad 04-10-2018 }kjk Fkkuk cktkj [kkyk] y[kuÅ esa ‘k~jh lqc~jrks etwenkj] ‘k~jh jktho fclkfj;k ,oa dsrk nkÅ n;ky vxzoky ,oa esllZ Mh yksVlZ fcYMlZ ,oa dkyksukbtlZ ds fo:) Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dh /kkjk 420] 467] 468] 471 ds vUrxZr izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ntZ djk;h x;h] ftlesa ‘k~jh