Hon'ble Anil Kumar, J.:- Heard Sri S.K. Tewari, Sri Brij Lal Tripathi, Smt. Alka Verma, Sri M.M. Srivastava, D.K.S. Chauhan, Sri V.K. Singh, Sri M.S. Rathore, Sri Pradeep Singh, Sri O.P. Misra, Sri Kuldeep Mani Tripathi, Sri D.C. Tewari, Sri H.B. Singh and Sri G.C. Verma, Sri H.G.S. Parihar, Sri D.K. Singh, Sri Sanjay Kumar and Sri Balram Yadavlearned counsels for the petitioners and Sri Rakesh Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for opposite parties in the above noted writ petitions. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, as the common question for allotment of examination centre for High School and Intermediate Examination, 2010 are raised in the above said writ petitions so they are being clubbed together, heard and decided by a common judgement. In the State of Uttar Pradesh the High School and Intermediate examinations are conducted by a body known as Madhyamik Shikcha Parishad, Allahabad, U.P. (Hereinafter referred to as ''Board') and for the said purpose various centres are allotted in different institutions situated at different places in districts throughout the State. In the State of Uttar Pradesh the High School and Intermediate examinations are conducted by a body known as Madhyamik Shikcha Parishad, Allahabad, U.P. (Hereinafter referred to as ''Board') and for the said purpose various centres are allotted in different institutions situated at different places in districts throughout the State. The Centre has been defined in Section 2(aa) of U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921 (hereinafter referred to as ''Act') as under:- ''Centre' means an institution or a place fixed by the Board for the purposes of holding, its examinations and includes the entire premises attached thereto.' Further as per the provisions contained in Section 13 of the Act for smooth functioning of Board, the Board has constituted different committees namely: a) Curriculum Committee b) Examinations Committee c) Results Committee d) Recognition Committee e) Finance Committee Moreover as per provisions contained in Regulation 2(Ja) of Chapter-VI which is framed under the Act deals with Examination Committee provides that the ''Examination Committee' shall make recommendations in respect of framing policy for establishment of Examination Centres, Evaluation Centres and copy of Collection Centres, which is quoted below:- "2(Ja)- Parikcha kendro, mulyankan kendro aur sankalan kendro ko esthapit karne aur todne ke liye apnaye jane vali niti ke sambandh mai sanstuti karna." In the instant case as per the aforesaid provisions as provided in the Act and Regulations, the meeting of Examination Committee was held on 30.6.2009 in which a decision for establishment of Centres for conducting examination High school & Intermediate by Board relating to year 2010 was considered and the Examination Committee after considering the matter made recommendation to the State Government for framing Policy for establishment of Examination Centres relating to High School and Intermediate Examination, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ''examination in question'). In pursuance to the above said recommendation the State Government in exercise of the power under Section 9 of the Act had issued a Government Order dated 27.8.2009 laying down the policy in respect of establishing the examination centres with a view to conduct a fair, impartial and in transparent manner the examination in question. The said Government Order was subsequently modified by another Government Order dated 14.10.2009 by which it is inter-alia provided that the representation preferred against the proposal for allotment of Centres for the examination in question, the same will be considered by District Level Committee instead of Divisional Level Committee. The said Government Order was subsequently modified by another Government Order dated 14.10.2009 by which it is inter-alia provided that the representation preferred against the proposal for allotment of Centres for the examination in question, the same will be considered by District Level Committee instead of Divisional Level Committee. In view of the G.O. dated 27.8.2009, two committees were constituted namely (a) District Level Committee (b) Divisional Level Committee and the constitution of the said Committees are hereunder:- (a) District Level Committee: i) District Magistrate -Chairman; ii) District Inspector of Schools-Member Secretary; iii) Basic Shiksha Adhikari- Member iv) Two Senior Principals of the same district Members(one must belong to rural area of the same district) v) Sub-Divisional Magistrate- Member ( of the sub division in which the centre falls) (b) Divisional Level Committee: i) Divisional Commissioner-Chairman ii) Regional Joint Director of Education-Member Secretary iii) District Magistrates ( Every District falling in the division) -Member iv) Additional Secretary of concerned Regional Office of the Board as representative of Secretary of Board. Further, Government Order dated 27.8.2009 provides the detailed procedure and conditions in regard to fixation of centres for the examination in question as mentioned therein, according to which initially in respect to the institutions which are to be considered for allotment of centres in respect to the same the report is to be submitted by the DIOS/SDM of the district in which the institution is situated, after receiving the said report the same was to be placed before the District Level Committee