JUDGMENT Hon’ble Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Shri Anand Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sudeep Seth, Shri Balram Yadav and Shri Ramesh Pandey and others, learned counsels appearing for the petitioners in the matters and Shri Pankaj Patel, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite parties. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, as the common questions for allotment of examination centre for High School & Intermediate Examination-2017 are raised in the above said writ petitions, so they are being clubbed together and decided by a common judgement. 3. Imparting elementary and basic education is a constitutional obligation on the State as well as on the institution/college imparting education. When we talk of education, it means not only learning how to read and write alphabets or get mere information but it means to acquire knowledge and wisdom so that one may lead a better life and become a better citizen to serve the nation in a better way. In this regard, House of Lords in respect of importance of the education for young students as observed in the case of Ali v. Head Teacher and Governors of Lord Grey School, (2006) 2 All ER 457, as under : “72. My Lords, I wish that I found this case as plain as your Lordships have done. Education plays an indispensable and fundamental role in a democratic society. (See Sachin v. Turkey, (2004) 19 BHRC 590 at 620 (para 137). Without it, children will not grow up to play their part in the adult world, to exercise their rights but also to meet their responsibilities.” 4. In the State of U.P., Examination Committee of Board/Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad took decision for establishment of Centres for conducting the examination of High School & Intermediate and the Examination Committee after considering the same recommended the State Government for framing Policy for establishment of Examination Centres relating to High School and Intermediate Examination for various Institutions/Colleges situated in different districts of State of Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as ‘’examination). 5. In pursuance to the said recommendation the State Government in exercise of the power under Section 9 of the Act issued a Government Order dated 13.10.2016 laid down the policy in respect of establishing the examination centres for the year 2017 (Academic Session 2016-17) with a view to conduct a fair, impartial examination for High School & Intermediate. 5. In pursuance to the said recommendation the State Government in exercise of the power under Section 9 of the Act issued a Government Order dated 13.10.2016 laid down the policy in respect of establishing the examination centres for the year 2017 (Academic Session 2016-17) with a view to conduct a fair, impartial examination for High School & Intermediate. 6. The said Government Order was issued in pursuance to the direction given by this Court vide judgment and order dated 27.2.2013 passed in Writ-C No. 853 of 2013 “C/M B.D. Singh Inter College and another v. State of U.P. and others”. The relevant portion of the same is being quoted herein below : “There is substance in the claim of the petitioners. Their right of consideration for being made examination centres has been denied without any reasonable basis. Despite the wrongful acts of the respondents the Court is refraining itself from interference only because the examinations are scheduled to commence in near future. In order to avoid repeat of such situation in future, this Court provides that the State Government shall in future years come out with its policy decision well in advance. All the Regional level committee/District level committee or any other authority authorized to determine the examination centre shall be asked to publish the list of institutions to be made entries at least two months before the date on which the examinations are scheduled to commence so that every institution has an opportunity to seek its remedy under law in case of wrongful denial of consideration. All the petitioners are granted an opportunity to raise their individual grievance before the Regional level committee/District level committee within a period of two weeks from today alongwith the certified copy of this order. The Regional level committee/District level committee shall consider the grievance of the petitioners within 8 weeks and shall specifically record as to whether the exclusion of the petitioners’ institution from being made centres was justified or not. The order so passed shall be taken into consideration at the time of preparation of list of examination centres in the following year examinations. With the aforesaid observation, all these writ petitions stand disposed of." 7. The order so passed shall be taken into consideration at the time of preparation of list of examination centres in the following year examinations. With the aforesaid observation, all these writ petitions stand disposed of." 7. And judgment and order dated 21.2.2014 Passed in Writ-C No. 6749 of 2014 “Sri Sukuru Lal Higher Secondary School and another v. State of UP and 5 others”, wherein the following directions are issued to the State Government for establishment of Centres for conducting High School & Intermediate Examination. The relevant portion of the same reads as under : “(i) The State Government shall adhere to the directions issued by this Court in C/M B.D. Singh Inter College (supra). Accordingly, for the High School and Intermediate Examinations-2015 and onwards the exercise for allotment of examination centres must be completed by 30th of November of each year. (ii) The State Government shall constitute an Expert Committee to make suggestions to check the malpractices in the examinations