JUDGMENT This is the second approach of the petitioner to this Court. In the first round, this petitioner-school had moved this Court by filing a writ application numbered as OJC No. 2148 of 1996 which has been disposed of by order dated 18.04.2001 under Annexure-4. 2. The grievance as raised in that writ application for redressal was with regard to the inaction of the opposite parties in granting permanent recognition to the petitioner’s school despite fulfillment of all conditions as required under law as had been stated to have been made by the end of May, 1994. This Court on that occasion having taken into consideration, the rival case as placed as also placing reliance upon the affidavit filed by the Inspector of Schools dated 11.07.2000 expressly admitting that all conditions as required by the authorities to have been fulfilled by the petitioner’s school had found that there was no reason for not grating permanent recognition to the petitioner’s school. While deprecating the on going practice of granting temporary permanent recognition indefinitely, it had been observed that the said practice should not be followed in the absence of any compelling circumstances for the same. Finally, the opposite party no. 2 in the said writ application was directed to grant permanent recognition to the petitioner’s school within a period of one month from the date of communication of the order while leaving it to the authority to take view in the matter of approval of the staff and grant of Grant-in-Aid for their consideration in accordance with law. 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the petitioner’s school has been granted with the recognition with effect from the academic session 2001-02 under Annexure-1 with further direction had also been so given by the opp. party no.3 under Annexure-2 to be further complied with which are said to have been met. Now the grievance of the petitioner’s school is that the recognition ought to have been with effect from the academic year, 1994- 95 since all the requirements for the purpose had been fulfilled by them. So, the prayer in the present writ application is for issuance of writ of mandamus directing opposite parties to grant permanent recognition with effect from the academic session 2001-02 with necessary modification of the order of grant of recognition under Annexure -1 on that score. 4. So, the prayer in the present writ application is for issuance of writ of mandamus directing opposite parties to grant permanent recognition with effect from the academic session 2001-02 with necessary modification of the order of grant of recognition under Annexure -1 on that score. 4. The main objection raised by the State in the counter affidavit is at para-7. It is stated that the petitioner-school’s submission that it had removed all the deficiencies by 10th May, 1994 was not correct and it is further stated that the petitioner’s school although was having temporary recognition and as such was running, the same was in contravention of the provision of section 6(A) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 read with Item -9 of the Schedule -1 Orissa Education (ERMPUS) Rules 1991 in as much as being against the requirement as provided in item no.9 of the schedule-I therein that they had not appointed a teacher having science at least up to Higher Secondary/+2 / Intermediate level. Because of this reason, it is stated that by virtue of the direction of this Court, permanent recognition has been granted from the academic year 2001-02 only after disposal of the writ by order dated 14.04.2001and as directed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the earlier writ application, the direction was not for grant of permanent recognition with effect from the academic session 2001-02 and there was a clear finding that the petitioner’s school had fulfilled all the conditions as required under law for the purpose and as such entitled to be granted with permanent recognition from the anterior period as applied for. It is his next submission that the school having been established in the year 1988 followed by grant of permission in the year, 1992 and temporary recognition in the year 1994 followed from time to time, having fulfilled all the requirements within the time for the purpose of grant of permanent recognition and when it has been so granted after the order in the earlier writ application, there arises no legal justification and reason for grant of such permanent recognition only from the academic session 2001-02. He further submits that besides other schools, one school i.e. Patripur U.P. (M.E.) School within the jurisdiction of same District Inspector of Schools, Soro (opp. He further submits that besides other schools, one school i.e. Patripur U.P. (M.E.) School within the jurisdiction of same District Inspector of Schools, Soro (opp. party no.3) has been enjoying the permanent recognition after some legal battle with effect from the academic session, 1992-93, although for that school the same objection which is being now raised here as regards non-appointment of teacher having Science background in accordance with the above rule had been raised. Thus, he urges that there has been discrimination in treatment and the final action is wholly arbitrary. In this connection he has invited the attention of this Court to Annexure –C/3 appended to the affidavit filed by the opposite party no. 3 on 01.08.2014 as also to Annexure -5. 6. Learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department although is not in a position to refute the submission that has been made in respect of Patripur U.P. (M.E.) School under the jurisdiction of the District Inspector of School, Soro as also other schools, yet he contends that the deficiency having remained with regard to the appointment of teacher which strikes at root concerning imparting of Education to the students at that school level, the permanent recognition is thus said to have been rightly granted with effect from the academic session 2001-02. In this connection, he has placed that such requirement as per the schedule -1 Item -9 as provided in Orissa Education (ERMPUS) Rules 1991 is mandatory. 