High Court
Legal Reasoning
4735.09wp(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4735 OF 2009Gram Vikas Mandal, Ranjangaon Shenpunji,Tq. Gangapur, District Aurangabad,A Public Trust Registration No.F1334,Through its Secretary,Shri. Manohar s/o Shivram Phalke,Age: 42 years, Occu: Agriculture,R/o: Ranjangaon Shenpunji,Tq. Gangapur, District Aurangabad….PETITIONERVERSUS1.The State of Maharashtra,Through its Secretary (School Education),Department of Education,Mantralaya, Mumbai – 322.The Director of Education,Maharashtra State, Administrative Building,District : Pune3.The Divisional Deputy Director of Education,Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad4.The Education Officer (Secondary),Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad ….RESPONDENTS ….Mr V. D. Salunke, Advocate a/w Mr Avishkar S. Shelke, Advocate for petitioner Mr Amar V. Lavte, A.G.P. for respondents/State 4735.09wp(2) CORAM : MANGESH S. PATILAND PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, JJ. RESERVED ON : 4th February, 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 6th May, 2025 JUDGMENT (PER : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) Heard learned counsel for the parties at the stage of finalhearing.2.By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, the petitioner/Management has challenged the order dated13/04/2007, passed by the Divisional Deputy Direction of Education,Aurangabad, respondent No.3, cancelling the recognition of itssecondary school from the academic session 2006-2007.3.By the order of this Court dated 06/10/2010, this petitionwas admitted and interim relief was rejected. Today, the matter isheard for final hearing.4.The factual setup leading to the instant petition is statedbelow in nutshell :- 4735.09wp(3) (a)The Government of Maharashtra had granted permissionto the petitioner/Management to run a secondary school atRanjangaon Shenpunji in the year 1992-1993. (b)Accordingly, the school was started on non-grant basis,which later on came on partial grants i.e. 25% w.e.f. year 1995-1996 and later on from year 1998-1999, it started receiving100% grant-in-aid.(c)During year 2000-2001, the Government sanctioned sixdivisions to the petitioner on non-grant basis and accordingly,the petitioner/Management appointed trained teachers, whoseappointment were approved by the Government.(d)In the year 2003, the teachers working in the school raiseda grievance relating to non-payment of their salary and otherdues, pursuant to which, the Education Officer, respondent No.4conducted enquiry. The Education Officer forwarded a proposalby letter dated 21/11/2005 to the Deputy Director of Educationfor taking action for derecognition of the school under Rule 7.4of the Secondary School Code. 4735.09wp(4) (e)On 29/12/2005, hearing was given to the parties and thepetitioner/Management was informed by letter dated 08/02/2006to comply with the shortcomings by 31/03/2006.(f)The teachers working in the school filed Writ PetitionNo.7440/2005 in this Court inter alia raising several grievancesmainly relating to non-payment of their salary. By order dated01/03/2006, the petition was disposed of directing therespondents to decide the grievances of the petitioners thereinwithin a period of two months. (g)Since the grievances of the employees were not redressedby the Management, the Divisional Deputy Director ofEducation, respondent No.3, issued order dated 29/04/2006thereby derecognising the school from the end of academic year2005-2006.(h)Feeling aggrieved by this order, the petitioner/Management preferred appeal before the Director of Education(respondent No.2).(i)On the basis of undertaking submitted by thepetitioner/Management, respondent No.2 allowed the petitioner 4735.09wp(5) to continue the recognition of the school from academic year2006-2007, on condition that if the shortcomings anddeficiencies are not removed, the school shall be derecognised. (j)Despite the specific directions, the deficiencies/shortcomings were not removed and therefore, the EducationOfficer, respondent No.4 inspected the school and conducted athorough enquiry. He submitted a report to the DivisionalDeputy Director of Education reporting non-fulfillment of theconditions imposed on the petitioner/Management and non-removal of the deficiencies. By letter dated 28/02/2007, theEducation Officer recommended derecognition of the school.(k)Pursuant to the report/letter dated 28/02/2007 andconsidering the earlier conduct of the petitioner/Management,the Divisional Deputy Director of Education, respondent No.3recommended derecognition of the school to the Director ofEducation, respondent No.2 by letter dated 03/03/2007.(l)On considering the letter dated 03/03/2007 and previousorders/directions of respondent Nos.3 and 4, the Director ofEducation communicated to the Divisional Deputy Director of 4735.09wp(6) Education by letter dated 03/04/2007 to derecognise the schoolrun by the petitioner/Management.(m)By order dated 13/04/2007, the Divisional DeputyDirector of Education, Aurangabad passed order ofderecognition of the school run by the petitioner/Managementfrom the end of academic session 2006-2007. The petitioner haschallenged this order of derecognition by way of the instantpetition.5.Respondent No.1/State of Maharashtra has filed itsaffidavit-in-reply dated 12/08/2009, justifying the impugned decisionof derecognition. Apart from this, respondent No.4, Deputy EducationOfficer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad also filed affidavitdated 23/02/2024, supporting the impugned order.6.To controvert the stand of the respondents, the petitionerfiled affidavit-in-rejoinder dated 23/03/2010. 7.Learned advocate V. D. Salunke alongwith learnedadvocate Avishkar Shelke appearing for the petitioner vehementlysubmits that the impugned order is grossly arbitrary and illegal. Hesubmits that the petitioner/Management has meticulously complied