of High School and Intermediate conducted by the Board. Principal Secretary, Secondary Education, Government of U.P., is directed to make a request to His Excellency the Chancellor of the State Universities to nominate the Members of the Expert Committee. The Principal Secretary shall make such request to His Excellency within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. (iii) The Committees in the following years shall observe the principle of natural justice and they will record a brief reason if the institutions, against whom there are allegations of malpractices, are made examination centres. They will also record brief reasons if a request of the institution to make self centre is rejected. (iv) The State authorities shall take action against the institutions which are found indulged in malpractices, following the procedure prescribed under Chapter III of the Act, 1998.” 8. As per policy of Government Order dated 13.10.2016 in respect to allotment of examination centres, examining body has taken a decision for allotment of examination centres and consequently excluded the petitioners’ Institutions/Colleges from allotment of examination centres as self centre for conducting the High School & Intermediate Examination-2017. As per policy of Government Order dated 13.10.2016 in respect to allotment of examination centres, examining body has taken a decision for allotment of examination centres and consequently excluded the petitioners’ Institutions/Colleges from allotment of examination centres as self centre for conducting the High School & Intermediate Examination-2017. Aggrieved by the said fact, the Committee of Managements of the Institutions/Colleges situated at Districts-Faizabad, Unnao, Ambedkar Nagar, Hardoi and Barabanki approached this Court by filing above noted writ petitions respectively for redressal of their grievances with the following main prayers : “An appropriate Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order, if any, passed by the opposite parties for not including the Petitioner College as examination centre for U.P. Board Examinations, 2017, after summoning the same from the opposite parties. An appropriate Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to make the Petitioner College as examination centre for the U.P. Board Examinations, 2017 and allot the Petitioner College as a self Centre for the girl students of the Petitioner College appearing for High School and Intermediate Examinations, 2017.” 9. Argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners, in nutsheel, are as under : (A) Petitioners Institutions/Colleges had peacefully and smoothly conducted High School and Intermediate Examination in the years 2014, 2015 and 2016 as self centre and there was neither any complaint against them nor any incident of indecency, violence or arson had occurred nor FIR had been registered neither examination had to be re-conducted due to mass copying nor the Petitioners’ Institutions/Colleges had been debarred as stipulated in Paragraph 6 (Ka) of the Government Order dated 13.10.2016 to be a determinative factor for being made an examination centre in the year 2017. (B) Once Petitioners’ Institutions/Colleges had conducted smooth and peaceful Board Examinations, 2016 as examination centre, so in view of the Paragraph 1 (Ka) of the Government Order dated 13.10.2016, it ought to have been given preference as examination centre in the year 2017. (C) Petitioners’ Institutions/Colleges were centres to hold High School and Intermediate Examination in the previous years and there was no complaint in regard to the illegality committed by the petitioners’ Institutions/Colleges for conducting the said examinations as self centre and the examinations were held smoothly and peacefully. (C) Petitioners’ Institutions/Colleges were centres to hold High School and Intermediate Examination in the previous years and there was no complaint in regard to the illegality committed by the petitioners’ Institutions/Colleges for conducting the said examinations as self centre and the examinations were held smoothly and peacefully. So there is no justification to debar the petitioners’ Institutions/Colleges for conducting the High School and Intermediate Examination as self centre. (D) It is submitted that for Board Examination-2017, there are 56 colleges of District-Faizabad which have been ousted from declaring as Board Examination Centre and thereafter without any rhyme or reason 21 institutions out of 56 have been declared as Board Examination Centre and 16 new Institutions have been declared as Board Examination Centre without considering the petitioners’ Institution, who have conducted the Board Examination for the last several years, therefore, including new institution as Board Examination Centre as well as 21 institutions from 56 institutions which was ousted from the list have again been included is not sustainable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (E) Petitioners’ Institutions/Colleges have been excluded from allotting the centres and on the other hand, centres which have been allotted is far away from the colleges in which girls students are studying, so it is not in the interest of the said students, who will be appearing in the examination. (F) Learned counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance on paragraph 2 of the Government Order dated 13.10.2016, which provides that in rural/urban areas if the college of girl students has been made examination centre, then such girl students be allotted to their college center and as per the said Government Order, girl students, who are studying in rural and urban areas where the facility of self-centre/local examination centre is not available to girl students, then the arrangement be made for those