Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 485 (JK)

Breng Public School Bindoo v. State

2013-08-27

MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN ATTAR

body2013
1. Petitioner has set up an Educational Institution in village Bindoo, Tehsil Kokernag. The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 25th October, 2012, whereunder respondent no. 3 has issued sanction for grant of provisional recognition in favour of the respondent no. 5-Institution, to impart education to the students up to class 3rd Primary till ending December, 2013. The recognition is subject to fulfillment of formalities as provided in SRO. 123 of 2010 dated 18th March, 2010. 2. Respondent no. 5 has filed reply affidavit/objections. Official respondents have not filed objections. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that official respondents are duty bound to comply with the terms and conditions contained in Notification/SRO 123 dated 18th March, 2010. Learned counsel submitted that in terms of Rule 3 (I) of the Jammu and Kashmir School Education Rules, 2010, for opening of Primary School and Upper Primary School, distance is to be maintained from each other with particular regard to the topography and terrain of an area. Learned counsel submitted that in the present case the respondents have not complied with this particular Rule and provisional recognition has been granted for opening of the school which is at the distance of Kilometer from that of the petitioner's school. Learned counsel referred to the report of the Zonal Education Officer dated 9th November, 2010, in which objection was raised about the opening of school by the respondent no. 5. 4. Mr. Alla-ud-Din, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 submitted that in order to generate healthy competition amongst Educational Institutions and provide quality education, the provisional recognition has been granted for opening of school to respondent no. 5. Learned counsel submitted that it is primarily duty of the official respondents to ensure that quality education is provided to the students of the area. Learned counsel submitted that the official respondents have not violated the statutory rules. 5. Learned counsel for respondent no. 5 referred to the report of Zonal Education Officer dated 3rd December, 2010 annexed with reply affidavit/objections to indicate that opening of school by respondent, qualifies for grant of recognition on all fours. Learned counsel submitted that it is in pursuance to the said feasibility report that the order impugned in this petition has been passed. 6. The activity undertaken by the petitioner is to impart quality education to the students of the area. Learned counsel submitted that it is in pursuance to the said feasibility report that the order impugned in this petition has been passed. 6. The activity undertaken by the petitioner is to impart quality education to the students of the area. It is in essence a noble service and cannot be equated to commercial activity. The Competent Authority in the Government in the fact situation of the case and in order to ensure that quality education is imparted to the children of a particular area, can grant re-cognition to a school, which is to be opened for imparting education to the children of the area. The Authorities of the Government, however, have to follow statutory rules while considering applications for grant, or otherwise, of re-cognition for opening of another primary school in a particular area. In this case, the latest feasibility report submitted by the Zonal Education Officer does indicate that the Authorities have taken into consideration the requirements as provided in the statutory rules. This feasibility report is also not in challenge in the writ petition. 7. What appeared from the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner is that permission for opening of another school in the same area would affect the income of the petitioner's school. This cannot be a ground for denying permission to another person for opening of a school in the same area. 8. The children of the area are entitled to receive best education. For imparting quality education, choice has to be provided to the students. The petitioner in the facts of this case wants to monopolize imparting of education in the village. The claim of the petitioner, thus, cannot be supported both on ethics and in law. 9. For the above stated reasons this writ petition is dismissed alongwith all connected CMP(s).