The court held that administrative orders denying school recognition in rural areas serving marginalized communities are unsustainable if they are based on contradictory reports and ignore the social necessity of providing education to the downtrodden.

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER NATURE TO QUASH THE ORDER NO. ANU3/WRIT PETITION NO:1140/2022-147/2021-22 DTD. 25.02.26 ISSUED BY THE 4TH ANNEXURE-AA AND ORDER NO.SI3/KHA.SHA.20/2024-25 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT ANNEXURE-AB DTD. 27.02.26 CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO GRANT THE RECOGNITION OF THE PETITIONER SCHOOL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner is assailing the order/Endorsement dated 25.02.2026 (Annexure-AA) issued by respondent No.4 and order dated 27.02.2026 (Annexure-AB) passed by respondent No.5, inter alia sought for direction to the respondent authorities to grant recognition to the petitioner school for admitting the students for the academic year 2026-2027.

2. Heard Sri.T.Narayanaswamy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Raghupathi M.J., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Sukanya Baliga B., learned AGA for respondent.

3. It is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner-institution is imparting quality education to SC/ST and backward community children since 1990 and the respondent-department has renewed the recognition from time to time and considering the quality of service rendered by the petitioner-institution to the pupils in the school. The petitioner has also produced the three member committee report dated 20.02.2004 and based on the report, respondent No.4 has recommended the proposal dated 31.05.2006 at 'Annexures-C and D' respectively. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, for the past five years the petitioner-institution was not able to run the institution on account of less number of pupils were admitted to the institution and therefore it pleaded that as the school is situated in the rural area, if the recognition is given to the petitioner institution, there will be an occasion for the petitioner-institution to resume the institution and accordingly sought for interference of this Court.

4. Per contra, Smt.Sukanya Baliga B, learned AGA opposed the writ petition on the ground that, there is no infrastructure in the school as per the rules and regulations of the respondent authorities and also, submitted that, the ratio of the pupil in the institution is very less and on account of the same the institution has been closed and accordingly sought for dismissal of the petition.

5. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, and on careful consideration of the papers, it would indicate that the petitioner-institution has been closed for a period of five years. However, taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as the institution is situated in the rural area of Hassan District, imparting education to the downtrodden people of the area and also taking into account the order dated 27.02.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.1140/2022 (Annexure-N), I am of the view that, the reasons assigned by the respondent at Annexure-AA and Annexure-AB cannot be accepted and same is liable to be set aside.

6. It is also to be not