and to be considered by 21.9.2009 and after considering the matter in respect to allotment of the centres in respect to each institution on merit the District Level Committee had to prepare a proposed list of the institutions which are to be allotted as ''Centre' for examination in question, which was to be published in two news-paper on 25.9.2009 and also to be pasted on the notice board in the office of the DIOS of the Districts inviting objections/ representations from the institutions/ persons (committee of managements, Principals etc.) by 5.10.2009. After receiving the objections/ representations, the same were again to be considered by the District Level Committee on merit and thereafter the final list for allotting the ''Centres' to various institutions throughout the State for conducting the examination in question was to be finalized and the same was to be sent to Divisional Level Committee for approval latest by 20.10.2009 thereafter the Divisional Level Committee had to finalise the list for allotment of centres for Highschool and Intermediate examination 2010, positively by 30.10.2009 and notified the same and send it to the Regional Secretaries and the Secretary of the Board for further action. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS On the basis of the arguments advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners appearing in the present writ petitions the controversy involved in the present bunch of writ petitions, in nutshell, can be summarised as under:- a) Some the petitioners/institutions are debarred from being examination centres of the Board without any reason; b) In respect to some of the petitioners/ institutions, the report of DIOS/SDM for allotting the Centre is in their favour even though the centre is not allotted to them without any rhyme or reason. c) Some of the petitioners/institutions are black-listed/debarred for conducting the examinations by the Board without notice an opportunity to them. d) Some of the petitioners/institutions have not been made examination centre as per the reasons recorded and mentioned by the authorities. e) In one of institution the recommendation of the District Level Committee for allotment of Centre was in favour of the institution but the Divisional Level Committee had not allotted the same without giving any reason and opportunity. f) In some of the writ petitions the submission have been made by the Learned Counsels for the petitioners that on one hand their institutions were not allotted Centres for examination in question on the other hand the institutions situated in their Districts against which there were complaint for not allotting the Centres for the forth examination in question or their case for allotment of centre are verse in comparison to the petitioners/ institutions have been allotted Centre by the authorities concerned under the garb of political pressure with oblique motive and purpose with mala fide intention. In support of the above said grievances, the submission which have been advance by the learned counsel for the petitioners can be crystallized and summarised as follows:- (a) The State Government for the purpose of allotment of centres had laid down the policy/guideline after taking into consideration the statutory provisions as provided under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and Regulation framed therein, so the statutory obligation is casted upon them to act as per the terms of the policy in fair and reasonable manner and if their action are not in accordance with the terms of the policy, the same amounts to infringement of the fundamental rights of the petitioners and for the said purpose writ under article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable for challenging the said action as it is well settled proposition of law that "if law provides that particular thing is to be done in a particular manner then the same is to be done in that manner" Accordingly, as in the present case, the policy for allotment of centre for examination is not followed in its letter and spirit by the respondents so the present writ petitions filed by the petitioners thereby challenging said action on the part of the respondents for not allotting the centres to them are maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (b) While alloting the centres for examination in question, the respondents have violated the condition as given in the Government Order Dated 27.8.2009, specifically as given in Clauses 1(cha), 9, 10 and 11 of the Government Order dated 27.8.2009. (c) Adverse material or reasons which were taken into consideration by the opposite parties for not allotting the centres in favour of the petitioner, the some were neither given nor provided to them and on the basis of the said materials, the centre were not allotted to the petitioners so the said action on the part of the respondents, is contrary to the principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained. (d) Respondents had not allotted the centres to some institutions without any justification or reason although they fulfil the relevant criteria and condition as provided under Clause 1 (Cha) of Government Order dated 27.8.2009 on one hand and on the other hand the centre have been allotted to the other institutions in the same district, who does not fulfil the said criteria, so the said action on the part of the respondents is arbitrary in nature and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (e) The