Ranjana Kumari v. Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. Shri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the writ petition submits that in 1983 – 1984, State Government took a decision to encourage schooling of girl child. They, accordingly, decided to set up/finance of Girls Patna High Court CWJC No.18887 of 2008 (9) dt.20-12-2013 School in various Blocks of various Districts of the State. 2 Initially, 300 Blocks were identified and out of them, in respect of 75 Schools, the Government took a decision straightway. Then the Government issued a Circular in the year, 1985 (Annexure D to the supplementary counter affidavit) pointing out the Schools that had been selected by the Government with a clear direction to the District Administration to form a Three Men Committee to identify those Blocks where such School needs to be established/financed. Accordingly, in 1985 itself, in Patori Block, petitioner’s School was selected by the Three Men Committee of the District upon recommendation by the District Education Officer. Funds were made available and school building was constructed. It may be noted here that prior to this, the School existed merely on paper because it lacked funds for School building, Teachers etc. Attention of this Court is drawn to the letter No 1236 dated 25.09.1989 of the District Education Officer, Samastipur to the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar wherein in paragraph-2 thereof, it is clearly noted that instead of establishing Project School at Hasanpur Block, as proposed by the State, the Three Men Committee, as formed under the directions of the State, had selected the present School at Patori Block in the District of Samastipur and, accordingly, funds, Patna High Court CWJC No.18887 of 2008 (9) dt.20-12-2013 having been sanctioned as a Project School, it was taken over and 3 building also constructed at State expense. It was, therefore, requested that this School be treated as a Project School for all purposes consequent to its selection and finance. This is the grievance of the petitioner that repeatedly the district authorities have been writing to the Government pointing out selection of the School and financed by the State to be treated as Project School but the State is insisting that this School being at Patori is not taken over and recognized as Project School. On behalf of petitioner, is submitted consequent to the selection of the School, construction thereof, teaching started. It was duly recognized as a regular School by the Bihar School Examination Board. Students are regularly now appearing through this School but, on the plea that no School was selected by the State Government in so far as Patori Block is concerned, this School, having been established and financed by the Government, has been left out orphaned. State takes a stand that in the list of 300 Blocks, Patori was not there. It was Hasanpur and, accordingly, the School at Patori could not be recognized. In fairness to the learned counsel for the State, I must notice at this place that State, having authorized the district authorities to form a Selection Committee and make selection at Patna High Court CWJC No.18887 of 2008 (9) dt.20-12-2013 places other than chosen by the State, as evident from Annexure D 4 to the supplementary counter affidavit being Circular of the State dated 23rd of February 1985, cannot now retract or go back on that. There are contemporaneous records placed alongwith this writ petition which clearly established that the District Administration is insisting that Hasanpur Block already had an existing School with its own building. As such, considering the need of people and the cause of education of girls, Patori was selected and School made. That being in accordance with the directives of the Government, as noted above, Government is not bound to consider petitioner’s School as a Project School. Having considered the matter, in my view, the writ petition must succeed. From various documents annexed to the writ petition, the policy and the modus operandi of Government is clear. It had taken a decision to establish Schools under the Project for educating girl child. These are commonly known as Project Schools. It identified 300 Blocks in which Schools had to be identified and/or set up. In Samastipur, Patori was not one of those Blocks out of these 300. In 75 Blocks, Government identified the School even. Again, petitioner’s School at Patori Block of Samastipur district was not there but simultaneously, Government gave liberty the District Patna High Court CWJC No.18887 of 2008 (9) dt.20-12-2013 Administration to form a Three Men Committee and select 5 School at other places where there was need for such establishment. It is not in dispute that the Three Men Committee in the district of Samastipur was affirmed. The Three Men Committee duly considered the situation and recommended that instead of Hasanpur, Patori Block should be selected because Hasanpur already had School functioning with School building and other facilities. That would widen the establishment of Schools. Accordingly, upon recommendation by the District Education Officer, funds were made available for construction of School building and other infrastructure facilities for petitioner’s School. These facts are not in dispute nor denied. What the State wants the Court to accept is that notwithstanding this, State finally did not accept petitioner’s School as a Project School. Patori was not a Block accepted by the State and, as such, petitioner cannot claim any privilege as a Project School. In my view, that is putting the cart before the horse. That is begging the question. That is the dispute being raised by the petitioner and the relief being claimed. That the State action or the stand of the State is contrary to the action taken by the State or on behalf of the State. In my view, petitioner is correct as evident from Annexure D to the supplementary counter affidavit of the State. It cannot be Patna High Court CWJC No.18887 of 2008 (9) dt.20-12-2013 denied and it is not denied that State had given discretion to the 6 district authorities to make selection based on ground reality obtaining in the district. If we read Annexure D and then we refer to Annexure 7 of the writ petition, the decision is clear. Upon discretion conferred by the State on the district authorities, the district authorities selected petitioner’s School at Patori instead of the School at Hasanpur because that School already had building and other infrastructure. Thus, the district authorities selected petitioner’s School apart from other Schools in the district as a Project School. Accordingly, building and other infrastructures were established. Teachers were placed and teaching started as a regular School with due recognition and affiliation of Bihar School Examination Board. Now, to say that the petitioner’s School does not figure in the notification of 2009, is of no consequence. That is what is under challenge. Those actions of the State are under challenge that having set up the School would they abandon the School on technicalities? The answer has to be no. Once discretion was vested in the district authorities to select a School and that discretion has been exercised by the district authorities in accordance with its charter then State cannot back track and ignore conferment of discretion and its exercise thereof. That cannot be permitted. State cannot say that it is not bound by Patna High Court CWJC No.18887 of 2008 (9) dt.20-12-2013 the selection as made by the district authorities once it is admitted 7 that State conferred the discretion on the district authorities. The stand of the State is not that the district authorities acted beyond their jurisdiction because Annexure D clearly leaves it to the district authorities to select Schools in other areas as well. With good justification, Patori was selected and so was selected petitioner’s School. It is too late in the day now to say that petitioner’s School was not duly selected as a Project School especially when there is not even an admitted denial that it was not set up with State fund for this purpose under this very scheme. That being so, the writ petition must succeed. I have no option but to direct the State to treat petitioner’s School as a Project School for all purposes and act accordingly. With these directions, this writ petition is allowed. State to act accordingly forthwith. M.E.H./- (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)