Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 5 (CAL)

Santosh Kumar Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal

2000-01-04

Amitava Lala

body2000
Judgment Amitava Lala, J.: 1. The writ petition has been made by the Headmaster, other organising teaching and non-teaching staffs of the concerned School for the purpose of upgradation of the same. 2. It appears that the petitioners have, in effect, challenged the impugned order passed by the President of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education as on 16th November, 1998 as communicated by the Secretary, being annexure 'G' to the writ petition. Five grounds have been taken therein for the purpose of refusal of upgradation of the Institution which are as follows : 1) The School did not apply to the Board for upgradation on or before 1975 with prescribed fee of Rs. 25/- which is a pre-requisite condition for up gradation of a School; 2) The Reserve Fund of the proposed School has only been opened on 15.5.98; 3) There is no Jr. High School within a distance of 5 Km. from the proposed school and as such there is no feeder schools of the proposed High School. Moreover, there are three High Schools within 6 Km. and thus no new upgraded school is needed in the area; 4) The D.L.LT. has found some discrepancies in books of accounts of the school which does not indicate a good management; 5) Class rooms are not upto the prescribed size. 3. I have already held that there is a gulf of difference in between recognition and upgradation of institutions in other matter. In one matter baby is yet to born and in other nurishment of the baby born. Principles of recognition of the institution and objection, if any, to that extent on behalf of the Board or the State cannot be similarly placed in the case of upgradation. Upgradation means the School is already recognised and in view of such recognition the School is continuing with studies of the students as recognised institution upto certain level and upgradation is needed for the upliftment of the students, who are prosecuting their studies is a recognised institutions. Therefore, the bounded duty of the State is to ensure such prosecution of studies. But in most of the cases, as I have come across, the Board of Secondary Education, in passing the order; is treating the case of upgradation similarly with the recognition which, according to this Court, its a wrong principle of law. Therefore, the bounded duty of the State is to ensure such prosecution of studies. But in most of the cases, as I have come across, the Board of Secondary Education, in passing the order; is treating the case of upgradation similarly with the recognition which, according to this Court, its a wrong principle of law. Recognition might or might not be accepted by the Board but improvement of the institution towards upgradation following the principles as laid down in Unni Krishnan's case reported in 1993 (1) SCC 645 is obvious. 4. In the case of Nabadwip Chandra Das and Ors. vs. The West Bengal Board of Secondary Education and Ors., reported in 1998 (1) CLJ 141, a Division Bench of this Court deprecated rejection on the grounds of deposit of requisite fees of Rs. 25/- as well as staff pattern and also having School within a radius of 4 to 5 Km. 5. In the instant case two of such grounds are there. Therefore, such grounds are not tenable for the purpose. Moreover, the case of the petitioner is supported by certificate of a Governmental authority from which it appears that nearest five High Schools are at the distances of 4-6 Km. and that too surrounded by forests. Another High School is situated on the other side of a river. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the parents may not allow girl students of adolescence to prosecute their studies there. Therefore, they will be deprived from having education. As I have already dealt with such part in another judgment that our society specially out of the modernised big cities are not so advanced that the guardians would allow their girls to go far from their residence or allow to pursuit their education in the coeducation institution. Therefore, the education of the girls students is deprived which is neither within the scope and ambit of the Supreme Court judgment nor the intention of the Constitution maker. It is contrary to the Directive Principle of State Policy as well as expressed views of the Union of India and various States principally in giving more opportunities to women and weaker section of people. 6. Therefore, in my view, these are not tenable grounds for the purpose of refusal of upgradation. 7. It is contrary to the Directive Principle of State Policy as well as expressed views of the Union of India and various States principally in giving more opportunities to women and weaker section of people. 6. Therefore, in my view, these are not tenable grounds for the purpose of refusal of upgradation. 7. Secondly, the case has to be considered in the light of the judgment and order previously passed by this Court therefore the same should not be done in a mechanical way. However, it appears that the Board as well as the State very much relied upon the comments of the D.L.I.T. which is as follows : "The inspection was made vide Hon'ble Court JustIce Ruma Pal dt. 28.01.98 by District Level Inspection Team, Nadia, in reference to Court case-Miss. Krishna Sarkar & Ors. vs. State of W.B. and Ors. Accommodation of the school building is not satisfactory. The condition of the school building is bad. Moreover, there is no junior High School within a radius of 5 Km. Moreover, subsidiary accounts are not maintained properly. Fees collected were not submitted to the requisite fund. All other statements regarding the School given in the inspection, other statements regarding the School given in the inspection report. So, the report is placed for necessary action". 8. Such grounds of the D.L.I. Team is not totally similar with the impugned order. For example, the grounds are made in respect of the condition of the building, but no such point has been taken excepting the size of the class room in the impugned order. So far the discrepancy of books of accounts are concerned, the petitioners have stated that the accounts have been audited by the recognised auditor appointed by the State of West Bengal. Therefore, under no stretch of imagination such points can also be taken. 9. The petitioners are very specific in their case and they have also annexed a copy of the plan and building and area etc., the same may be imposed for the purpose of upgradation of the institution under report of D.L.I. Team. Therefore, I have no hesitation in my mind that the petitioners have a positive case. 10. 9. The petitioners are very specific in their case and they have also annexed a copy of the plan and building and area etc., the same may be imposed for the purpose of upgradation of the institution under report of D.L.I. Team. Therefore, I have no hesitation in my mind that the petitioners have a positive case. 10. Apart from that, as I have already indicated in some other matter that under Memo No. 65 dated 21st July, 1986 issued by the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), 24-Parganas laying down certain conditions for the purpose of upgradation which are as follows: (1) The school proposed for upgradation to a High School must have a reserve fund for at least Rs. 5,000/- and the School proposed for upgradation to a 4 Class Jr. High School or proposed for de novo 4-Class Jr. High School must have a reserve fund of at least Rs. 3,000/-. (2) The Schools are having qualified Headmaster/Headmistress will not be recommended for upgradation to a High School. 11. Therefore, under no stretch of imagination it can be held such type of conditions should not be imposed in case of upgradation of the institutions to other districts. To avoid discrimination in between district to district, according to this Court, the aforesaid conditions are appropriate conditions for the purpose of upgradation leaving aside the other parts which are the formalities for the purpose of upgradation of the institution to which the Board or the appropriate authority can direct the institution to do the needful fixing the specific period for the same but such ground cannot be ground for refusal of upgradation one after another as happened herein. 12. Since no affidavit has been used in the writ petition but the records are produced by the respondent's Counsel, no allegation is formally admitted by the respondents. 13. Under the circumstances, this court passes a mandatory order directing the Board of Secondary Education, West Bengal, to issue an order of upgradation to the institution as prayed for within a period of one month from the date of completion of all formalities including making infrastructure, if any, for the purpose of accommodation of the students. Such formalities will be completed within two months from the date of communication of the order. 14. Under such circumstances, the writ petition is allowed on contest. No order is passed as to costs. Such formalities will be completed within two months from the date of communication of the order. 14. Under such circumstances, the writ petition is allowed on contest. No order is passed as to costs. Writ petition allowed without cost.