respondents while passing the impugned orders for rejecting the cases of the some institutions for not allotting the centre/debarring them had passed stereo type order and no valid reasons had been given or assigned in the impugned orders by which the petitioner's institution are debarred from centres for examination in question as such the said action is contrary to principle of natural justice. (f) In spite of the recommendation submitted by the District Inspector of School/ Sub Divisional Magistrate in favour of some institutions for the purpose of allotting the centre, respondents had not allotted the same without giving any valid reason and even no opportunity had been given in this regard to the concerned institution as such the action on the part of the respondents thereby debarring the institutions which falls under the said category is in violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the Government Order dated 27.8.2009. (g) The decision taken by the respondents under Clause 12 (ka) of the Government Order dated 27.8.2009 for not allotting the centre to the some institutions for examination in question is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as no opportunity has been provided to the petitioners/institutions in this regard for debarring them, from allotting the centres on the said basis. (h) Against the propose/ tentative list prepared by the District Level Committee, the petitioner, whose name does not find place in the said list, had submitted the representations thereby raising their grievances but their case were not considered and representations were rejected without communicating any reason whatsoever. (h) Against the propose/ tentative list prepared by the District Level Committee, the petitioner, whose name does not find place in the said list, had submitted the representations thereby raising their grievances but their case were not considered and representations were rejected without communicating any reason whatsoever. (I) In Writ Petition No. 519 (M/S) of 2009, the order dated 18.1.2008 as contained in Annexure no.1 to the writ petition has been challenged on the ground that the said order has been passed without providing any reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and by the said order the petitioner's institution was debarred/ black listed for three years for holding examination on the ground that in the year 2006 when the petitioner's institution was the centre for holding High-shcool and Intermediate examination, there was a complaint in respect to violation of some rules framed by the Board in respect to the candidates, who had appeared in the said examination having Roll No. 33225599-666 and 668 so the centre was debarred for three years i.e. from 2007 to 2009 but thereafter the institution was allowed to conduct the examination upto the year 2009 as centre. However now the institution is debarred as centre without any reasons for examination of the years 2010- 2012, so the action on the part of the opposite parties is contrary to law, arbitrary in nature and liable to be set aside. (j) Sri Brij Lal Tripathi Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner in one of the writ petition has submitted that the matter in respect of allotment of centre for examination in question is an honour to that institution which in the present case has been snatched by the opposite party no.2 in the garb of the provisions under Clause 12 (kha) of the Government order which amount to debarring/ blacklisting of the institution without providing any opportunity of hearing, so the same is liable to be set aside. (k) Sri G.C. Verma learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ petition No. 701(M/S) of 2010 has submitted that in sipte of the report in favour of the institution ( Shiv Shakti Uchachatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Pakri, Belsher, District Gonda) for allotment of centre by the District Level Committee, the Divisional Level Committee has not allotted the same. (k) Sri G.C. Verma learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ petition No. 701(M/S) of 2010 has submitted that in sipte of the report in favour of the institution ( Shiv Shakti Uchachatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Pakri, Belsher, District Gonda) for allotment of centre by the District Level Committee, the Divisional Level Committee has not allotted the same. Accordingly the action on the part of the Divisional Level Committee was illegal and contrary to the provision of the policy in respect to allotment of centre as per Government Order dated 27.8.2009. (L) Sri H.G.S. Parihar, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 707 (M/S) of 2010 submits that the students, who are appearing as regular candidates for High-shool and Intermediate Examination and studying in Ram Krishna Vidyawati Inter College Piyarepur, Post Maunda, District Lucknow. Their centres have been allotted for appearing in the examination in question at Mahtma Jyotirba Rao Phule Inter College, Buddheshwar, Mohan Road, Lucknow and to the Rajkiya Ashram Padhyati Kanya Vidyalaya, Lucknow which are situated 10 kms. from the institution where they are studying. In this regard, the petitioner made a representation to the concerned respondents to shift the examination centre of the students in the institution itself but till date the representation has not been decided. Sri R.C.Saxena, learned counsel, who has intervened in the matter has submitted that