girl students to write examination in centre within an area of five kilometers. As such, the action on the part of the opposite party thereby excluding the petitioners’ Institutions/Colleges for allotting the self centre is in contravention to the policy of the Government Order which is binding on them. As such, the action on the part of the opposite party thereby excluding the petitioners’ Institutions/Colleges for allotting the self centre is in contravention to the policy of the Government Order which is binding on them. (G) Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the action on the part of the opposite parties thereby not allotting the Petitioners’ Institutions/Colleges as examination centre for Board Examinations, 2017 is in violation of Paragraph 1 (Ka), 1 (Fa), 2, 6 (Ka) and 6 (Ga) of the Government Order dated 13.10.2016 and the impugned action has been taken without officially communicating the non-inclusion as examination centre, without seeking any explanation from the Petitioners’ College and without assigning any reasons, so violative of principles of natural justice. 10. Accordingly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the reliefs as claimed by the petitioners’ Institutions/Colleges may be granted and all the above said writ petitions may be allowed. Per Contra, Shri Pankaj Patel, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel while defending the impugned action on the part of the opposite parties thereby not allotting the examination centre as self centre to the petitioners’ Institutions/Colleges submits that the petitioners have no enforceable right in allocation of examination centre and in support thereof, reliance is being placed on the following judgment : “(1) Special Appeal No. 1929 of 2013 (Madhyamik Vidhyalaya Prabandhan Samiti v. State of U.P. and others) (2) Writ-C No. 5384 of 2014 (C/M Swami Shivanand Inter College v. State of U.P. and others) (3) Special Appeal Defective No. 253 of 2016 (Afreen and others v. State of U.P. and others).” 11. All the writ petitions have been filed by the Committee of Management which has no legal right to file the writ petitions, as none of the students either girls or the boys have approached the Hon’ble Court raising the grievances for allotment of examinations centres as per the judgment and order passed in Writ-C No. 10286 of 2012 (C/M Shri Girdhari Tilakdhari Inter College and another v. State of U.P. and others). 12. Once it has already been held that the Committee of Managements has no legal right in respect of allotment of examination centres, the writ petitions preferred by the Committee of Management are liable to be dismissed. 13. 12. Once it has already been held that the Committee of Managements has no legal right in respect of allotment of examination centres, the writ petitions preferred by the Committee of Management are liable to be dismissed. 13. And in some of writ petitions, the petitioners have raised their grievances that they have the better facilities and infrastructure in comparison to the other institutions allocated as examination centre, they have alleged the discrimination in allotment of examination centres. That being so the institutions have not established that in what manner they have the better facility and infrastructure in comparison to the other institutions which has been allocated as examination centres and they have to be impleaded as opposite parties in the writ petitions. Lastly, it is submitted by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that in the present year, number of students are less in comparison to the students, who have appeared in the previous examination, so in view of the said fact and keeping in view the policy, first of all, centre are allotted to the Government Colleges, thereafter, Aided Non Government Colleges and lastly Non Aided Colleges. 14. In the instant matter, after following the said procedure, petitioners’ Institutions/Colleges were not made as self centres and the examination centres have been allocated strictly as per policy of the Government, one of the reason is the shortfall/decrease in the strength of the students enrolled for examinations. In this regard, a chart has been prepared stating the reasons for not allotting the examination centre to the Petitioners’ Institutions/Colleges in respect to above noted districts and the said reasons mentioned in the said chart is in accordance with the provisions 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 13.10.2016 for allotment of examination centres for the Examination-2017 situated at different districts which are subject-matter of the above noted writ petitions and reasons given in the chart in brief are as under : (A) Strength of the students for examination 2017 is less in comparison to previous years examination, so petitioners’ Institutions/Colleges have not been allotted as self examination centre. lies within the ambit and domain of the State Government/Board. 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. (B) There is complaint against petitioners Institutions/Colleges in regard to conducting of previous years examination. (C) Against some of the Institutions, F.I.R. has been lodged in respect to conducting the examination of previous years in a manner which is not as per policy of the Government in regard to verify the examination-2016. Accordingly, it is submitted by Shri Pankaj Patel, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that the present writ petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. 16. The first point which is to be considered in the present cases whether petitioners’ Institutions/Colleges can claim as a matter of right that their institutions/colleges be made as self centre for conducting the examination of High School and Intermediate-2017 for the Academic Sessions 2016-17. