JUDGMENT : A.K. Padhi, J. - The Managing Committee, Panchagarh Ananga Narendra School of Education has tiled O.J.C. No. 144 of 1988 praying therein to issue a writ of mandamus to the opp. parties to accord recognition as envisaged u/s 5 of the Orissa Education Act (hereinafter referred as 'the Act"). O.J.C. No. 367 of 1989 has been filed by the Acting General Secretary of the Students Union for and on behalf of the students of the school with a prayer for issue of a direction to the opp. parties to permit the students appear in the Certified Teacher's Training Examination for the sessions 1986-87 and 1987-88 to be held in the year 1989. As both the writ applications involve the same point they are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The school in question was established in the year 1981 for imparting formal, non-formal, special and vocational education. After complying with all the requirements under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. 1969, the Managing Committee applied for recognition. In the year 1981 the school opened Secondary Training Course which is otherwise known as Certified Teachers' Training-Course. The Inspector of School, Puri Circle addressed a letter to all the District Inspectors of Schools in Puri, Circle to furnish necessary date regarding the schools opened by private managements in the education district for taking necessary action for recognition. On 18-11-1982 the District Inspector of Schools recommended for according recognition to the school (Annexure-10 of O.J.C. No. 144 of 1988). 'The Managing Committee of the school submitted all the necessary records on 22-12-1982 for verification. The first batch of students were permitted by the Director of Secondary Education on 3-1-1983 to appear in 1983 C.T. Examination and the Inspector of Schools permitted the students to appear in the examination through the Government Secondary Training School, Rajasunakhala to enable the students to appear in toe examination. As no action was taken by the authorities for about five years on 22-1-1988 the Secretary of Panchagarh School requested the Authorities to accord permission to the students to appear in the C.T. Examination, 1988. The Under Secretary to the Government addressed a letter, on 26-2-1988 to the Director, Secondary Education to issue a detailed report regarding the school. It does not appear from records if any action has been taken by the Government thereafter. The Under Secretary to the Government addressed a letter, on 26-2-1988 to the Director, Secondary Education to issue a detailed report regarding the school. It does not appear from records if any action has been taken by the Government thereafter. However, the Inspector of Schools on 1-1-1989 submitted a report to the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education intimating therein that the students of the aforesaid school are eligible to appear in the C.T. Examination. It was also indicated in the report that the school is fit to get recognition. It is worthwhile to quote a portion of the recommendation of the Inspector of School: ... Besides this it is a befitting school to get recognition as per the existing conditions in Orissa Education Acts and Education Code for giving recognition. As it appears the Government still remained complacent over the matter for which the aforesaid two Petitioners were constrained to approach this Court with two different prayers though inter-related and have prayed to issue a writ of mandamus. 3. The Inspector of Schools and the Secondary Board have filed their counters. In the counter, the Secondary Board has taken the stand that as recognition has not been granted as required u/s 5 of the Orissa Education Act they are prohibited u/s 6(a) to recognise the school. Their recognition is dependent upon the recognition of the State Government. No exception, an be taken to this stand of the Board of Secondary Education as the statute is quite explicit regarding the recognition by it. In the counter filed by the Inspector of Schools, no specific reasons has been assigned as to the reason for which recognition has not yet been accorded. As it appears from paragraph nine of the counter all the requirements relating to recognition u/s 5 of the Act have been fulfilled by the school. No legal bar or impediment has been pleaded in the counter. It also reveals, the Inspector of Schools has recommended from time to time to accord recognition of the school. It has also' been averred that the students admitted in the years 1986-87 and 1987-88 may be permitted to appear in the ensuing C.T. Examination as private candidates. In this matter the State has not filed any counter affidavit. The counsel appearing for the State has not contended before us that the State has any other stand contrary to that of the Inspector of Schools. In this matter the State has not filed any counter affidavit. The counsel appearing for the State has not contended before us that the State has any other stand contrary to that of the Inspector of Schools. In absence of any specific pleading, we must hold that the State's view is not contrary to that of the Inspector of Schools. 4. Under Sections 4 and 5 of the. Act a private school fulfilling the criteria as laid down under the Act is entitled to get recognition. The recognition by the Board of Secondary Education is dependent on the recognition of the State Government. There cannot he any doubt that the State not only must act fairly it must also act promptly. We find from the facts of this case that the students were permitted to appear in the C.T. Examination and the Inspector had recommended for the recognition of the school. The students studying in the school have a legitimate expectation to continue their studies under the protection of the Board. Silence of the State Government from the year 1982 is not in consonance with the action expected from a welfare State. We are appalled at the callousness of the State Government in such an important matter concerning the education of the students. Though we do not want to lay down the limit as circumstances may vary, but we feel, in the matter of recognition decision should be taken by the State Government within six months from the date of application. 5. The narration in the foregoing paragraphs leaves no manner of doubt that but for the callousness of the State Government recognition would have been granted since as disclosed in the affidavit of the Inspector of Schools there was no impendiment to the grant of recognition. Without, therefore, remitting the matter to the State Government to consider the matter we issue mandamus directing the State Government to accord recognition within a month. It was submitted by the counsel for the Secondary Board that recognition by the Board was dependant upon the recognition of the State Government. We direct the Board of Secondary Education to take decision within one month thereafter. By virtue of an interim order dated 28-3-1989 we had directed that: Such of the students of the institution whose application forms are found to be in order otherwise, shall be allowed to take the theory examination. We direct the Board of Secondary Education to take decision within one month thereafter. By virtue of an interim order dated 28-3-1989 we had directed that: Such of the students of the institution whose application forms are found to be in order otherwise, shall be allowed to take the theory examination. Steps shall be taken to hold a separate practical examination. Since we find students had been permitted to appear at the examination held in 1983, we feel there will be no difficulty if the students are permitted to take the examination, as aforesaid. However, we make it clear that result of the students wilt not be dependent on the question of recognition, as in the peculiar facts of this case the authorities had earlier in 1983 permitted the students when recognition was not there. This view of outs is confined to the facts of this case only and cannot be treated as a precedent relating to matters of examination of students of unrecognised schools and colleges in the result both the writ applications are allowed to the extent indicated above, but in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order is to costs. R.C. Patnaik, J. 6. I agree. 7. Applications allowed accordingly. Final Result : Allowed