the petitioner's institution has been back listed on the ground that there was a complaint for mass copying in the previous year examination and if the centre is allotted to the institution in question then the same will be against object to conducting the fair and transparent examination by the Board. (M) Some institutions have been debarred from allotment of centre for forthcoming examination on the ground that in the previous years, they were famous for mass copying. Accordingly, the image of the said institutions were not good in public at large so the centre cannot be allotted to them in the year 2010 as per submission made on their behalf, the said action was taken by the Board without providing any opportunity to them so the same is contrary to principles of fair play and natural justice. In support of the above submissions, the reliance have been placed by the learned counsels for the petitioners on the following cases: (1) J.P. Bansal Vs. In support of the above submissions, the reliance have been placed by the learned counsels for the petitioners on the following cases: (1) J.P. Bansal Vs. State of Rajasthan (2003) 5 SCC 134 ( for the purpose of legitimate expectation- in respect to allotment of centre) (2) Associated Provincial Picture Houses Limited Vs. Wednsebury Corporation 1947 All England Law Reports ,680 ( for the purpose- the court can interfere with on act of executive authority if it is shown that the authority have contravened the law). (3) Ram Prakash Dewakar Vs. District Inspector of Schools and others, 2002 (2) AWC 995 (4) The order passed in Writ Petition No. 30(M/S) of 2008, Mahanagar Sageer Hasan Nusrat Hussain Inter College, Guni Khalsa Hardoi and another Vs. State of U.P. and others . SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS Sri Rakesh Srivastava, Learned Standing Counsel in rebuttal submits that for the purposes of allotting the Centre for the examination in question, the procedure as provided in the Government Order dated 27.8.2009 had been followed and as per the terms of the said G.O. while allotting the Centres, the preference is given firstly to the Government institutions, thereafter the Government aided institutions and lastly the recognized self finance institutions. He further submits that in all the writ petitions the grievance in respect to allotment of centres which have been raised by the institutions before this Court they are recognised self finance/ non-aided institutions. He further submits that considering the decreasing number of candidates in the current years i.e. 2010 in comparison to previous years, it has also been decided to decrease the number of Examination Centres with the view to maintain the situation of law and order more effectively and also to save the public money which would be incurred in the establishment of the Examination Centres. In the year 2009 56 lacs candidates appeared in the Board's Examination, whereas in the year 2010, about 52 lacs candidates are likely to be appeared in the forthcoming examination of Board and as such for the year 2010, 8649 Centres are being established, whereas, in the year 2009, 9050 Centres were established and as such 451 Centres have been reduced. Sri Srivastava further submits that as the examinations in question are scheduled to be held w.e.f. 4.3.2010 to 9.4.2010 already all the arrangements have been made with a view to check the impersonation likely to be made by some candidates Admit Card from the Board is issued to the students having computerized detail and scanned photograph of the candidate concerned and the same is positively to be issued three weeks prior to commencement of examination, accordingly it was submitted that in case if this Hon'ble Court interferes at this stage the schedule would be disturbed, the same would against the interest of the students in mass as it would be difficult task for the Board to supply the question papers on the changed examination centre on time because nominal roll is also required to be rearranged and besides above, by change of examination centre, the result of the students would become incomplete/ inaccurate which adversely affect the reputation of the Board. Learned counsel for the respondents on the basis of instructions which are received on 10.2.2010 to him, submits that in some of the cases after the rejection of the representation which had been submitted by the petitioners, raising their grievances against non allotment of centres, the decision had been taken on their representation by the concerned authority and the same was communicated to the said petitioners/ institutions, as such it is totally incorrect on the part of the petitioners to submit that the decision was not taken on their representation for redressal of the grievance for not allotting the centres for examination in question and not communicated to them, is totally incorrect and contrary to the facts on record. