Judgment Kanhaiyaji, J. 1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing Annexure 2 an order of the Board of Secondary Education, Bihar, granting recognition to proposed Tripur High School, P. O. Jamhara (Saharsa) and Annexure 1, appellate order passed by the Secretary to Government, Education Department, Bihar, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 6 (1) of the Bihar High Schools (Control and Regulation of Administration) Act 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in an appeal against the aforesaid order of the Board of Secondary Education. 2. The relevant facts leading to this application may be shortly stated. Rama Devi High School was started in the year 1963 in village Bhaddi (Saharsa) got partial recognition within a short time. It became a full-fledged school thereafter and gets Government aid as well. It is stated in the application that there is Jamhara which is situated at a distance of a little over two miles from Bhaddi School. In a craze to start a new school some interested persons of village Jamhara planned and started a new rival school in that village in the year 1968 with an object to causing harm to the Bhaddi school. That school was given name as Tripur High School. The Subdivisional Education Officer held an inquiry into the desirability of having a new school as so close distance from the Bhaddi School. As a result of the inquiry he reported that the rival school was started in a spirit of rivalry with an object to cause harm to the Bhaddi school. The new school is situated at a distance of two miles from the old school at Bhaddi where the students of village Jamhara used to go and read without any difficulty. A copy of the report is Annexure 3 to the writ application. In spite of this report the District Education Officer of Saharsa recommended for the recognition of the new school. A copy of the recommendation made by the District Education Officer is Annexure "4* to the writ application. The petitioner having come to know of this report made representations but the Board of Secondary Education without hearing the petitioner granted partial recognition to the new school (Annexure 2). The petitioner preferred an appeal to the appellate authority. The Secretary, Tripur High School, Jamhara, respondent No. 7, filed rejoinder. The petitioner having come to know of this report made representations but the Board of Secondary Education without hearing the petitioner granted partial recognition to the new school (Annexure 2). The petitioner preferred an appeal to the appellate authority. The Secretary, Tripur High School, Jamhara, respondent No. 7, filed rejoinder. The parties were heard by the appellate authorities and by its order dated 8th January, 1971, the appeal was dismissed (Annexure 2). Mr. Gorakh Nath Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the order of the appellate authority is arbitrary and illegal. The appellate authority has not disclosed even the ground on which the appeal was resisted and what were the contentions raised and what were the materials produced before it. The Board of Secondary Education violated the principles of natural justice in not giving notice to the petitioner of being heard before passing the order giving recognition to the new school. The Board and the appellate authority have acted well against the principles of natural justice. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Secretary, Tripur High School, respondent No. 7. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the distance between Bhaddi School and the Jamhara school is about 7 miles through road. Even the shortest distance between the two schools is more than five miles. But when the site of the Bhaddi School is shifted to its new site, the distance will be increased to one mile more. In support of this, a certificate from the District Engineer, Saharsa has been filed in which it is stated that the distance from High English School, Jamhara to Bhaddi High English School is six miles and via Manguar is eight miles. The petitioner has also attached a letter dated 16th January, 1970 written by the District Engineer, Saharsa stating therein that the distance between Bhaddi and Jamhara is only about 21/2 miles. On the other hand it appears from the report of the District Education Officer, (Annexure 4) that the distance between Jamhara and Bhaddi High School by road is six or seven miles. Therefore on the facts of this case there is a great controversy over the distance between these two schools. However, I will proceed on the assumption that the Tripur High School Jamhara is situated within five miles from the Bhaddi High School. 4. Mr. Therefore on the facts of this case there is a great controversy over the distance between these two schools. However, I will proceed on the assumption that the Tripur High School Jamhara is situated within five miles from the Bhaddi High School. 4. Mr. Singh has relied on the conditions laid down by the Government for giving recognition to 8th, 9th classes or full recognition to the High Schools printed at page 105 of the Manual of Important Circulars and Orders complied by K. Malhotra. There is a note under clause 7 at page 106 in Hindi as follows: "Panch meel ke under koi dusra Praswikrit Vidyalaya nahi ho". When translated into English it reads thus: "There should not be other recognised school within five miles". In this connection general instruction No. 200 contained in Chapter IV of Part II (Bihar Education Manual 1967 Edition may be seen). This clause deals with recognition of High Schools including Sarvodaya High Schools. This requires that an application should be submitted accompanied by a detailed statement giving out, names of high and middle schools within a radius of five miles. The first argument of Mr. Singh is that Tripur High School, Jamhara, which is a new school and situated within the radius of five miles of Bhaddi High School, an older school, would not be granted recognition by the Board in contravention of the above conditions. In Shree Gajadhar Sa Higher Secondary School, Saurbazar V/s. Secy. to the Govt. of Bihar in