Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 140 (GAU)

Khudnabari High School v. State of Assam

2014-02-05

TINLIANTHANG VAIPHEI

body2014
JUDGMENT Tinlianthang Vaiphei, J. 1. This batch of four writ petitions involving virtually a common question of facts and of law having been heard together, are now being disposed of by this common judgment. The common grievance of the petitioners pertains to the refusal of the Board of Secondary Education, Assam ("the Board" for short) to accord recognition of the respective Schools with effect from 1.1.2005. For simplification, I will first deal with the facts in W.P. (C) No. 5953 of 2013 and will then make an attempt to apply my decision thereon to the facts of the remaining writ petitions. In this writ petition, the school under the name and style of Khudnabari High School ("the School" for short) is the petitioner represented by its Secretary. The School was established in the year 1990 to cater to the needs of the thickly populated educationally backward area with the departmental permission. Provisional recognition for Class VIII was accorded by the respondent No. 2 (Director of Secondary Education, Govt. of Assam) on 1.1.2001, whereas Board accorded permission to open Class IX on 1.1.2004 and Class X with effect from 1.1.2005. The respondent No. 5 (Inspector of Schools, BDC, Barpeta) used to inspect the School from time to time and he, on being satisfied that the School fulfilled all the requirements for recognition, recommended to the Board for provisional recognition of Class X with effect from 1.1.2006 with permission to present candidates in the High School Leaving Certificate Examination. However, the Board by ignoring the recommendation of the respondent No. 5 and 2 granted provisional recognition to the School only with effect from 1.1.2007 instead of 1.1.2006. By refusing to accord the recognition with effect from 1.1.2006, the School has been deprived of getting the benefit of provincialization. According to the petitioner, the Board had constituted a Small Committee for the purpose of reconsideration of its case, and the Board after scrutiny of all records of the School recommended the change of the date of granting the recognition to 1-1-2006 and the same was also accepted by the Academic Committee. However, the Board, contrary to the recommendation of the Small Committee, by the communication dated 20.7.2013 gave the benefit only to five schools, which incidentally had approached this Court. This prompted the petitioner to move this writ petition. 2. No affidavit-in-opposition is filed by the respondents. However, the Board, contrary to the recommendation of the Small Committee, by the communication dated 20.7.2013 gave the benefit only to five schools, which incidentally had approached this Court. This prompted the petitioner to move this writ petition. 2. No affidavit-in-opposition is filed by the respondents. However, their cases are projected through their respective Standing Counsel, namely, Mr. U.K. Goswamy, for the State of Assam and Shri T.C. Chutia for the Board at the time of the admission hearing. The submission of Mr. HRA Choudhury, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner-School, is that the only reason for not according the recognition with effect from 1.1.2006 was the failure of the Board to hold their meeting on time, which is quite irrational. He argues that the petitioner cannot be penalized for the in action of the Board in time. He, therefore, contends that this is a fit case for the interference of this Court On other hand, Mr. T.C. Chutia, the learned Standing Counsel for the Board, supports the impugned decision of the Board and submits that no interference is called for in this case. 3. The minutes of the meeting of the Board of Secondary Education, Assam held on 8.4.2013 would indicate that the Board in that meeting had resolved to constitute Small Committee to examine, among others, the date of giving effect to recognition of some schools as 1.1.2007 in place of the date certified by the respondent No. 2 and the respondent No. 5. There is no dispute at the bar that the petitioner-School is one such school. The Small Committee so constituted held that 22 schools including the petitioner-School have been deprived of their due date of recognition as the meeting of the Board was not held on time and that the Board while giving the date of recognition had ignored the recommendation of the respondent No. 2 and 5. Interestingly, though 22 schools including the petitioner-School stand on the same footing in terms of the findings of the Small Committee, the Board issued the impugned order by giving the date of recognition of five schools with retrospective effect on different dates between 1.1.2005 and 1.1.2003 leaving behind the remaining seventeen schools including the petitioner-School. Interestingly, though 22 schools including the petitioner-School stand on the same footing in terms of the findings of the Small Committee, the Board issued the impugned order by giving the date of recognition of five schools with retrospective effect on different dates between 1.1.2005 and 1.1.2003 leaving behind the remaining seventeen schools including the petitioner-School. Though no specific reason was assigned by the Board for excluding the remaining seventeen schools, I am of the view that those five schools have been chosen for the simple reason that they had approached this Court whereas the petitioner-School and the remaining sixteen schools did not do so. In my considered judgment, such discriminatory action is without any valid justification, more so, when all those schools belong to the same category: likes should be treated alike. The impugned decision, therefore, falls foul of the right to equality guaranteed under Articles 14 of the Constitution of India, which cannot be sustained in law. This certainly warrants the interference of this Court. 