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the respondents relies on the judgements in the case of State of Haryana and another Vs. Chanan Mal (1976) Supreme Court Reports 688 ( On the proposition that the petitioner has got no legal right and locus for allotment of centre) and an unreported judgements of this Court dated 18.3.2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 14369 of 2009, Committee of Management, Sankat Mochan Higher Secondary Vidyalaya, Andoli Mahamaya Nagar ( Hathras) and another Vs. State of U.P. and others . FINIDINGS AND CONCLUSIOIN I have heard the Learned Counsels for the parties and gone through the records and the materials which are placed before me. State of U.P. and others . FINIDINGS AND CONCLUSIOIN I have heard the Learned Counsels for the parties and gone through the records and the materials which are placed before me. In view of the provisions as provided in the U.P. Intermediate Act,1921 and the Regulation framed therein read with the policy as laid down by the Government Order dated 27.8.2009 the matter in respect to the allotment of examination centres for the Examination-2010 lies within the ambit and domain of the State Government/ Board. As undoubtedly, conduct and holding of examination in a most appropriate and fair manner is imperative and it is solemn duty of the examining body to provide for fair procedure, for the same as career of students depends upon the result of the examinations. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in University of Mysore Versus C.D. Govinda Rao and another, AIR 1965 SC 491 , has held that where the decision under challenge has been taken by the Committee of Expert, ''normally the Courts should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by the experts' unless there are allegations of mala fide against any of the Members of the Expert Committee. The Court further observed as under:- "------ It would normally be wise and safe for the Courts to leave the decisions of academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than Courts....." Similar view has been taken by the Apex Court in the State of Bihar & another Vs. Dr. Asis Kumar Mukherje, AIR 1975 SC 192 ; Dr.Umakant Vs. Dr.Bhikha Lal Jain & others, AIR 1991 SC 2272 ; Chancellor and another Vs. Dr. Bijay Nanda Kar & others, (1994) 1 SCC 169 ; Chairman, Jammu & Kashmir State Board of Education Vs. Fayaz Ahmed, (2000) 3 SCC 59 . Thus, it is well settled law that when a decision is taken by the Committee of Expert having experience in the specialized field, the Courts should not normally probe the matters unless there are compelling circumstances for doing so, i.e. allegations of mala fides against the members of the Expert Committee, rejection of representation on extraneous consideration etc. This Court in the case of Ravindra Pal Singh Vs. This Court in the case of Ravindra Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & others (2005) 2 UPLBEC 1918 in respect to the matter relating to change of examination centres of the students in Para-12 has held as under:- "Even otherwise from the order passed by the Registrar of the University dated 20th March, 2005 it is apparently clear that for getting free and fair examinations held, the University has changed the examination centres of the students of the college. This Court cannot loose sight of the fact that the examinations which are conducted by the University, public examination and must be held in a free and fair manner. Some difficulties may be faced by the students due to change in the examination centre but, it cannot be a ground for appreciating this Court by means of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India. If the University for certain other reasons has not altered the centres, wherein according to the petitioner students, were involved in a mass-copying, cannot be a ground to challenge the action of the University changing the examination centre of the college in question as parity for grant of similar illegal orders, is neither contemplated by law nor is justified." In the light of above said facts, although the allotment of centre for the examination in question is a sole progrative of the authorities concerned (State Government/Board) but while allotting the Centres, the said authorities should act in fair, proper and transparent manner, guided by certain guidelines/ policy framed for the said purpose . In the case of Ashfaq Ahmad Ansari Vs. Director of Higher Education, U.P. Allahabad & others (1999) 3 UPLBEC 2275 this Court had laid down certain guidelines in para-19 which are as under:- (a) In future (except the ensuing examination, 1999) the Secretary shall try to shift the entire staff of the examination centre instead of shifting the examinees/students and for this purpose, they may examination fees meeting the expenses of TA/DA to be paid to the staff. (b) The centres of regular girl examinees/students should not be shifted except in extra-ordinary circumstances from the institution where from they are getting education as regular student, to any other institution in future. (b) The centres of regular girl examinees/students should not be shifted except in extra-ordinary circumstances from the institution where from they are getting education as regular student, to any other institution in future. (c )The DIOS may ensure co-operation of the Managing Committee in taking over the buildings of the institutions and in case, building is not handed over for any reason, the District Magistrate concerned should take over the possession of that building." Accordingly, there is no doubt that the matter regarding allotment of centres for examination in question is a policy matter which lies within the domain of Sate Government/ Board being the administrative creation. But, as long as these discretionary power are exercised within the frame work of the Act and Rules and not opposed to the policy issued by the Government itself. The same should not be interfere while exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, as the exercise