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in University of Mysore v. 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 and another v. Dr. Asis Kumar Mukherje, AIR 1975 SC 192 ; Dr.Umakant v. Dr.Bhikha Lal Jain and others, AIR 1991 SC 2272 ; Chancellor and another v. Dr. Bijay Nanda Kar and others, (1994) 1 SCC 169 ; Chairman, Jammu & Kashmir State Board of Education v. Fayaz Ahmed, (2000) 3 SCC 59 . Asis Kumar Mukherje, AIR 1975 SC 192 ; Dr.Umakant v. Dr.Bhikha Lal Jain and others, AIR 1991 SC 2272 ; Chancellor and another v. Dr. Bijay Nanda Kar and others, (1994) 1 SCC 169 ; Chairman, Jammu & Kashmir State Board of Education v. Fayaz Ahmed, (2000) 3 SCC 59 . In the case of C/M B.D. Singh Inter College (Supra), this Court held as under : “It has also to be kept in mind that no institution has a right to be an examination centre for Board Examinations. It is the primary duty of the Board to ensure that the examinations are held in free and fair manner. The Board Examinations are public examinations. The examinations are held in all the district of the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is one of the largest examination to be held in the world. The Board has to make arrangements in respect of allocated centres. Admit cards are to be issued to the students, whose number is in lacs. Answer sheets and relevant examination papers are to be sent well in advance to the centre concerned so that there is no hindrance in the Board Examinations as per the schedule.” 17. 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 because the institutions/colleges have no role in selection of centre nor any right to seek that the examination of students be held in the same institution as self centre and it is for the Board to decide where the examination is to be conducted. For that purpose that Board has the right to identify the centre. 18. So far as the argument raised by learned Standing Counsel that the Committee of Managements have got no right to file the present writ petitions in respect to allotment of examination centres is concerned, the same has got no force because a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 11.12.2013 passed in Special Appeal No. 1929 of 2013 held as under : “We are unable to subscribe to the contention which has been urged on behalf of the appellant. First and foremost, a policy by itself does not give rise to any enforceable right. Secondly, the Government has justifiable reasons for issuing the modification. The mere fact that the examination has been conducted in a peaceful manner at a particular centre may be outweighed by other countervailing circumstances. For instance, where malpractices have been detected at an examination centre in the previous examination, that may be a reason to deny the allotment of the examination centre for the subsequent year.” Although 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 above said facts, the argument raised on behalf of the State, that the Committee of Managements have got no right to file the above said present writ petitions raising their grievances for allotment of the examination centres, has got no force as this Court in Special Appeal No. 1929 of 2013 held that this does not amount to the conferment of an arbitrary or unguided power. In a given case, if the power is exercised arbitrarily, it would be open to an aggrieved Institutions/Colleges to move the Court. Further, 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 v. 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. It must exercise its duty and hold administrative authority at bay as held by this Court in the case of Ram Prakash Dewakar v. 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.” 19. The point to be considered in the present case whether the action on the part of the opposite party thereby not allotting the self centre to the girls students who are appearing in the Board Examination-2017 in accordance to the policy dated 13.10.2016. 20. As per Clause 1 (Ka) of the Government Order, ordinarily, a centre would be allotted where the institution has conducted examinations in the previous year in a peaceful manner. The expression ‘’ordinarily’ means that the ordinarily consequence can be disregarded for cogent and valid reasons and in this regard, learned State Counsel submits that petitioners’ Institutions/Colleges were not made as self centres and the examination centres have been allocated strictly as per policy of the Government because the main of the reason is the shortfall/decrease in the strength of the students enrolled for examinations. So the State/Board has taken a decision not to allot the centres for conducting the examination-2017 to the petitioners’ Institutions/Colleges as self centre is as per Government Order dated 13.10.2016 because the said G.O. in respect to allotment of centres for the girl students provides that: ^^xzkeh.k {ks= esa ckfydkvksa gsrq ijh{kk dsanz cuk;s tkrs le; Lo- dsanz@LFkkuh; ijh{kk dsanz dh lqfo/kk miyC/k u gksus dh fLFkfr esa ckfydkvksa dks 5 fdŒehŒ dh ifjf/k esa ijh{kk dsanz ij ijh{kk fnyk;s tkus dh O;oLFkk dh tk;A mDr fLFkfr esa uhfr ds ÁLrj&1 ¼N½ esa mfYyf[kr vfèkdre ijkfFkZ;ksa dh la[;k ls NwV jgsxh rFkk ,d fo|ky; dh Nk=kvksa dks vyx&vyx dsanzksa ij vkoafVr ugha fd;k tk;sxkA** Further, paragraph No. 2 of the Government Order dated 13.10.2016 provides as under: ^^xzkeh.k@'kgjh {ks=ksa esa ckfydkvksa dks ;fn mudk fo|ky; esa dsanz vkoafVr fd;k tk,A ckfydkvksa dks tgk¡ Lo- dsanz@LFkkuh; dsanz dh lqfo/kk u nh tk lds ogka mUgsa vf/kdre 5 fdŒehŒ dh ifjf/k ds dsanz ij ijh{kk dh lqfo/kk nh tk,A ;g lqfo/kk mu xzkeh.k@'kgjh laLFkkxr ckfydkvksa dks Hkh miyC/k djkbZ tk; tks ckyd fo|ky;ksa esa v/;;ujr gSaA** 21. However, Board in several cases