JUDGMENT - A.D. MANE, J.:---Rule returnable forthwith. Matters are taken up for final hearing by consent. 2. All the petitioners are educational societies running primary schools and they have challenged the order withdrawing recognition of respective schools. The said order is purportedly passed under Rule 109(2) of the Bombay Primary Education Rules, 1949. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the order withdrawing the recognition of the respective schools has been signed by the Education Officer (Primary) Zilla Parishad, Nanded and a perusal of the said order goes to show that it has been passed in pursuance of a letter dated 10th July 1996 issued by the Director of Education, Maharashtra State, Pune. The learned Counsel, therefore, submit that the order withdrawing the recognition is without jurisdiction and hence a nullity in the eyes of law. 3. The respondent - Deputy Director of Education has filed affidavit in reply and justified the order of withdrawing the recognition of the respective schools. However, the affidavit is silent on the main legal point as to whether the impugned order could be passed by the Education Officer (Primary) even at the instance of the Director of Education, Maharashtra State, Pune. The respondent - Deputy Director of Education has filed affidavit in reply and justified the order of withdrawing the recognition of the respective schools. However, the affidavit is silent on the main legal point as to whether the impugned order could be passed by the Education Officer (Primary) even at the instance of the Director of Education, Maharashtra State, Pune. We have to therefore, examine the provisions of Rule 109(2) which reads as under : "109(2) Such recognition may at any time be withdrawn by the School Board, or Education Committee on the recommendations of the inspecting officer, if any of the conditions on which the school was recognised is not observed or if the standard of instruction in the school falls materially below the level obtaining in public schools or for other reasonable and sufficient cause: Provided that the due warning has been given to the managers of the school and that reasonable time has been allowed to them to carry out the requirements of the School Board or Education Committee : Provided further that a school which is aggrieved by the decision of the School Board or Education Committee withdrawing recognition may submit an appeal to the Deputy Director of Educational Division concerned whose decision shall be binding." On perusal of the above Rule it is clear that the recognition of any school is liable to be withdrawn at any time by the School Board or Education Committee on the recommendations of the Inspecting Officer, if any of the conditions on which the school was recognised is not observed or if the standard of instruction in the school falls materially below the level obtaining in public schools or for any other reasonable and sufficient cause. The said rule also provides that if such an order of withdrawing recognition is passed, the same is appealable before the Deputy Director of Educational Division concerned and the decision by the appellate authority shall be binding. In some of the petitions it appears that the petitioners had filed appeals under Rule 109(2) of the said Rules and the same have been withdrawn in view of pendency of these petitions. 4. In some of the petitions it appears that the petitioners had filed appeals under Rule 109(2) of the said Rules and the same have been withdrawn in view of pendency of these petitions. 4. In Writ Petition No. 2168 of 1997 our attention has been invited to the meeting of the Education Committee held on 3-9-1996 in which it was decided that 15 different schools in Nanded district should be given opportunity to remove the deficiences shown against their respective names within a period of 2 years and in case the said deficiences are not removed within the stipulated period, the Education Committee was required to take necessary action. Based on this decision of the Education Committee, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, that no such meeting was held in respect of the schools run by the respective petitioners-societies and no opportunity was given to them to remove deficiences. This is the second ground of challenge to the impugned order withdrawing the recognition of the schools. 5. There is no dispute that the petitioners-societies are discharging the function of a State in imparting the education to various students in the rural areas and they are fulfilling the object of providing education, which is guaranteed under the Constitution. When recognition of a school is withdrawn, serious consequences follow and it not only adversely affects the management of such schools but also affects the future of the students studying in such schools. It is, therefore, necessary for the authorities, created under the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947 and the Rules of 1949 made thereunder, that they act strictly as per the provisions of the said Act and the Rules. The impugned order withdrawing recognition granted to the schools run by the petitioners-societies is clearly signed by the Education Officer (Primary) Zilla Parishad, Nanded probably in furtherence of the letter issued by the Director of Education, State of Maharashtra, as has been referred to in the said order. Undoubtedly the impugned order has not been passed by the Education Committee or the School Board and hence we are of the considered view that the impugned order is without jurisdiction. We, therefore, quash and set aside the said order withdrawing the recognition of the respective schools. Needless to mention that the authorities may, if so desire, be at liberty to proceed against the petitioners-societies afresh as per the rules. 6. We, therefore, quash and set aside the said order withdrawing the recognition of the respective schools. Needless to mention that the authorities may, if so desire, be at liberty to proceed against the petitioners-societies afresh as per the rules. 6. In the result, petitions are allowed and rule is made absolute in terms of the above directions with no order as to costs. Petition allowed.