High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
P. V. Dixit, C. J. and K. L. Pandey, J.
GOKUL PRASAD - Appellant
Versus
M.M.SOHANI - Respondents
Misc. Petn. 203 Of 1961
Decided On : 10/06/1961
EDUCATION - ADMISSION TO BASIC TRAINING SCHOOL - CANCELLATION OF ADMISSION - AUTHORITY COMPETENT TO ADMIT CANDIDATES - EXECUTIVE INSTRUCTIONS - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - WRIT OF CERTIORARI.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners sought admission to the Basic Training School, Betul, for the session commencing on 1st June 1961 and ending on 30th April 1962. They were admitted by the District Inspector of Schools, Betul, and attended classes for about a month. On 1st July 1961, their admission was cancelled by the Superintendent of the School on the orders of the Divisional Superintendent of Education, Narbada Division.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the cancellation of the petitioners' admission was unjustified as the District Inspector of Schools was the competent authority for making admissions. However, the court held that it could not issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari as the principles laid down for regulating admissions into the School were merely executive instructions and not statutory rules.
Issues: 1. Whether the District Inspector of Schools was the competent authority for making admissions to the Basic Training School, Betul? 2. Whether the cancellation of the petitioners' admission was justified? 3. Whether a writ of mandamus or certiorari could be issued to quash the cancellation of the petitioners' admission and restore their admission into the School?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the District Inspector of Schools was the competent authority for making admissions to the Basic Training School, Betul, as per the executive instructions issued by the Director of Public Instruction. 2. The court held that the cancellation of the petitioners' admission was unjustified as the District Inspector of Schools was the competent authority for making admissions. 3. The court held that it could not issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari as the principles laid down for regulating admissions into the School were merely executive instructions and not statutory rules.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and no order was made as to costs.
( 1 ) IN this case the petitioners seek a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to admit them to the Basic Training School, Betul.
( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners they had applied for admission to the School for the session commencing on 1st June 1961 and ending on 30th April 1962, that they possessed the requisite qualifications, and that the respondent No. 1, the District inspector of Schools, Betul, by his order passed in May-June 1961 admitted them into the School and thereafter they had actually joined it and attended classes for about a month. They further say that on 1st July 1961 a notice was displayed on the notice-board of the School by the respondent No. 3, the Superintendent of the school, saying that according to the orders of the respondent No. 2, the Divisional Superintendent of Education, Narbada Division, the admission of the petitioners and other sixtyfour students had been cancelled. The petitioners contend that this cancellation order is wholly illegal and arbitrary, and pray that it be quashed and their admission into the School be restored.
( 3 ) IN his reply to the petition the respondent No. 1, has not disputed these facts. He has stated that on or about 3rd May 1961 he received a memorandum from the office of the Director of Public Instruction asking him to make the admissions to the Normal School according to two office memoranda issued in 1959 and 1960; that again on 26th May 1961 he was asked to take immediate action in the matter of admissions to the School; that accordingly on the principles laid down in the memorandum regulating the admission of students into the School the petitioners' and other candidates were selected for admission into the Basic Training School, betul, and the Superintendent of the School was informed accordingly; and that on or about 19th June 1961 he received, an intimation from the respondent No. 2 asking him to cancel the selection of the candidates made by him. The answer of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 is that the selection of candidates made by the respondent No. 1 was invalid as under the relevant memorandum issued regulating the admissions he was not the competent authority for making admissions; that the prescribed authority" for admision was the Superintendent of the School and tile first respondent was only required to prepare a seniority list of untrained teachers of schools in the district attached to the Training School and of the candidates applying for admission and to transmit it to the Superintendent of the School; and that consequently the admissions of the petitioners and other candidates were cancelled. The return of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 also contains the statement:
"the very fact that these candidates offered hush money which they themselves accept for getting themselves admitted in Normal School is deplorable and their continuance would have established a precedence for others to follow. As a matter of fact, these petitioners deserve punishment for giving bribes to gain their ends''.
( 4 ) HAVING heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, we are constrained to reach the conclusion of rejecting this petition. The reason is that though the cancellation of the admission of the petitioners and other candidates into the school was wholly unjustified on the ground that the respondent No. 1 had no authority to admit them yet we cannot do anything in the matter as the principles laid down for regulating the admissions into the School are merely executive instructions. It is not disputed that they are so. The instructions are contained in rule 1 to the return of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3. The respondent No. 1 was asked by the office of the Director of Public Instruction to make admissions according to these instructions. In regard to the admissions to the Basic Training school, Betul, the following principles were laid down: "there shall be no elimination test. Districts are attached to each Normal School as in the Appendix.
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.