Decision
4735.09wp(7) with the provisions of the Secondary School Code and the allegedgrievance made by the teachers was already redressed. He furthersubmits that the teachers have been paid regular salary and thepetitioner/Management has complied with the directions issued byrespondent Nos.3 and 4 and all the shortcomings were alreadyremoved. He submits that the Assistant Teachers, who had earlier filedthe writ petition had submitted the representation dated 14/10/2007informing the respondents/authorities that their grievances against theHeadmaster were resolved. He invites our attention to therepresentations dated 14/10/2007, 25/01/2008, 05/02/2008 and19/03/2008, which are filed on record at Exhibit ‘Q’ collectively. Healso submits that due to derecognition of the school, the residents inthe surrounding villages are suffering and they all are insisting forrestarting the school. He also submits that the respondents/authoritieshave failed to grant sufficient opportunity to thepetitioner/Management and therefore the impugned order ischallenged, terming it to be arbitrary and illegal. 8.In support of their submissions, learned advocates relyupon following reported judgments :-(I)Chandrika Jha Vs. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1984Supreme Court 322; 4735.09wp(8) (II)Babaji Kondaji Garad and others Vs. Nasik MerchantsCo-operative Bank Ltd., Nasik and others, AIR 1984 SupremeCourt 192;(III)Bhavnagar University Vs. Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd.and others, AIR 2003 Supreme Court 511; and(IV)Maharashtra Land Development Corporation and othersVs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2010 AIR SCW 7114.By referring to these judgments, they vehemently submitthat the impugned decision is arbitrary and grossly illegal by whichrespondents have abused the power under Rule 7.4 of the SecondarySchool Code. By referring to the judgment in the matter of BabajiKondaji Garad and others (supra), they vehemently submit that law issettled that when a statute requires certain things to be done in certainmanner, it can be done in that manner alone unless the contraryindication is found in the statute. They, therefore, submit thatrespondent Nos.3 and 4 have failed to meticulously comply with theprovisions of the Secondary School Code.9.Per contra, Advocate Amar V. Lavte, learned A.G.P. forrespondents makes strenuous submissions to oppose the petition. Hesubmits that the impugned order is passed by respondent No.3 afterconsidering the grave deficiencies and shortcomings as reflected in theimpugned order dated 13/04/2007. He submits that respondent No.3 4735.09wp(9) has duly exercised the power vested in him under Rule 7.4 of theSecondary School Code and in accordance with the provisions of Rule7.1 thereof, the impugned order of derecognition is just and proper. Hesubmits that the school run by the petitioner has committed breach ofthe terms and conditions as mentioned in Rule 3.2 of the SecondarySchool Code and despite grant of sufficient opportunities, thedeficiencies were not removed. By referring to the affidavit dated23/02/2024, he submits that, at present, in the vicinity of the saidschool, there are other five schools which are being run andadministered by other Managements including local authority and assuch, the students residing in the vicinity are getting propereducational facilities. He, therefore, strongly opposes the petition.10.The rival contentions now fall for our consideration. 11.It has to be noted that the authorities had observed variousshortcomings and deficiencies in running of the school in the year2005 and 2006. The respondents had conducted enquiry in theworking of the school and recommended derecognition of the schoolfrom the academic year 2005-2006. In view of the readiness of thepetitioner/Management to remove the deficiencies and believing on theundertaking submitted by it, the recognition was continued for the year 4735.09wp(10) 2006-2007, subject to removal of all the shortcomings anddeficiencies. The respondents observed that, despite undertakinggiven by the petitioner/Management, the shortcomings were notremoved and on the basis of inspection of the school and havingconducted a thorough enquiry, respondent No.4 again concluded thatthe shortcomings and deficiencies were not removed. 12.The grievances raised by the teachers about non-paymentof regular salary and the litigation by the teachers against theManagement is a crucial issue about which the petitioner/Managementwas repeatedly informed by the authorities. Despite repeated orderspassed by the authorities, the petitioner/Management failed to resolvethe grievances and the teachers were not paid regular salary. Therecord reveals that the petitioner/Management was repeatedlyinformed about the deficiencies and sufficient opportunities wereafforded to remove it.13.The record reveals that in view of the breach of conditionsmentioned in Rule 3.2 of the Secondary School Code, by exercisingpowers under Rule 7.1, recognition of the school was cancelled fromacademic session 2005-2006 by order dated 29/04/2006. However, inthe appeal preferred by the petitioner/Management, the recognition 4735.09wp(11) was continued by the order dated 29/06/2006 for the year 2006-2007on the condition of removal of all the deficiencies. Despite this, whenthe shortcomings were not removed and the grievances of the teacherswere not redressed, by letter dated 03/03/2007, respondent No.4 maderecommendation to respondent No.2 about derecognition of the schoolfrom academic session 2006-2007.14.It has to be noted that, despite there being orders passed inWrit Petition No.7440/2005, the salary of the employees was notreleased by the petitioner/Management within two months as directedby this Court, the employees had filed contempt petitions before thisCourt. 