JUDGMENT : - Amitava Lala, J.: The writ petitioner made this application challenging the impugned order, being Memo No. 1177/G/5 dated 7.2.97, passed by the Secretary, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education whereby the prayer for upgradation of the concerned school was refused. 2. Mr. Kashikanta Moitra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner with the able assistance of Mr. Golam Mostafa, learned Advocate appearing with him submitted that the refusal as made by the authority was in mechanical manner without applying the mind as to the facts situation in all respect. The five points formulated as I found from the impugned order for consideration of the school for the purpose of upgradation which are as follows: "(1) The school is housed in a kanchha building. The building is wretched, having thatched walls and title sheds and class room will not accommodate total class units and other allied purposes. (2) Appointments of teaching and non-teaching staff are for beyond the staffing pattern for a Junior High School. (3) Feeder Junior High Schools will not fee-back enrolment in Classes IX-X because of its distance from other schools and since Dasogram High School (XI-XII), a most renewed one falls in the midst of the feeder-schools as stated. (4) The land of the school building is reported khas land and its 'Patta' is not available. (5) The school authority failed to furnish papers and records readily and the Secretary of the school found absent." 3. In the concluding paragraph, the authority concerned contended that in exercise of powers conferred upon it under section 19A(3)(c)(i) of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963, as amended, the Executive Committee passed 'order refusing recognition of upgradation of the concerned school. 4. I find that on four several occasions, the authorities were directed by this Court to consider the representation of the writ petitioner for the purpose of upgradation of the school and the same was refused. 5. Mr. Moitra, learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioner contended that there should not be any mechanical observation of section 19A(3)(c)(i) of the Act because the Act provides that in case grant of refusing recognition of upgradation of the institution, State Government will consider a number of location and the manner of selection. 6. These are unfounded, according to me in the order of the concerned authority. 6. These are unfounded, according to me in the order of the concerned authority. Moreover, the points formulated as above for the purpose of upgradation by the authority concerned are contradictory. It can be taken note in one hand that the school authority failed to furnish papers and records readily but on the other hand observed the land of the school building is reported as khas land and its patta is not available. From where the authority has come to the conclusions are best known to them, specially for the reasons that these are only available from the records. Moreover, the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) is the best authority to adjudge the number, location to grant or refuse recognition to institutions of a District but I find that the' report of the' concerned Assistant District Inspector, being an inspecting officer, has been totally ignored. It has observed from the said report that there cannot be any objection for upgradation. 7. Therefore, I am of the view that the order of the authorities' total outcome is non-application of mind. 8. In this context, Mr. Moitra, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner cited a judgment reported in 1998(1) CLJ 141 (Nabadwip Chandra Das & Ors. vs. The West Bengal Board of Secondary Education & Ors.). There it was held that mechanical observation cannot be the ground for rejection of upgradation of the school, specially when right to education is fundamental right. I can remember the comments passed by Mr. Moitra in arguing other matters that democracy without education is hypocrisy without limitation. Therefore, administrative jugglery in stopping the education in the manner is not encourage able by the Court at all. 9. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that no fruitful purpose will be served if I send again the subject matter in issue to the consideration of any of the authority but, I direct the authorities to pass order of upgradation within• a particular period. 10. Therefore, I set aside the impugned order. 11. I direct the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, being the appropriate authority to pass a necessary order of upgradation of the school within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. Considering the fact that this is a mandate of the court. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. 13. No order as to costs. 14. 1 and 2, being the appropriate authority to pass a necessary order of upgradation of the school within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. Considering the fact that this is a mandate of the court. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. 13. No order as to costs. 14. Let urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocate for the petitioner within seven days from the date of putting the requisites. Writ petition is disposed of.