7. Fact remains that this petitioner’s school has been finally granted permanent recognition under Annexure -1 after the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ application. Under Anneuxre-2 issued by the opp. party no.3 after issuance of order of opp. party no.2 under Annexure-1 the following have been stated:- “Keeping in view to the aforesaid judgment, the D.E.E., Orissa, Bhubaneswar in its order No. 10970 dated 13.06.2001 accorded recognition on as per direction of the Hon’ble High Court subject to consideration of approval of the staff of the school. party no.3 after issuance of order of opp. party no.2 under Annexure-1 the following have been stated:- “Keeping in view to the aforesaid judgment, the D.E.E., Orissa, Bhubaneswar in its order No. 10970 dated 13.06.2001 accorded recognition on as per direction of the Hon’ble High Court subject to consideration of approval of the staff of the school. So, as the school was accorded temporary recognition keeping in view of the Amendment Rules, 1989 and full filled the conditions raised at the time of according temporarily recognition the following staff present in the school is hereby provisionally approved subject be withdrawn at any time without assigning any reason in pursuant to the D.E.E. Orissa letter No. 16884 dated 11.08.2K with production of an affidavit by the staff not to claim any aid / salary from Government. Name of the Teacher Qualification Date of joining 1. Sri Kailash Ch. Mandal Headmaster B.A.B.Ed. 01.04.1992 2. Sri Mayadhara Pradhan Asst.Teacher B.A.C.T. 23.05.1994” 8. From the above it is thus seen that while granting permanent recognition as per the list of teachers in position in the school at that point of time, the same was also not fulfilling the requirement as is now pointed out to be mandatory in accordance with that Item No. 9 under schedule-I of the above rules. This was the position althrough from the beginning even when temporary recognition of the school has been granted from the academic session 1993-94. However, in spite of that there has been no challenge to the earlier order of this Court passed in the first writ application that such being the deficiency going to the root as is now pointed out, the case for grant of permanent recognition to the petitioner’s school does not merit acceptance. Rather in the said writ application, the affidavit filed by the District Inspector of Schools was on the score of fulfillment of all conditions. Therefore, while granting permanent recognition under Annexure -1, the deficiency as is presently raised in objection though was well available since that was also the situation prevailing even then, the authority have granted the permanent recognition. This clearly shows that the deficiency if any has been condoned finding it to be not touching the root of the matter. Therefore, while granting permanent recognition under Annexure -1, the deficiency as is presently raised in objection though was well available since that was also the situation prevailing even then, the authority have granted the permanent recognition. This clearly shows that the deficiency if any has been condoned finding it to be not touching the root of the matter. If we now accept the objection as above, the very grant of permanent recognition under Annexure-1 which has already held the field since the year 2001 and the petitioner-school has been thus continuing to run as such becomes questionable but that is not even so raised by the opposite parties here. 9. Furthermore, as is seen from the materials placed on record, another school i.e. Patripur U.P.(M.E.) School under the same District Inspector of Schools, Soro (opp. party no.3) has been granted with the permanent recognition by virtue of the order of the Hon’ble Minister, being the appellate authority in Appeal No. 02 of 2007 with effect from the academic year 1992-93 although in that case, the objection stood on the similar ground. That very order also speaks about the report of the Director that 47 U.P. (M.E.) Schools having no science teacher and the so called deficiency being there, the State has been providing Grant-in-Aid to those schools. 10. Learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department has not been able to place any such materials before the Court to show that the order passed by the appellate authority as above has been set-aside/modified/varied basing upon the objection with regard to non-fulfillment of the condition relating to appointment of teacher having Science background as per the said rules. Nor it is placed that the facts stated in that order under Annexure-C/3 filed by the opp. party no.3 in the affidavit dated 01.08.2014 basing upon the report of the Director are incorrect or that any further action of withdrawal of approval of grantin- aid has been so taken against those schools. On the other hand, it has been averred in para 7 therein that after that order, the earlier order of suspension of grant-in-aid sanctioned on the basis of that permanent recognition has been superseded and said school is being provided with the grant-in-aid since 1994. On the other hand, it has been averred in para 7 therein that after that order, the earlier order of suspension of grant-in-aid sanctioned on the basis of that permanent recognition has been superseded and said school is being provided with the grant-in-aid since 1994. In view of all these, it clearly appears that the authorities have condoned such deficiency which has also been done in so far as present school is concerned while granting it with permanent recognition from the academic session 2001-02. The position being as above, this Court does not find any reason as to why the petitioner school would be deprived of permanent recognition from the academic session 1994-95 and instead would be discriminated and granted from the academic session 2001-02 as done under Annexures 1 and 2. The action of opp. party nos. 2 and 3 in passing orders under Annexures 1 and 2 to that extent are thus found to be arbitrary and resultantly not the outcome of fair play. 11. For the aforesaid discussion and reasons, the orders granting permanent recognition under Annexures -1 and 2 stand quashed to the extent of grant of permanent recognition to the petitioner-school with effect from the academic session 2001-02 and the opposite parties are hereby directed to construe the same to have been so granted from the academic session 1994-95 and to accordingly issue necessary order of modification within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. 12. The writ application is accordantly allowed to the extent as aforesaid. No order as to cost is passed. Ordered accordingly.