Thakur Malti Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

3. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the School of the petitioner was established in the year 1978 and the case of the petitioner's-school for grant of recognition is pending since, 1993 but no action has been taken by the respondents. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on an order of this Court Patna High Court CWJC No.6265 of 2013 (2) dt.12-04-2013 2 dated 29.06.1994, wherein, the observation was made by a Division Bench of this Court for raising the grievance with regard to grant of recognition before the Chairman of Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board by filing a fresh representation.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner’s representation filed before the Chairman of Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board has borne no fruitful result. He has submitted that the representation of the petitioner is still pending before the Chairman of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board. Reliance has also been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on an order passed by this Court on 15.02.2010 in L.P.A No. 797 of 2009 and the consequential order dated 09.02.2012 passed in M.J.C NO. 2509 of 2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner has filed a contempt application M.J.C No. 1023 of 2013 alleging violation of the order of this Court dated 29.06.1994.

5. In this background, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that now when the Board is going to hold Madhyama Examination from 22.04.2013, this Court should allow the students of the School of the petitioner to appear in Madhyama Examination as there is no fault on the part of the petitioner and his School in the matter of getting recognition.

6. Learned counsel for the State and Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board on the other hand has submitted that the School of the petitioner as per his own case in the writ application is an unrecognized School and therefore, the students cannot be allowed to appear as regular candidate in Madhyama Examination. Counsel for Patna High Court CWJC No.6265 of 2013 (2) dt.12-04-2013 3 the Board in addition has submitted that every management has been made for holding the Madhyama Examination and therefore, this belated writ petition even otherwise should not be entertained.

7. In the considered opinion of this Court, once it is found that the School of the petitioner is not a recognized institution, there would be no question of allowing its students to appear in the Madhyama Examination. Law in this regard has been variably settled by the Apex Court that the students of unrecognized institution cannot be allowed to appear in the examination conducted by the Board/University. Reference in this regard may be usefully made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of SHRI MORVI SARVAJANIK KELAVNI MANDAL SANCHALIT MSKM B.ED. VS NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHERS' EDUCATION AND OTHERS reported in 2012(2) SCC 16, wherein, it was held as follows:-

11. Mushroom growth of unrecognised ill-equipped, educational understaffed institutions was noticed by this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale (1992) 4 SCC 435 This Court observed that the field of education had become a fertile, perennial and profitable business with the least capital outlay in some States and that societies and individuals were establishing such institutions without complying with the statutory requirements. The unfortunate part is that despite repeated pronouncements of this Court over the past two decades deprecating the setting up of such institutions, the mushrooming of the colleges continues all over the country at times in complicity with the statutory authorities, who fail to check this process by effectively enforcing the provisions of the NCTE Act and the Regulations framed thereunder. rendered

17. ----------- this Court has in a long line of decisions time has disapproved of students being allowed to continue in unrecognised sympathetic institutions only on considerations. In N.M. Nageshwaramma 1986 Supp SCC 166 this Court while dealing with the prayer for grant of permission to the students admitted to Patna High Court CWJC No.6265 of 2013 (2) dt.12-04-2013 4 unrecognised institutions observed: (SCC pp. 170- 71, para 3) It encouraging establishment “3. … We are unable to accede to these requests. These institutions were established and the students were admitted into these institutes despite a series of press notes issued by the Government. If by a fiat of the court we direct the Government to permit them to appear at the examination we will practically condoning unauthorised is not institutions. appropriate that the jurisdiction of the court either under Article 32 of the Constitution or Article 226 should be frittered away for such a purpose. The teachers training institutes are meant to teach children of impressionable age and we cannot let loose on the innocent and unwary children, teachers who have not received proper and adequate training. True they will be required to pass the examination but that may not for a certain be enough. Training properly minimum organised training institute is probably essential before a teacher may be duly launched. We have no hesitation in dismissing the writ petitions with costs.” a equipped period (emphasis supplied)

18. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Bhagwan Budh Primary Teachers Training College v. State of Bihar 1990 Supp SCC 722 where this Court observed: (SCC p. 723, para 2) granting “2. It is not possible to grant any such permission as prayed because permission would be clearly violating the provisions of the Education Act (see the judgments in SLP No. 12014 of 1987 decided on 25-11-1987 and A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society v. Govt. of A.P(1986) 2 SCC 667.”