Education Department (C. W. J. C. No. 754 of 1967 (Pat)) an appeal filed by the Secretary of the rival high school known as Sour Bazar High School, it was urged before a Division Bench of this Court that the rival school was not an aggrieved party by granting of provisional partial recognition and consequently had no right to appeal, In dismissing the application their Lordships held that the entire scheme of the Education Code seems to be to prevent unhealthy rivalry amongst schools by their being in close proximity. An application for recognition is required by Rule 200 (x) to give names of high schools and middle schools within a radius of five miles, and similarly in Rule 201 the Special Board which is required to report on the question of recognition is specially enjoined to consider whether the recognition of another school may not create unhealthy rivalry among neighbouring schools. It was further held in that case that the Secretary of the Sour Bazar school was person aggrieved and the appeal by the Secretary of that school was competent. It was not considered in that case whether it was mandatory or only directory not to allow recognition to a new high school started within a radius of five miles of an existing high school. 5 This question came into consideration before Shambhu Prasad, J. in C.W.J. 1742 of 1969 and 1778 of 1970 (Pat). It was doubted in that case whether there is in fact a rule laying down such a condition. It was held in that case that the relevant Article 200 of the Code in respect of the recognition of high schools read as a whole, cannot be interpreted to mean that in no case a new school which is situated within a radius of five miles of a recognised school can be recognised. It merely means that existence of other schools already recognised within a radius of five miles is a matter which ought to be taken into consideration while recognising a new school. The Board is the proper authority for recognising a school after taking into consideration of the relevant materials. This case was followed by G. N. Prasad, J. in C. W. J. C. 1167 of 1968 (Pat). The Boards resolution dated 10-4-1960 leading to the instructions issued by the Government embodies a policy that as general rule no school should be opened within a radius of five miles of an existing school but that cannot be construed as a rule of law, the infringement of which can give a rise to civil action. I am in respectful agreement with the views expressed in the above two cases and hold that the Board which has laid down such a general policy is undoubtedly competent to deviate in an individual appropriate case. I am in respectful agreement with the views expressed in the above two cases and hold that the Board which has laid down such a general policy is undoubtedly competent to deviate in an individual appropriate case. It is for the Education authorities to decide whether or not under the local conditions a second school should function within a radius of five miles of an existing school. Therefore it is not possible to hold that the Board was incompetent to grant recognition to the proposed Jamhara High School. Bhaddi High School cannot claim monopoly of imparting education to the students within its five miles radius. 6. It was next argued that the appellate authority should have considered the materials placed before it and come to independent finding whether it was desirable to grant recognition to the proposed Jamhara High School. The order had been passed by the Secretary to Government, Department of Education, Bihar. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing relevant records of the Board he found that the recognition was justified on the reports of senior officers of the Department after local inspection. A sub-committee of the Board consisting of five members had also gone into the details and come to the conclusion that it was a fit case where partial recognition should have been granted on provisional basis. In my opinion, the appellate order has given good reasons for dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. 7. It was next argued that the Board of Secondary Education should have given notice to the petitioner as he was interested person and after hearing him the order giving partial recognition on provisional basis to Jamhara High School should have been passed. There has been violation of principle of natural justice. No rule has been placed before me to show that before granting partial recognition on a provisional basis the Board has to give notice to any one. If any person is aggrieved by an order made by the Board under Clause (b) of Section 4 or Sec. 5 he is given power under Sec. 6 of the Act to prefer an appeal to the authority appointed in this behalf by the State Government. Clause (b) of Sec. 4 empowers the Board subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed to grant recognition to schools imparting education in secondary or higher secondary education. Clause (b) of Sec. 4 empowers the Board subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed to grant recognition to schools imparting education in secondary or higher secondary education. The Board after proper inquiry and report of the Committee of five has granted partial recognition on a provisional basis of Jamhara High School. The petitioner has availed his right of appeal under Sec. 6 of the Act, which has been disposed of according to law. In my opinion, there has been no violation of principles of natural justice. In the case of A. K. Kraipak V/s. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150 , relied on by Mr. Singh, it has been held by the Supreme Court that the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. What particular rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of that case, the frame work of the law under which the enquiry is held and the constitution of the Tribunal or body of persons appointed for that purpose. 8. As all the contentions of learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner failed, the application is dismissed. But in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.