JUDGMENT Bhagabati Prosad Banerjee, J. 1. Against the judgment and order dated 31.7.1996 passed by the Hon'ble Justice Dilip Kumar Basu, an appeal have been preferred by the Board and the Writ Petitioners-Opposite Parties have also filed cross-objections. By the judgment dated 31.7.1996, the learned Judge have quashed the order passed by the President of the Board dated 15.11.1995. By that order the President of the Board, rejected the application for recognition of Amulya Bidya Bhaban Junior High School on the stereotype ground, which are as follows:- (1) The School has not applied in the prescribed form with a requisite fee of Rs. 25/- by 1975 to the Board. (2) Teaching and non-teaching staff were appointed not keeping in view of the staff pattern and without observing the existing norms. (3) There are two Secondary Junior High Schools within the radius of 4/5 k.m. and as such another Junior High School will not be a viable. 2. The learned Single Judge after considering the entire facts and circumstances and various cases, held that the order of the President of the Board could not be sustained and directed the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education to grant recognition of the School for Class-V to Class-VIII from the academic session 1996-97 and the provisional upgradation has to be granted upto Class-VIII so that there is no drop out in the School after Class-VIII. School will generate momentum gradually and the School will be upgraded. It was further directed that the State Government was entitled to introduce the scheme for absorption of the teachers or appointment of teachers according to the prescribed rules and guidelines as amended up-to-date. The State Government was also given liberty to vary the terms of appointment so that the students of the School concerned get the best teachers who would be accountable to the student community. 3. The said Amulya Vidya Bhaban was established in 1972 and had been functioning without any Interruption since 1975 with the aid and assistance of local people who are Interested in the eradication of illiteracy and spreading out of education to common people, on it piece of land contributed by the people of the locality. The petitioners herein who applied for certain order are all teaching and non-teaching staff of the said School. The petitioners herein who applied for certain order are all teaching and non-teaching staff of the said School. It appears that the teachers had requisite qualification for being appointed as teacher and non-teaching staff of the said School and the said School is a co-educational four class Junior High School. Since 1978, various representations, appeals and requisitions have been made for the purpose of recognition of the said School. 4. Spate of litigation followed and several orders were passed by this Court. Firstly, in C.O. No. 10017 (W) of 1991 which was directed to bold an inspection of the said School and to consider the case of recognition on the basis of the report in the matter. Inspections were held, reports were submitted pursuant to the said order dated 31.3.1994. But the said report of the District Level Inspection Team forwarded without any comment. Another inspection was held pursuant to the order of this Court and the said two reports were found to be contradictory and ultimately the matter was considered in the third writ application in C.O. No. 14256(W) of 1994, whereupon an order was passed on 7.12.1994. The entire order is set out herein-below:- "Having regard to the fact that there are two contradictory reports submitted by the District Level Inspection Team in connection with grant of recognition to the School in question, it is submitted by Mr. Moloy Kumar Basu, learned advocate, appearing for the petitioners that an independent enquiry should be conducted to ascertain the correct position with regard to the running of the School in question. Let this matter stand over till four weeks after the Christmas Vacation. In the meantime, the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Tamluk, is directed to conduct an independent enquiry for the purpose of grant of recognition of the School, which is said to be functioning since 1972, in the presence of the learned Advocates of the respective parties, upon notice to them. Such inspection must be completed within 31.12.1994, and the report of the said inspection is to be submitted to this Court on the next date of hearing. Leave is given to the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties to communicate this order to the concerned authorities including the District Inspector of Schools, who are directed to act on the basis of such communication." 5. Leave is given to the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties to communicate this order to the concerned authorities including the District Inspector of Schools, who are directed to act on the basis of such communication." 5. Secondly, it appears that in obedience to the said order another Inspection was held on 28.12.1994 on the question of recognition of the said School. Upon holding a detailed enquiry a report was submitted on 6.1.1995, as follows:- "After the completion of the total enquiry verification and inspection of the whole, affairs, a thorough discussion on each item as stated above is made with Mr. Santosh Kumar Chatterjee, learned Advocate for the State-Respondents and Mr. Rabilal Maitra, learned Advocate for the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. A detailed discussion is also held on terms and conditions framed by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education for the first recognition of a secondary School and justification of financial involvement of Government. During the discussion the aforesaid learned Advocates express their positive views towards first recognition of the School in question. They also express their verbal opinion of the effect that the School in question deserves for conditions for first recognition as a IV-Class Junior High School, all the necessary conditions for the purpose have been fulfilled and if such consideration is made the local/people/guardians will be more benefitted from the view of educational aspects. The location of the School is ideal. It has, 17 decimal and of its own and the School Authority is trying to pure base nearby lands also. There are feeder Primary Schools. Now, under the above facts and circumstances, I, also hold the same opinion like the other two learned Advocates (learned Advocates of the State and the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education) regarding first recognition of this School." 