15.Taking into consideration all these sequence of events andconsidering the entire conduct of the petitioner/Management inrepeated breach of the Rule 3.2 of the Secondary School Code,respondent No.3 has passed final order dated 13/04/2007derecognising the school from academic session 2006-2007.The deficiencies/shortcomings which formed basis of theimpugned decision are :- 4735.09wp(12) (1)There were no attempts of coordination between theManagement representative and the Head Master.(2)Management has failed to pay the salary of teachers whowere on non-grant basis.(3)The complaints related to the Head Master were notresolved. It has to be noted that these deficiencies were found not tohave been removed since years together and thepetitioner/Management has not taken any efforts to resolve thesedeficiencies.16.Perusal of the impugned order dated 13/04/2007 showsthat respondent No.3 has taken into consideration all the relevantissues, which are reflected in the impugned order. The record revealsthat sufficient opportunities were given to the petitioner/Managementto remove the deficiencies and even sufficient opportunity of hearingwas extended to the petitioner/Management. The impugned orderpassed by respondent No.3 under Rule 7.4 of the Secondary SchoolCode, therefore is just and proper. 4735.09wp(13) 17.It is imperative to note that the grievance has beenespoused only by the Management and not by any of the members ofthe teaching staff. It is rather noteworthy that the members of theteaching faculty had earlier invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Courtand had even initiated contempt proceedings against thepetitioner/Management, have subsequently submitted representationsstating that their grievances against the Management stood redressed.The cumulative factual aspects indicates that although thepetitioner/Management has endeavoured to demonstrate, on record,that the alleged deficiencies stood rectified, it is pertinent to note thatcompetent authorities have arrived at their conclusions independentlyupon due appreciation of the material placed before them. Thepetitioner/Management has failed to establish any perversity,arbitrariness, or procedural impropriety in the impugned decisionwarranting interference by this Court. 18.The factual position submitted by the learned A.G.P. videaffidavit dated 23/02/2024 about existence of five other schoolsincluding Zilla Parishad schools in the vicinity of the petitioner/schoolalso demonstrates that the need of providing educational facilities tothe students has been properly met. The school run by the 4735.09wp(14) petitioner/Management had committed breach of terms and conditionsof Rule 3.2 of the Secondary School Code.19.The proposition of law laid down in the judgments reliedupon by the counsel for the petitioner can not be disputed. Thejudgments laying down the proposition of law regarding arbitraryexercise of powers and rules of interpretation of statute also cannot bedisputed. None of the judgments relied upon deal with the issue ofderecognition of the school which is the only issue involved in thismatter. It has to be noted that the decision of derecognition of thepetitioner’s school is based on categorical findings of the authoritiesabout breach of terms and conditions as per Rule 3.2 of the SecondarySchool Code. The proposition of law laid down in the judgmentsrelied upon, cannot be of any assistance to the petitioner.20.The position of law is fairly settled that the scope ofjudicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India isconfined to scrutinizing the decision-making process rather thanadjudicating upon the decision itself. The legal position on this pointstands crystallized through a plethora of judicial pronouncements.Reference may profitably be made to the decision of the Hon’bleSupreme Court in Sarvepalli Ramaiah (Died) as per Legal 4735.09wp(15) Representatives and Others Vs. District Collector, ChittoorDistrict and others, reported in (2019) 4 SCC 500, wherein thefollowing pertinent observations were made : “40.Administrative decisions are subject to judicial reviewunder Article 226 of the Constitution, only on grounds ofperversity, patent illegality, irrationality, want of power to takethe decision and procedural irregularity. Except on thesegrounds administrative decisions are not interfered with, inexercise of the extraordinary power of judicial review.41.In this case, the impugned decision, taken pursuant toorders of Court, was based on some materials. It cannot be saidto be perverse, to warrant interference in exercise of the HighCourt’s extraordinary power of judicial review. A decision isvitiated by irrationality if the decision is so outrageous, that it isin defiance of all logic; when no person acting reasonably couldpossibly have taken the decision, having regard to the materialson record. The decision in this case is not irrational.”21.In the conspectus of the present matter, the impugneddecision, having been arrived at upon due consideration of the materialon record by the competent authorities, cannot be characterized aseither perverse or manifestly arbitrary. The decision does not sufferfrom irrationality, nor does it disclose any patent illegality. Thus, thereexists no justifiable ground for this Court to exercise its extraordinaryjurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, we are 4735.09wp(16) of the considered view that the present writ petition does not meritinterference.22. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. Rule isdischarged. No order as to costs.(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)sjk