Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 412 (ALL)

Krishna Modern Academy v. State Of U. P.

2023-02-10

J.J.MUNIR

body2023
JUDGMENT : J.J. Munir, J. Admit. 2. Learned Standing Counsel waives service of notice on behalf of all the respondents. 3. Learned Standing Counsel has come up with a stand that a short point being involved, he waives his right to file a counter affidavit. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to hear the matter forthwith. 4. Heard Mr. Bhagwan Dutt Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. The petitioner has challenged an order dated 24.11.2022, by which recognition of the petitioner's Junior High School has been cancelled by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. The short case of the petitioner is that the order impugned has been passed without any opportunity of hearing and valuable rights of the petitioner's institution taken away. Emphasizing the depth of the petitioner's rights involved, it is pointed out that the impugned order is one that relates to the right to admission of children up to the age of 14 years, which is under umbrella of Article 21A of the Constitution and also the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short, the Act of 2009). 6. The crux of the submission is that the land where the institution was originally located was transferred under compelling circumstances during the CoVid-19 pandemic and the institution was resited to another place under intimation to the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari. In this regard, attention of the Court has been drawn to the memo dated 16.09.2020. The said memo shows that the institution has been relocated in a rented premises, and, further, a request made that the matter may be recorded in the official records. The impugned order primarily proceeds on the basis that the land of the institution has been sold and despite an opportunity being given, the petitioner did not appear on 15.06.2022, which was the date fixed before the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. The petitioners point out that the impugned order also records that the petitioner sought some further time to substantiate their case, but on the face of the order, the opportunity was denied. The submission is that the matter is as serious as de-recognition of an educational institution, where the students in the age group of 6-14 years are studying. It has to be very sensitively dealt with and all efforts made to ascertain correct facts with the maximum stretch of opportunity. The submission is that the matter is as serious as de-recognition of an educational institution, where the students in the age group of 6-14 years are studying. It has to be very sensitively dealt with and all efforts made to ascertain correct facts with the maximum stretch of opportunity. The learned Standing Counsel says that the institution has sold away land and did not furnish any explanation. 7. Upon hearing the Counsel for the parties this Court finds that it is true that the impugned order has the effect of annihilating out of existence a Junior High School which caters to needs of the students in the age group of 6-14 years. 8. The matter indeed requires careful consideration and the effort of the educational authorities should be to ensure that the private educational institutions, who are catering to education of students in the age group of 6-14 years are encouraged to carry on. The provision of education in the aforesaid age group corresponds to the right to receive free and compulsory education for the child, which is a fundamental right. 9. This is not to say that the State's seal of recognition is to be wasted on a bogus body, but before the recognition of any educational institution is withdrawn, opportunity should be given, which is not like a guillotine closure. Even if by a particular date, the petitioners could not furnish proof in support of their objection, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari ought to have been more liberal and granted some further and reasonable time in the matter, which has not been done in this case. 10. In our considered opinion, this matter requires reconsideration, and that too, upon a look at every relevant evidence that the petitioner shall now produce. 11. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.11.2022 is hereby quashed. There shall be a remit of the matter to the District Basic Education Officer, Deoria. He shall pass fresh orders in accordance with law within six weeks hence.