6. Thirdly, on 5.4.1996, the said writ application came up for hearing and this Court passed the following order:- "After hearing the learned Advocates appearing for the parties it is felt that the order dated 23.3.1995 needs some modification so as to make the same effective. Accordingly, it is directed that the memo being no. 4875-S dated 15.9.1994 issued by the D.I. of Schools (SE), Midnapore is hereby set aside. Accordingly, it is directed that the memo being no. 4875-S dated 15.9.1994 issued by the D.I. of Schools (SE), Midnapore is hereby set aside. It is further directed that:- (i) The D.I. of Schools (SE), Tamluk will send the report dated 6.1.1995 to the Director of Secondary Education, W.B. within one week from the date of communication of this order. (ii) The Director of Secondary Education will forward the same to the Secretary, Education Department, W.B. within one week thereafter. (iii) The Secretary Education Department will submit the said report to the Board along with his comments, if any, within two weeks thereafter. (iv) The respondent No.5 will consider the question grant of recognition of Amulya Vidya Bhaban (a Class-IV Junior High School) in the light of the said report of the D.I. of Schools (SE), Tamluk within three weeks thereafter. The earlier order dated 28.3.1995 stands modified accordingly. The writ application is thus disposed of without any order as to costs." 7. Thereafter the Board passed an order rejecting the application for recognition of the said School on those three grounds by the order dated 15.11.1995. 8. The learned Single Judge considered the provisions of law as well as the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Unni Krishanan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1993 (1) SCC 645 and other case lies extensively and came to the conclusion that the President had not acted according to law and did not exercise his statutory discretion the manner which ought to have been done. 9. The view taken by the learned Trial Judge had chosen not to send the matter back to the said authority and the view of the learned Judge is fully supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K.O. She part & other vs. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 686 , whereupon the Supreme Court had observed:- "It is common experience that once a decision has been taken there is a tendency to uphold it and a representation may not yield any fruitful purpose." 10. Sending the matter back to the Board, we have the same fate as it is clear that the Board and the education department has taken a decision that they will not recognize the said institution or grant affiliation. Sending the matter back to the Board, we have the same fate as it is clear that the Board and the education department has taken a decision that they will not recognize the said institution or grant affiliation. Sending the matter back to the authority will be fruitless and a mere formality without producing any result whatsoever as those authorities cannot bring an impartial judgment to bear on the matter and the Supreme Court has rightly and correctly pointed cut that once a decision has been taken and the matter is send back to the authority, in that event there is a tendency to uphold the old decision may be on new grounds and/or pleas or pretext. 11. This observation of the Supreme Court in our view has to be borne in mind in a case where the person concerned is holding an administrative post or is a bureaucrat, in that event such an authority cannot consider the matter impartially and/or true Justice to the case as he would repeat the something over and again on some grounds or considerations. The said authority is not judicial or quasi judicial authority and cannot consider the matter fairly and properly as is normally gone by the Court and/or by the Tribunals. 12. Supreme Court had made a historical pronouncement on the right to education which has been held to be a part of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and also held that:- "The institution has to seek such recognition or affiliation from the appropriate agency. It is a matter or substantial significance the very life blood of a private educational institution. Ordinarily speaking, no educational institution can run or survive unless it is recognized by the Government or the appropriate authority and/or is a affiliated to one or the other Universities in the country. Unless it is recognized and/or affiliated as stated above, its certificates will be or no use. No one would join such educational institution. It is for this reason that all the private educational institutions seek recognition and/or affiliation with a view to enable them to send the students trained by them to appear at the examinations conducted by the Government/University. Unless it is recognized and/or affiliated as stated above, its certificates will be or no use. No one would join such educational institution. It is for this reason that all the private educational institutions seek recognition and/or affiliation with a view to enable them to send the students trained by them to appear at the examinations conducted by the Government/University. The idea is that if such students pass the said examination, the Government/University will award its degree/ diploma certificate to them clearly and indubitably, the recognized/affiliated private educational institutions, supplement the function performed by the institutions of the State. Their is not an Independent activity but one closely allied to and supplemental to the activity of the State. The bodies which grant recognition and/or affiliation are the authorities of the State. In such a situation, it is obligatory in the interest of general public-upon the authority granting recognition or affiliation to insist upon such conditions as are appropriate to ensure not only education of requisite standard but also fairness and equal treatment in the matter of admission of students. Since the recognizing/affiliating authority is the State it is under an obligation to improve such conditions as part of its duty enjoined upon it by Article 14 of the Constitution. It cannot allow itself or its power and privilege to be used unfairly. The incidents attaching to the main activity attach to supplemental activity as well. Affiliation/recognition is not there for anybody to get it gratis or unconditionally. No Government authority or University is justified or is entitled to grant recognition/affiliation without imposing such conditions." 