Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : - (a) For issuance of a writ of or in the nature of certiorai quashing the order, dated 25-9-1987 issued under the signature to respondent no.4 as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition. (b) For issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing them to grant recognition to the petitioner-school with effect from 1-1-1985 after including in the list of 205 non-Government Sanskrit schools published in the Bihar Gazette and not to disturb the functioning of the petitioner conducting the examination of the students, yearly. 2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. 3. The petitioner-institution was established in the year 1978. The petitioner filed an application for recognition of the said school wherefor an inspection was held in the year 1981. The authorities submitted their reports, which is contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition. It has been stated in the said report that the school in question is situated in the most backward area and has fulfilled all the conditions for recognition of the school in terms of Bihar sanskrit Shiksha Board Act, 1981. 4. The petitioner came up before this Court in its writ jurisdiction earlier being C. W. J. C. No.4601 of 1986 and the said writ petition was disposed of by an order, dated 9-3-1987 on a stand taken by the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board that the name of the petitioner-institution was forwarded for recognition to the government. Since there had been considerable delay in the matter, this Court directed that the Government should decide the same within two months from the said date. According to the petitioner, as the Government did not comply with the aforementioned order, it filed an application for contempt against the authorities concerned. Thereafter by an order, dated 25-9-1987 as contained in annexure-5 to the writ petition the State of Bihar purported to reject the application filed on behalf of the petitioner for recognition of the said school. 5. In this case no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. But a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.5, i. e. , bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board. 5. In this case no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. But a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.5, i. e. , bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board. In the said counter-affidavit it has been stated that the petitioners case was forwarded to the State of Bihar in the year, 1981 and in terms of the provisions of Sec.6 (2) (kha) of the Act prior approval of the Government is required to be obtained before an order of recognition of the school the board can be passed and in view of the order as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, no recognition can be granted to the petitioner-institution. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petititioner has submitted that in view of the fact that in the report as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition it has been found that the petitioner-institution satisfies all the conditions for grant of recognition and further in view of the fact that various other schools, which were established after the petitioner-school, had been granted such recognition, there is no reason whatsoever as to why the petitioner-school should not have been recognised. According to the learned counsel the impugned order has been passed mala fide as the petitioner had earlier filed a contempt application against the authorities concerned. The learned counsel has further relied upon a decision in comptroller and Auditor-General of India, Gian Prakash, New Delhi and another v. K. S. Jagannathan and another, reported in 1986 Administrative Tribunal Case page 1 (SC), for the purpose of showing that this Court has also got the power to issue a direction upon the respondents to grant recognition in respect of the school in question. 7. It is now well settled by various decisions of the Supreme Court as also of this Court that no right is vested in an institution for being recognised in terms of the provisions of the said Act, but the institutions are only entitled to be considered therefor. It is one thing to say that such consideration must be on basis of the objective satisfaction on the part of the authorities concerned after satisfying themselves on consideration of all relevant materials on record and after excluding the irrelevant and extraneous factors but, it will be another thing to say that a school has a fundamental or statutory right to be recognised as such. In view of the well-settled principles of law that no legal right exists in an institution for being recognised, I am of the view that no writ can be issued by this Court directing the State of Bihar to grant approval or to the respondent no.5 to grant recognition to the school in question. However, from a perusal of Annexure-5 to the writ petition it appears that no reason has been assigned in respect therefor. 8. If the contention of the petitioner is correct that the school in question satisfies all the requirements of law for grant of its recognition and other schools similarly situated have already been recognised, in my opinion, it was necessary for the State to assign some reasons as to on what grounds the said impugned order has been passed. It goes without saying that grant of recognition in respect of an institution, although discretionary but such discretion has to be exercised fairly and reasonably and not arbitrarily or whimsically. 9. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the impugned order should be quashed and the matter should be remitted back to the respondent No.1 for passing a speaking order in accordance with law. As the matter is pending for a long time it is expected that the State will pass the necessary order as early as possible and preferably within a period of two months from the production of a copy of this order. 10. With the aforementioned observations and directions this writ petition is allowed without costs. Petition allowed.