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

2018 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 789

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Ranjeet Public School – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
W. P. (C) No. 824 of 2018



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Prakash Tiwari
For the Respondents: Shri Minj, Shri Bakshi

Lack of prior government approval invalidates school recognition revocation under the Education Rules.

Headnote:In this judgment, the court examined the provisions of R.16(1)(c) of the Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education Rules, 2010. The petitioner contested the revocation of its recognition, arguing the impugned order lacked the necessary government approval. The court found the lack of prior approval from the State Government rendered the order unsustainable and quashed it. The court mandated the State Government make a decision regarding the petitioner’s status within 10 days from the judgment.

Table of Content
1. overview of petitioner's recognition history. (Para 1 , 4)
2. arguments regarding compliance with educational regulations. (Para 2 , 3)
3. examination of statutory requirements for recognition withdrawal. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
4. court's decision to quash the order and mandate state action. (Para 8)
5. final ruling on the writ petition. (Para 9)

1. Petitioner - Ranjeet Public School was granted recognition for the years 2017-2018 to admit the students from Class Nursery to class 8th and permission to run class 9th & 10th by order dated 21.03.2017 by competent authority but thereafter by the impugned order dated 06.03.2018, District Education Officer, Raigarh has revoked that recognition leading to filing of this writ petition.

2. Shri Prakash Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order passed by the District Education Officer, Raigarh is bad and unsustainable in law as second proviso to R.16(1)(c) of the Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education Rules, 2010 (henceforth 'Rules, 2010') has not been complied with and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

3. Shri Minj, learned counsel for the State / respondent Nos. 1 to 4 would submit that the impugned order has been passed after obtaining the approval from the Collector and the matter has already been sent to the State Government for approval in accordance with law.

4. Shri Bakshi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 would submit that the petitioner - School was not granted permission to run class 9th & 10th for the year 2017-2018.

5. R.16 of the Rules, 2010 prescribes the procedure for withdrawal of the recognition to school, which states as under: -

'16. Withdrawal of recognition to school. -

(1) Where the District Education Officer (hereinafter in this rule referred to as the said Officer) on his own motion, or on any representation received from any person, has reason to believe, to be recorded in writing, that a school recognized under R.15, has violated one or more of the conditions for grant of recognition or has failed to fulfil the norms and standards specified in the Schedule, the District Education Officer shall act in the following manner, -

(a) issue a notice to the school specifying the violations of the condition of grant of recognition and seek its explanation within one month;

(b) in case the explanation is not found to be satisfactory or no explanation is received within the stipulated time period, the said officer may cause an inspection of the school to be conducted by a Committee of three to five members comprising of educationists, civil society representatives, media, and government representatives, which shall make due inquiry and submit its report, along with its recommendations for continuation of recognition or its withdrawal, to the said officer.

(c) on receipt of the report and recommendations of the Committee, the said Officer may pass order for withdrawal of recognition.

Provided that no order for withdrawal of recognition shall be passed by the said officer without giving the school adequate opportunity of being heard.

Provided further that no such order shall be passed by the said Officer without prior approval of the appropriate Government.

(2) The order of withdrawal of recognition passed by the said Officer shall be operative from the immediately succeeding academic year and shall specify the neighbourhood schools to which the children of that school shall be admitted.'

6. The second proviso to the aforesaid Rule clearly provides that no such order shall be passed without prior approval of the State Government.

7. Indisputably, in the instant case, order dated 6.3.2018 has been passed by the District Education Officer but prior approval of the appropriate Government / State Government has not been taken and the matter has been sent to the State Government. The word ' prior approvals of the great importance.

8. In view of above, in absence of prior approval granted b


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