Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 89 (ORI)

G. B. Dhyan Chandra College v. State of Orissa

2012-02-17

M.M.DAS

body2012
JUDGMENT M.M. DAS, J. - The Governing Body of Dhyan Chandra College at Hajipur in the district of Jagatsinghpur has filed the present writ petition with a prayer to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ/direction directing the Opp. Parties to grant recognition to the petitioner college for the period from 2004-05 and 2005-06 and permanent recognition with effect from the session 1999-2000. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, Dhyan Chandra College was established in the year 1992 to cater to the educational need of the locality upon making an application for grant of permission and upon necessary inspection being conducted by the Government. Such permission has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. After obtaining permission, the educational agency/Governing Body not only admitted students but also applied for grant of recognition as required under Section 6 of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Accordingly, temporary recognition was granted by the prescribed authority under Section 6 (6) of the Act for the session 1992-93 by order dated 3.5.1995. Grant of such temporary recognition to the petitioner-college continued from the session 1992-93 till 2003-04 un-interruptedly, i.e., for 12 years. In the year 2004, even though an application was made by the Governing Body/ Administrator, no recognition was granted for the sessions 2004-05 and 2005-06. But, surprisingly, under Annexure-3 series, fresh temporary recognition was granted for the session 2006-07 till 2008-09. During the period 2006-07, the petition college made an application for grant of permanent recognition in terms of Section 6 of the Act, but the authorities in a mechanical manner without considering the materials available with them and without considering the statutory provisions rejected the proposal vide order dated 31.3.2007 for grant of permanent recognition mainly on the ground that the petitioner-college did not satisfy the basic requirement, i.e., the extent of land required for the college. The rejection letter dated 31.3.2007 has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Against the said order of rejection, the petitioner-college preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Minister who rejected the said appeal. Being aggrieved by such rejection of the application for grant of permanent recognition, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition for appropriate relief. 3. Mr. The rejection letter dated 31.3.2007 has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Against the said order of rejection, the petitioner-college preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Minister who rejected the said appeal. Being aggrieved by such rejection of the application for grant of permanent recognition, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition for appropriate relief. 3. Mr. Routray, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the scheme of the Act provides that permission for establishment of an educational institution is to be granted as per the provisions of Section 5 of the Act. Conditions stipulated in Section 5 of the Act having been fulfilled, the petitioner-college was granted such permission for establishment of the college. Recognition of educational institution is provided under Section 6 of the Act. Section 6(6) of the Act provides that the committee shall consider the application for recognition together with the report and the recommendation of the prescribed authority and may call for such additional information or may direct such further inspection as it deems necessary and the committee having considered all aspects shall make an order either granting recognition or temporary recognition with or without conditions or rejecting the application for reasons to be recorded. It is also provided that the prescribed authority shall communicate the order made by the committee in such manner and with such particulars, if any, as may be prescribed. 4. It is evident from the facts of the case that after obtaining permission to establish the college under Section 5 of the Act, an application was made by the college in, 992-93 for grant of recognition upon consideration of which, the college was granted temporary recognition. Basing on such temporary recognition, the Council of Higher Secondary Education also granted affiliation to the college and allowed the students to appear in the examination. 5. Examining the scheme of the Act, it appears that under Section 6-A, the conditions for recognition are provided which stipulate that no educational institution shall be eligible for recognition under Section 6 of the Act, unless it fulfills the conditions enumerated therein, one of which is, the institution is required to provide such extent of land as may be prescribed for the educational institution under a valid title and the institution is under lawful and valid possession of that land. Subsection (9) of Section 6 of the Act provides that if a private education institution does not fulfil the conditions for recognition in regard to land, building and furniture, but the committee is satisfied that it has made reasonable adequate provisions for accommodation and imparting education, it may decide to grant temporary recognition for a period not exceeding one year at a time and not exceeding five years (amended to 7 years on 29.3.2001) in aggregate. 6. As admittedly, it is seen that the petitioner-college was repeatedly granted temporary recognition from the year 1993-94 till 2001-2002, i.e., for more than seven years and even thereafter, again temporary recognition has been granted from 2006-07 till 2008-09, though the application for permanent recognition made by the petitioner-college was rejected in the meeting dated 28.7.2004, which is clearly in contravention of the provisions of Section 6(9) of the Act, Mr. Routray submits that such recognition though nomenclatured as "temporary recognition" after seven years from grant of first temporary recognition should be presumed to be a "permanent recognition". It is further found that the only requirement to be met by the petitioner-college was acquisition of land as per provision of Section 6-A of the Act and the petitioner-college has already acquired more than AC.5.00 acres of land as is evident from the documents annexed. 7. In the impugned order, the ground for rejection has been assigned that since the educational institution was required to be recognized permanently by 1997-98 for +2 Arts as it is seen that the institution has applied for permanent recognition on 29.11.2000, from the year 2000-01 and the institution has not acquired adequate land in its name, application for permanent recognition should have been rejected out-right. Quoting Section 6(9) of the Act, in the impugned order, it has been stated that as the institution has completed more than seven years by 29.3.2001, no permanent recognition can be granted. Copy of sale-deed dated 9.9.1992, by which the college has purchased land to an extent of Ac.1.44 decimals and sale deed dated 15.5.2006 showing purchase of land to an extent of AC.2.33 decimals by the college has been annexed to the writ petition. No where in the rules, it has been stipulated as to what extent of land a college is required to acquire in its name for the purpose of Section 6A of the Act. 8. No where in the rules, it has been stipulated as to what extent of land a college is required to acquire in its name for the purpose of Section 6A of the Act. 8. From the above admitted facts, it is clear that the prescribed authority without due application of mind continued to grant temporary recognition to the petitioner-college for, more than a decade, which he could not have done as per the provisions of Section 6 (9) of the Act. The appellate authority in its order while confirming the impugned order of the prescribed authority, has only recorded two lines which is as follows "30.8.10. Heard the appellant. In view of the report of the prescribed authority and lack of documents retrospective permission for the gap period is rejected." The above order of the appellate authority complete non-application of mind in dealing with the appeal filed by the petitioner college. 9. This Court finds that since the petitioner-college has acquired sufficient land in its name and had been continuously granted temporary recognition much more than seven years as prescribed under Section 6 (9) of the Act, the temporary recognition granted after completion of seven years from the date of establishment of the college, i.e., for the year 2000-2001, should be taken to be a permanent recognition to have been granted to the petitioner-college. 10. Hence, the impugned orders passed by the prescribed authority as well as the appellate authority stand quashed and the writ petition is disposed of directing the prescribed authority to pass a formal order granting permanent recognition to the petitioner-college from the session 2000-2001. The prescribed authority shall act on production of a certified copy of this judgment and issue such letter of permanent recognition within a period of fifteen days from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment before him by the petitioner. Petition disposed of.