of discretion is not always flawless they are often challenged before the courts of law on the ground that they are tainted with arbitrariness or with bias and mala fide or they are vitiated on account of the lack of natural justice then the matter should be adjudicated and decided keeping in view the parameters as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tata Cellular V Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 65, wherein the scope of judicial review of administrative actions was considered and reviewed and certain norms were laid down which serve as basic guidelines for judicial review of administrative action by the courts, the same are as under:- (i) while reviewing administrative actions judges must maintain judicial restraint, (ii) judges to bear in mind that they do not sit in appeal but merely doing review of the decision making process, (iii) Court is not an expert to correct administrative decision and to substitute its own, (iv) matters for contractual negotiations are outside the purview, (v) the freedom of executive not to be interfered except on Wednesbury principles of reasonableness and fairness and not affected by bias or mala fides, and (vi) quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative cost. Moreover, there is no quarrel on the point that the principle of non-interference or restraint can be drawn to a limit. Moreover, there is no quarrel on the point that the principle of non-interference or restraint can be drawn to a limit. But where this limit is crossed and the administration abuses its discretionary powers Court cannot be a silent spectator. It must exercise its duty and hold administrative authority at bay as held by this Court in the case of Ram Prakash Dewakar Vs. District Inspector of Schools and others, 2002 (2) AWC 995 as under:- " It is to be imbibed that fairness is a prime test of administration. The powers given to District Level Committees and Regional Level Committees cannot be allowed to be abused, but it is to be exercised properly pursuant to the policy decision taken by the State Government. It is known to all of us that Article 14 of the Constitution prohibits arbitrariness. If the District Level Committees and Regional Level Committees are permitted to ignore the policy decision taken by the State Government, it would lead to arbitrariness, which is anathema to the constitutional provisions enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution. Such refusal tentamount arbitrariness in exercise of powers by District Level Committees and Regional Level Committees." Now in the light of the above said facts so far as the first submission made by learned counsels for the petitioners in the present writ petitions that they have got a genuine hope and believe that their institutions should be allotted centres for examination in question according to their own estimation and reasons i.e. to say that they have legitimate expectation for allotment of centres as argued by them has got no force as it is well settled law that the concept of legitimate expectation has no role to play where the State action is as a public policy or in the public interest unless the action taken amounts to an abuse of power. The court must not usurp the discretion of the public authority which is empowered to take the decisions under law and the court is expected to apply an objective standard which leaves to the deciding authority the full range of choice which the legislature is presumed to have intended. Even in a case where the decision is left entirely to the discretion of the deciding authority without any such legal bounds and if the decision is taken objectively, the court will not interfere on the ground of procedural fairness. Even in a case where the decision is left entirely to the discretion of the deciding authority without any such legal bounds and if the decision is taken objectively, the court will not interfere on the ground of procedural fairness. So, this Court while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot allot the centres for the forthcoming examination to the institutions in question / writ petitioners as sought by them by means of present writ petition. Next argument as advanced in some of the case on behalf of the petitioners, that in spite of the report of District Inspector of Schools/ Sub Divisional Magistrate in their favour, the centre were not allotted to them, is an wholly misconceived arguments as the report submitted by District Inspector of Schools/ Sub Divisional Magistrate had only persuasive value on the District Level Committee but the same cannot have binding value on the committee, accordingly the petitioners on the basis of the said report cannot derive any benefit but the authority concerned must record the reason for not allotting the centre to such class of petitioners and communicate them.