4. Coming now to WP(C) No. 5974 of 2013, the petitioner-School was established in the year 1993, was granted departmental permission to establish and open Class VIII on 1.1.1999. Provisional recognition was accorded by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam on 1.1.2000, whereas the permission to open Class DC was granted by the Board on 1.1.2001 and Class X with effect from 1.1.2003. Both the Inspector of Schools, Barpeta and the Director of Secondary Education, Assam also certified that the petitioner-School has fulfilled all the eligibility criteria for recognition for Class examination and made their recommendation to that effect to the Board with effect from 1.1.2005. The Board, however, accorded provisional recognition to the petitioner-School with effect from 1.1.2007 instead of 1.1.2005 as recommended by the Inspector of Schools, Barpeta and the Director of Secondary Education, Assam. As in the previous case, the reasons for granting provisional recognition to the petitioner with effect from 1.1.2005 is same, namely, the Board did not have their meeting in time and that no direction was issued by this Court. Consequently, this case shall also be governed by my decision in the foregoing writ petition. 5. In WP(C) No. 6449 of 2013, the petitioner-School under the name and style of Hazi Osman Ali Memorial High School" of Barpeta District was established in 1993. Consequently, this case shall also be governed by my decision in the foregoing writ petition. 5. In WP(C) No. 6449 of 2013, the petitioner-School under the name and style of Hazi Osman Ali Memorial High School" of Barpeta District was established in 1993. Provisional permission to establish the School was granted by the Government of Assam in the Education Department on 15.2.1993, whereas opening permission for Class VIII was granted by the Education Department on 7.4.1994. The Board accorded permission to open Class IX on 1.1.2000. Having fulfilled all the essential criteria for provisional recognition of Class X, the Inspector of Schools, Barpeta and the Director of Secondary Education, Assam accordingly made recommendation to the Board for the recognition with effect from 1.1.2006. Such recognition is necessary to enable the petitioner-School to send up candidates for High School Leaving Certification Examination being conducted by the Board. The Board ignored the recommendation of the Inspector of Schools, Barpeta and the Director of Secondary Education, Assam and chose to grant the recognition only with effect from 1.1.2006. As in the previous writ petitions, there is no dispute that the recognition was not granted with effect from 1.1.2006 as the Board did not have the meeting in time and that no order was passed by this Court in respect of the petitioner-School. As in the previous cases, the decision of the Board denying the date of recognition for Class X with effect from 1.1.2006 suffers from the vice of non-application of mind and irrationality or illegality warranting the interference of this Court. 6. In WP(C) No. 6508 of 2013, the petitioner-School was established in the year 1987 after obtaining departmental permission to establish a High School with class up to Class VIII with effect from 1.1.1992: provisional recognition was accorded by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam on 1.1.1998, where the Board accorded permission to open Class IX and Class X with effect from 1.1.1994 and 1.1.1997 respectively. Both the inspector of Schools and the Director of Secondary Education, Assam recommended to the Board for provisional recognition of Class X with effect from 1.1.2005 so as to enable the petitioner-School to send up its students for HSLC examination being conducted by the Board. Both the inspector of Schools and the Director of Secondary Education, Assam recommended to the Board for provisional recognition of Class X with effect from 1.1.2005 so as to enable the petitioner-School to send up its students for HSLC examination being conducted by the Board. As in the previous cases, in terms of the findings of the Small Committee constituted by the Board, the reason for not granting the recognition with effect from 1.1.2005 was that the Board did not have the meeting in time. It is also transpired that no direction was also issued by this Court to that effect. The impugned decision not according recognition with effect from 1.1.2005 on those grounds cannot be sustained in law. 7. For the reasons stated in the foregoing, all the four writ petitions are allowed. Resultantly, in W.P. (C) No. 5953 of 2013 and WP(C)No. 6449 of 2013, the following directions are issued: (a) the respondent-Board is directed to accord provisional recognition to the petitioners-Schools with effect from 1.1.2006 as recommended by the Small Committee so as to enable them to get the benefit of provincialization; (b) the respondents No. 2 and 5 shall also issue the prescribed forms for provincialization of the School to the petitioners. In WP(C) No. 5974 of 2013 and WP(C) No. 6508 of 2013, I pass the following directions: (a) the respondent-Board shall now accord provisional recognition to the two petitioner-Schools with effect from 1.1.2005 so as to enable them to apply for and secure provincialization; (b) the respondents No. 2 and 5 are directed to issue the prescribed application forms to both the petitioner-Schools for enabling them to apply for and secure provincialization. The directions passed by me in all the four writ petitions shall be carried out by all the respondent authorities within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this common judgment. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.