13. Accordingly, in view of the pronouncement made by the Supreme Court that right to life includes right to education, personal liberty includes right to receive education and right to receive education is a fundamental right flowing from the right to life. Further, the Supreme Court has held that:- "The citizens have a fundamental right to education. The said right flows from Article 21. This right is, however, not an absolute right. Its content and parameters have to determine In the light of Articles 45 and 41. In other words ever child/citizen of this country has a right to free education until he completes the age of 14 years. Thereafter his right to education is subject to the limits of economic capacity and development of the State. Its content and parameters have to determine In the light of Articles 45 and 41. In other words ever child/citizen of this country has a right to free education until he completes the age of 14 years. Thereafter his right to education is subject to the limits of economic capacity and development of the State. The right to education which is implicit in the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 must be construed in the light of the directive principles in Part-IV of the Constitution. So far as the right to education is concerned, there are several articles in Part-IV which expressly speak of it. Article 41 says that the State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective provision for securing the right to work, to education and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and in other cases of undeserved want. Article 45 says that the Slate shall endeavour to provide, within a period of ten years from the commencement of this Constitutional, for free and compulsory education for children until they complete the age of fourteen years. Article 46 commands that the State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interest of the weaker sections of the people, and. in particular, of the Scheduled Castes, and the Scheduled Tribes, and shall protect them social injustice and all forms of exploitation. A true democracy is one where education is universal, where people understand what is good for them and the nation and know how to govern themselves. The three Articles 45, 46, 41 are designed to achieve the said goal among others. It is in the light of these articles that the content and parameters of the right to education have to be determined. Right to education understood in the context of Articles 45 and 41, means (a) every child/citizen of this country has a right to free education until be completes the age of fourteen years and (b) after a child/citizen completes 14 years, his right to education is circumscribed by the limits of the economic capacity of the State and its development. The right to education further means that a citizen has a right to call upon the State to provide educational facilities to him within the limits of its economic capacity and development. The right to education further means that a citizen has a right to call upon the State to provide educational facilities to him within the limits of its economic capacity and development. The apprehension that reading of the right to education into Article 21 would enable each and every citizen of this, country to approach the Courts to compel the State to provide him such education as he chosen is therefore unfounded." 14. Accordingly, there is no escape from the position that the education for children upto 14 years has to be provided by the State and which should be free. It is a constitutional mandate and it appears, the Board of Secondary Education is not aware of the implementation of this landmark judgment in the field of education. There cannot be educational institution unless the same is not recognized and the affiliation is not granted. Of course, the State in the interest of education and according to its own rules may impose terms and conditions but it cannot reject the same simply by saying that the fee of Rs. 25/- have not been paid and teachers have not been appointed according to the parameters laid down by the State and/or there are schools within 4 to 5 kilometers these are all irrelevant and the matter which has been taken into consideration, the question is whether there are students reading in the said School and repeated reports confirmed the large number of students actually reads In the said School and the School is running from 1975 un-interruptedly, existence of the School is not in dispute. The Board, it appears, considers the matter in an extra-casual manner and without application of mind to the report and further without giving the School an opportunity of being heard. This is the third round of litigation and re-consideration will not improve the situation as hereinabove stated and further the Board in the facts and circumstances of this case Board cannot escape the liability in the matter of affiliation of the said institution. 15. Accordingly, we are of the view that the learned Judge was right in directing the Board to grant affiliation to the said institution. 16. So far as the teachers are concerned, the service of the teachers have also to be approved according to the several patterns which are followed by the Board and the Education Department in other cases. 15. Accordingly, we are of the view that the learned Judge was right in directing the Board to grant affiliation to the said institution. 16. So far as the teachers are concerned, the service of the teachers have also to be approved according to the several patterns which are followed by the Board and the Education Department in other cases. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Board is dismissed and the cross-objection is disposed of by directing the Board to grant affiliation and/or recognition within a period of 2 months from the date of the communication of the order and the State shall approve the service of the teachers and non-teaching staff in accordance with the rules, regulations and guidelines there on the field within the aforesaid period. I agree.