[See Sethi Auto Service Station and another Vs. Delhi Development Authority and others , 2009 (1) SCC 180 ] In the present case on the basis of the documents on record and pleadings which are brought to the notice of the Court, the respondents before debarring the petitioners/institutions from allotting the examination centres for High Schools and Intermediate Examination-2010 in whose favour the reports were submitted by the District Inspector of Schools/ Sub Divisional Magistrate of the district for allotment of the centres to them were not allotted the centres of examination in question and even no opportunity of hearing was provided before taking the said decision as such the action on the part of the respondent was not in accordance with principle of natural justice and thus the same cannot be sustained. Further, the action the part of the authority concerned (a) thereby debarring the petitioners/institutions for examination centres for examination in question without any reason (b) not allotting the Centres to the petitioner/institution in whose favour on the basis of the report were submitted by the DIOS/SDM, the District Level Committee allotted the centre but the Divisional Level Committee had cancelled the same without opportunity to them and lastly (c) debarring some of the petitioners/ institutions on the basis of some adverse reasons on record against them without providing any adequate and proper opportunity for redressal of their grievances is an action which is arbitrary in nature on the part of the said respondent as the said orders were passed without providing any opportunity of hearing or to explain their cases before taking the decision for not allotting the Centres for examination in question which adversely affect the claim of the petitioners/ institutions, so the said action is in violation of principles of natural justice because it is well stetted proposition of law that the order which involves civil consequences should not be passed without adequate and reasonable opportunity of hearing to a person against whom the order is passed, moreover it is a golden principle of law that justice should not be done but appears to be done and if any action by any authority which prevent justice from being seen to be done is nothing but amounts to an action which is against the fair play and arbitrary in nature. So far as the matter regarding debarring/ black listing of the petitioners/ institutions are concerned thereby not allotting the centres to them, if the said orders were passed without providing an opportunity to the persons then the said orders are without jurisdiction and in-contravention of principle of natural justice liable to be set aside in view of the law as laid down in the case of M/s Southern Painters,Fertilizers Vs. Chemicals Travancore Ltd. and another AIR 1994 SC page 1277 where in Hon'ble the Supreme Court after placing reliance on its earlier judgment in the case of M/s Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Chemicals Travancore Ltd. and another AIR 1994 SC page 1277 where in Hon'ble the Supreme Court after placing reliance on its earlier judgment in the case of M/s Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal and another AIR 1975 SC page 266 held that the black listing has the effect of preventing a person from the privilege and advantage of entering into lawful relationship with the Government for purposes of gains so the fundamentals of fair play require that the person concerned should be given an opportunity to represent his case before he is put on the black-list. In the case of M/s Southern Painters (supra) it was also observed that the cry of natural justice is that prior notice and opportunity of being heard should be given to a person against whom decision is being taken. In the case of Raghunath Thakur Vs. State of Bihar (1989) 1 SCC at 230 Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that:- "It is an implied principle of the rule of law that any order having civil consequences should be passed only after following the principles of natural justice. In the case of Raghunath Thakur Vs. State of Bihar (1989) 1 SCC at 230 Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that:- "It is an implied principle of the rule of law that any order having civil consequences should be passed only after following the principles of natural justice. It is an elementary principle of natural justice that parties affected by any order should have right of being heard and making representation against the order." Last submissions made by the Learned Counsels for the petitioners in some of the writ petitions that on one hand their institutions were not allotted Centre for examination in question and on the other hand the institutions situated in their Districts against whom there are complaint for not allotting the Centres for the forth coming examination or their case for allotment of centre are worst in comparison to the petitioners/ institutions, have been allotted Centre by the authorities concerned under the garb of political pressure with mala fide intention, oblique motive and purpose, the said argument advanced on their behalf, has got no force as neither the said institutions nor the persons who had said to exercise the political pressure on the authorities concerned for allotting the Centres to the said institutions for Examination 2010 are made party in the writ petitions so in view of the settled preposition of law that if any allegation is made against the person and the same is not made a party, the said allegation cannot be considered without impleding the said person as party in the matter because he will got an opportunity to rebut the allegations which is made against him. Further, in the present case no order/direction can be passed against them on the basis of the vague and bald allegation made in this regard in the writ petitions accordingly the said submission made by the Learned Counsels for the petitioners are rejected. So far as the submission made by Sri Rakesh Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel on the basis of