19. In State of T.N. v. St. Joseph Teachers Training Institute (1991) 3 SCC 87 this Court once again found fault with the grant of relief to students admitted unrecognised institutions Patna High Court CWJC No.6265 of 2013 (2) dt.12-04-2013 5 humanitarian grounds. This Court said: (SCC pp. 89-90, para 6) “6. The practice of admitting students by unauthorised educational institutions seeking permission for permitting the students to appear at the examination has been looked with disfavour by this Court. … In A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society v. Govt. of A.P (1986) 2 SCC 667 a similar request made on behalf of the institution and the students for permitting them to appear at the examination even though affiliation had not been granted, was rejected by this Court. The court observed that any direction of the nature sought for permitting the students to appear at the examination without the institution being affiliated or recognised would be in clear transgression of the provision of the Act and the regulations. The court cannot be a party students to disobey the statute as that would be destructive of the rule of law. The Full Bench noted these decisions and observations and yet it granted relief to the students on humanitarian grounds. Courts cannot humanitarian grounds contrary law. unrecognised institutions were legally not entitled examination held by the Education Department of the Government, the High Court acted in violation of law in granting permission students for appearing at the public examination. The directions issued by the Full Bench are destructive of the rule of law. Since the Division Bench issued the impugned orders following the judgment of the Full Bench, the impugned orders are not sustainable in law.” to appear at to direct students Since relief a (emphasis supplied)

20. Reference may also be made to State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale (1992) 4 SCC 435 and Bhartia Education Society v. State of Patna High Court CWJC No.6265 of 2013 (2) dt.12-04-2013 6 H.P (2011) 4 SCC 527 In the latter case this Court observed: (Bhartia Education Society (supra), SCC p. 533, para 15) “15. The practice of admitting students by unrecognised institutions and then seeking permission for the students to appear for the examinations has been repeatedly disapproved by this Court (see N.M. Nageshwaramma v. State of A.P. 1986 Supp SCC 166, A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society v. Govt. of A.P.(1986) 2 SCC 667 and State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale (1992) 4 SCC 435). We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the decision of the High Court rejecting the prayer of the students admitted in 1999 to regularise their admissions by directing the Board to permit them to appear for the JBT examination conducted by it. The two appeals (CAs Nos. 1228 and 1229 of 2011) filed by the Society/Institute and th students in regard to the 1999 admissions are therefore liable to be dismissed.”

8. Thus, in the light of the series of the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court disapproving permission the students of unrecognized institution to appear in the examination, this Court will have no difficulty in holding that the students of the School of the petitioner cannot be allowed to appear in Madhyama Examination.

9. The reliance placed on the order of the Division Bench in the case of Girja Devi (L.P.A No. 797 of 2009 ) will also be of no avail, inasmuch as the Division Bench also in the same order had held that students of only recognized schools should be sent up for examination to be conducted by the Board. In the aforesaid order, this Court has found that there are around 1700 schools who had been granted only certain time limit for pressing their case of recognition. It is not clear as to whether the case of the petitioner is one amongst Patna High Court CWJC No.6265 of 2013 (2) dt.12-04-2013 7 those 1700 schools. In fact from the reading of the order dated

09.02.2012 in the resultant contempt application of Girja Devi, it would be found that the matter is being monitored by the Division Bench.

10. Nonetheless this Court would find that the case of the School of the petitioner for grant of recognition is pending consideration for almost two decades. The petitioner had moved this Court way back in the year 1993 for grant of recognition, and this Court had in the order dated 29.06.1994 in C.W.J.C No. 10120 of 1993 had passed the following order:- "This Court is not aware as to what has happened on the representation filed by the petitioner but it has to be taken into consideration that after this order the Government had notified the rules of recognition laying down the norms for grant of recognition. It is not clear from the pleadings as to whether –in terms of 1994 Rules, the petitioner School has again filed application fulfilling all the requisites under 1994 Rules.

11. It has to be also kept in mind that the power of recognition though in terms of Section-6(2) (kh) lies in the Board but the same cannot be granted unless there is prior approval of the State Government. Neither the Board nor the State Government can give such recognition unless the School fulfills all the requisite condition laid down in 1994 Rules. Therefore, all these aspects have to be gone into carefully by the Statutory authorities of the State Government and the Board and a conscious decision will have to be taken also in the case of the School of the petitioner.

12. In view of the aforementioned situation, this court would Patna High Court CWJC No.6265 of 2013 (2) dt.12-04-2013 8 give liberty to the petitioner's school to approach the Secretary to the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board who thereafter would examine the claim of the petitioner as to whether the case of recognition of the School of the petitioner is also pending. In other words if the petitioner's school has filed its application fulfilling the requirement of 1993 Rules and its complete application in all regard is pending before the Board, the Secretary to the Board shall place the matter before the Board for its decision and if the Board finds that the petitioner's school fulfills all the requirements laid down under 1994 Rules, it would recommend the case of the petitioner's-school for grant of recognition to the State Government. The State government on its part will convey its decision as with regard to grant of approval of the proposal of the Board for grant of recognition and would also convey its decision either approving or disapproving such to the Board.

13. This exercise, however, must be completed by the Board within a period of six months whereafter the State Government also must take a decision in next three months so that the school of the petitioner knows its real position at least before holding of the next Madhyama examination in the year 2014.

14. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of. surendra/ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)