made allotted the centres for the girl students does not follow the guidelines as provided in the policy dated 13.10.2016, so the said action on the part of the Board is arbitrary in nature and also is in contravention to the social welfare campaign policy laid down by joint initiative of Ministry of Women and Child Development (MOWCD) and Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (MOHFW) and Ministry of Human Resource Development (MOHRD) as the said departments of the Central Government have laid down policy/Social Welfare Campaign “Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao” as the denial of allotting a self centre to the girls student, instead of giving them an examination centre which is five Kms or more than 5 kms. away from their college would lead to apprehension and impediment on their parents/guardian in the view of safety of the child which is a hindrance to the basic quality education for the young girls, who are the bright future of the country. Thus, the said action on the part of the opposite party is not only unfair to the girls but also detrimental to future of our nation. 22. Thus, the said action on the part of the opposite party is not only unfair to the girls but also detrimental to future of our nation. 22. On behalf of the opposite party, Shri Pankaj Patel, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that in the academic session 2016-17, the number of students who are appearing in the High School and Intermediate Examination-2017 is less in comparison to previous years, so Government has taken a decision as per policy that the centres may be allotted to the first Government Colleges ; Secondly to Aided Government Colleges ; and lastly to Non Aided Government Colleges. Accordingly, the institutions/colleges have not been allotted as self centre is not correct because while doing so the reasons must be given by the opposite parties and the petitioners’ Institutions/Colleges may be informed but in the present case no such exercise has been done and petitioners’ Institutions/Colleges were not allowed as self centres. So the said action is in violative of principles of natural justice. Because failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. 23. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the ‘inscrutable face of the sphinx’, it can be its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the later before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made. In other worlds, a speaking out. The inscrutable face of the sphinx’ is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. 24. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made. In other worlds, a speaking out. The inscrutable face of the sphinx’ is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. 24. Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. and otehrs, AIR 1970 SC 1302 , held that such an order cancellation is quasi-judicial and must be a speaking one and supported by a reason and if a reason is caprice one, the same is in violation of principles of natural justice and the same is liable to be set aside. (See also Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor and others, AIR 1974 SC 87 ). In the case of Shri Swamiji of Shri Admar Mutt etc. etc. v. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Dept. and others, AIR 1980 SC 1 , Hon’ble the Apex Court in the judgment referring Broom’s Legal Maxims (1939 Edition, page 97) where the principle in Latin runs as “Ces-sante Ratione Legis Cessate Ipsa Lex” held that “reason is the soul of the law, and when the reason of any particular law ceases, so does the law itself” (See. also M/s. Bombay Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and others, AIR 1984 SC 160 ). In the case of Maharasthra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. KS. Gandhi and others, (1991) 2 SCC 716 , Ho’ble the Apex Court held that if no reason is recorded in the impugned order, the same is violative of principles of natural justice. Other reasons for not allotting the centre to the petitioners Institutions/Colleges as argued by learned Standing Counsel is that there is complaint against the some of the institutions in the previous year in regard to irregularity for conducting the examination of 2016 as well as F.I.R. had been lodged. So the decision has been taken by the State/Board for not allotting the centre to the petitioners’ Institutions/Colleges. However, the said decision is ex parte one and prior to taking the same, no opportunity has been given to the petitioners’ Institutions/Colleges, which is against the principles of natural justice. 25. It is difficult to define natural justice. So the decision has been taken by the State/Board for not allotting the centre to the petitioners’ Institutions/Colleges. However, the said decision is ex parte one and prior to taking the same, no opportunity has been given to the petitioners’ Institutions/Colleges, which is against the principles of natural justice. 