the order dated 18.3.2009 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 14369 of 2009, Committee of Management, Sankat Mochan Higher Secondary Vidyalaya, Andoli Mahamaya Nagar( Hathras) and another Vs. So far as the submission made by Sri Rakesh Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel on the basis of the order dated 18.3.2009 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 14369 of 2009, Committee of Management, Sankat Mochan Higher Secondary Vidyalaya, Andoli Mahamaya Nagar( Hathras) and another Vs. State of U.P. and others, is wholly misconceived because the law as laid down in the said case, has got no application in the facts and circumstances of the present case as in the said case the matter relates to the change of the examination centre during the mid of examination by the Board which is not involved in the instant cases. For the foregoing reasons in order to stream line the grievance which have been raised in the matter in controversy for allotment of the examination centres for the High School and Intermediate Examinations 2010 following directions are issued:- (a) In respect to the institutions/petitioners who have been debarred from being examination centre of the Board 2010 without disclosing any reasons, they have a liberty to approach the State Government in respect of their grievances by means of their representations which will be considered and decided within fifteen days from the date of receipts of their representations along with the certified copy of this order. (b) In respect to those institutions/ petitioners the report of DIOS/SDM where in their favour, even though they have been debarred from allotting the examination centre of the Board 2010, they have a liberty to approach the State Government in respect for redressal of their grievances by means of representations, which will be considered and decided within fifteen days from the date of receipts of the representations along with the certified copy of this order. (c) In respect to the institution/ petitioner who had been debarred from examination centre of the Board although the recommendation was made in his favour by the District Level Committee, but the centre was not allotted by the Divisional Level Committee without providing any opportunity to him, liberty is given to the said institution to approach the State Government in respect of his grievance by means of fresh representation which will considered and decided by the State Government by speaking and reasoned order. However, this order shall not confer any right upon institution to claim itself to be examination centre for examination 2010 but for the purpose of allotting the centre for next Board Examination, the same shall be subject to the decision taken by the competent authority on his matter. (d) In respect to those petitioners/ institutions who have been black-listed/debarred from conducting the examination of the Board without notice or opportunity of hearing, the said order against them shall stand quashed and the concerned authority shall pass a fresh orders after issuing notice to them calling for their response/representation. The competent authority shall decide the representations so submitted with speaking and reasoned order. However, this order shall not confer any right upon such petitioners/institutions to claim themselves to be examination centre for the Examination 2010 but for the purposes of allotting the centre for the next Board examination, the same shall subject to the decision taken by competent authority in their matter. (e) In respect to those petitioners/institutions, who have been debarred from allotment of centre for Examination-2010 for the reasons recorded by the Board, they may file their fresh representations before the State Government and the State Government shall take appropriate decision by means of reasoned and speaking order. However, this order shall not confer any right upon such petitioners/institutions to claim themselves to be examination centre for the Examination 2010 but for the purposes of allotting the centre for the next Board examination, the same shall subject to the decision taken by competent authority in their matter. (f) Further it was also noted in the present case some of the petitioners/institutions were not allotted centre on the allegations that the number of students were too small, in respect to such institutions, specially in respect to the centres of girls student, the Board, if possible, may allot some other centre for examination, within the radius of three kilometres from their studying institutions or self centre as per clause 9 of the Government Order dated 27.8.2009. For the foregoing discussions and observations made herein-above, these writ petitions are disposed of finally. The Registry of this Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Lucknow and to the Secretary, U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. Allahabad for compliance. No order as to costs. For the foregoing discussions and observations made herein-above, these writ petitions are disposed of finally. The Registry of this Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Lucknow and to the Secretary, U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. Allahabad for compliance. No order as to costs. 11.2.2010 D.K. The office is directed to issue a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioners within 24 hours and supply the same free of cost to Learned Standing Counsel.