Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 256 (MP)

Anoop Mhalha v. State of M. P.

2003-02-06

A.K.MISHRA

body2003
JUDGMENT The petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for relief to comply with the order P-2 dated 20.11.2002 issued by Director Public Instruction to treat the students as regular students. The petitioner submits that he is the President of Khetiya Jan Kalyan Samiti which is a registered society under Society Act which runs school i.e. Vidhya Bihar Convent High School Devendra Nagar, Distt. Panna. Recognition for the academic session 2002-2003 was applied which was not granted by the Board of Secondary Education, then petitioner approached to the State Government to give the recognition on 20.11.2002. P-2 dated 20.11.2002 is passed by the State Government. Thereafter petitioner approached the Board and the Board has denied to give examination forms because of the order passed in MCC No. 1205/2002, in which it has been laid down that the State Government has no power to exercise its power under section 9(4) of Madhyamik Shiksha Act, 1955 after 30.9.2002. The petitioner has given admission to the students and they are entitled to appear as regular students. The State Government has found the school to be fit for grant of recognition for academic session 2002-2003. In the return filed by the Board, it is contended that the matter is covered by MCC 1205/2002. After submission of inspection report dated 7.12.2001, the petitioner was required to remove the deficiencies. The Board considered the matter and passed order rejecting the application for recognition of the petitioner's institution on the ground that there is no departmental permission to run the school which is required to be granted by the State authorities, play ground is not available. Six rooms were available which were very small in size. There is no trained teacher, technical staff, lack of class rooms, lack of furniture, no laboraties, etc. It has been informed by the Board that this school requires two acres of land. There is no work plan for construction of the building, sports grounds. Hence, the petitioner failed to fulfill the standard, laid down by the Board. It is surprising that the petitioner has not assailed the order passed by the Board by which the application of the petitioner has been rejected for grant of recognition for the academic session 2002-2003 and has based the case only on the recommendation made by the Director Public Instruction on 20.11.2002. It is surprising that the petitioner has not assailed the order passed by the Board by which the application of the petitioner has been rejected for grant of recognition for the academic session 2002-2003 and has based the case only on the recommendation made by the Director Public Instruction on 20.11.2002. The recommendation for recognition as per letter P-2 made by the Director Public Instruction is entirely misconceived. Director Public Instruction has no power to exercise the power conferred under section 9(4) of the Act. Thus, the prayer made by the petitioner that the recommendation for recognition (P-2) is final is not correct. In my opinion, the recommendation made by the Director Public Instruction is entirely without applying the mind. Director Public Instruction is directed to be cautious in furture in making such recommendation for recognition. Action is primafacie in violation to the direction made in MCC No. 203/2001. In St. John's Teacher, Training Institute (for women), Madurai etc. v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others etc. JT 1993(4) SC 78, wherein the Apex Court observed as under: "20. Before we part with this judgment, we consider it necessary to strike a note of caution in respect of passing of interim orders by Courts directing the students of unrecognised institutions, to appear at the examinations concerned. In view of the series of judgments of this Court, the Courts should not issue' fiat to allow the students of unrecognised institutions to appear at the different examinations pending the disposal of the writ applications. Such interim orders affect the careers of several students and cause unnecessary embarrassment and harassment to the authorities, who have to comply with such directions of the Court. It is a matter of common knowledge that as a part of strategy, such writ applications for directions to recognise the institutions in question and in the meantime to allow the students to appear at the examinations are filed only when the dates for examinations are notified. Many of such institutions are not only masked phantoms" but are established as business ventures for admitting substandard students, without any competitive tests, on basis of considerations which cannot serve even the interest of the minority. There is no occasion for the Courts to be liberal or generous, while passing interim orders, when the main writ applications have been filed only when the dates for the examination have been announced. There is no occasion for the Courts to be liberal or generous, while passing interim orders, when the main writ applications have been filed only when the dates for the examination have been announced. In this process, students without knowing the design of the organisers of such institutions, become victim of their manipulations.' I do not find any ground for interference. Writ Petition being devoid of substance, is dismissed. No order as to costs.