25. It is difficult to define natural justice. I find that Black J has most aptly described it as” Natural justice understandably meant no more than justice without the adjective” (Green v. Blake, [1948] IR 242). Justice Krishna Iyer in Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner: (1978) 1 SCC 405 , has traced its root in Kautilya’s Arthasastra in following terms : “Indeed, from the legendary days of Adam — and of Kautilya’s Arthasastra — the rule of law has had this stamp of natural justice which makes it social justice. We need not go into these deeps for the present except to indicate that the roots of natural justice and its foliage are noble and not new-fangled. Today its application must be sustained by current legislation, case-law or other extant principle, not the hoary chords of legend and history. Our jurisprudence has sanctioned its prevalence even like the Anglo-American system.” In the case of Bhagwan Shukla v. Union of India and others, 1994 (6) SCC 154 , wherein paragraph No. 3 (relevant portion)held as under : “The appellant has obviously been visited with civil consequence but he had been granted no opportunity to show-cause against the reduction of his basic pay. He was not even put on notice before his pay was reduced by the department and the order came to be made behind his back without following any procedure known to law. There, has, thus been a flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and the appellant has been made to suffer huge financial loss without being hears. Fair play in action warrants that no such order which has the effect of an employee suffering civil consequence should be passed without putting the employee concerned to notice and giving him a hearing in the matter. Fair play in action warrants that no such order which has the effect of an employee suffering civil consequence should be passed without putting the employee concerned to notice and giving him a hearing in the matter. Since, that was not done, the order (memorandum) dated 25.7.1991, which was impugned before the Tribunal could not certainly be sustained and the Central Administrative Tribunal fell in error in dismissing the petition of the appellant.” Further, in the case of Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. and others, JT 2012 (10) SC 476, Hon’ble the Supreme Court in paragraph No. 3 held as under : “The principles of natural justice embody the right to every person to represent his interest to the Court of justice. Pronouncing a judgment which adversely affects the interest of the party to the proceedings who was not given a chance to represent his/its case is unacceptable under the principles of natural justice.” 26. Thus, the impugned action on the part of the State/Board thereby excluding the petitioners’ Institutions/Colleges from conducting the High School & Intermediate Examination on some other allegations is ex parte without providing any opportunity to them is in violation of principles of natural justice. However, the Court can’t lose side that as per decision taken by Board of High School/Intermediate Examination for the year 2017 is to take place w.e.f. 12.3.2017, so the Court is refraining itself from interfering in the matter of allotment of examination centres in the present writ petitions for the reason that the examinations are scheduled to commence from 12.3.2017, therfore, any interference at this late stage would not be in the larger public interest and the students in particular as the consequential arrangements and re-allotment of examination centres will obviously affect the smooth holding of the examinations coupled with the fact that in the intervening period, State Assembly Election is to be held in which State machinery will be busy and involved. 27. Accordingly, interest of justice will sub-serve, if the State is directed to hear the grievances of the petitioners’ Institutions/Colleges raised in the present writ petition and if they approached it by way of representation, the same shall be decided thereafter but they will not be allowed as self centre for conducting the High School & Intermediate Examination-2017. 27. Accordingly, interest of justice will sub-serve, if the State is directed to hear the grievances of the petitioners’ Institutions/Colleges raised in the present writ petition and if they approached it by way of representation, the same shall be decided thereafter but they will not be allowed as self centre for conducting the High School & Intermediate Examination-2017. And excluding the petitioners’ Institutions/Colleges for not conducting the examination of High School & Intermediate 2017 will not be impediment in the way of the petitioners’ Institutions/Colleges when Board/State selects the centre for conducting the examination-2018, then the case of the petitioners’ Institutions/Colleges shall be considered on merit as per relevant policy framed by the State. 28. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petitions are disposed of finally with the following directions : (a) petitioners’ Institutions/Colleges are allowed to make a fresh representation in respect of allotment of self centre to them for conducting the Examination of High School and Intermediate-2017 to the opposite party No. 1 within a period of three weeks from today and after receiving the same, the State shall make all endeavour to decide the same within a period of eight weeks thereafter. However, petitioners can’t claim that their institions be made as self centre for conducting the High School & Intermediate Examination-2017. (b) Non allotment of self centre to the petitioners’ Institutions/Colleges for conducting the Examination of High School and Intermediate-2017 shall not be impediment in the way of the petitioners when State/Board selects the institutions for allotting the centre for conducting the Examination-2018 for the academic session 2017-18 and their case shall be considered on merit as per policy laid down by the State for the said year. (c) State/Board is directed to frame policy and as per same, Board shall take a decision for allotting the centre for the next academic session i.e. 2017-18 by the end of November, 2017 and if Board finds that some institutions are excluded from allotting the self centre, the reasons for the same must be informed to them and opportunity shall be given to submit their reply and after considering the same, the decision shall be taken for non allotting/excluding the institutions/colleges from conducting the High School & Intermediate Examination-2018 (Academic Session 2017-18). No order as to costs.