Divya Children Public School and Anothr v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC1 May 2018WRIC/15677/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court of Allahabad set aside an impugned order dated 27.3.2018 cancelling the recognition of a primary school. The Court held the order was a non-speaking order as it failed to specify the exact norms violated or the required number of classrooms, treating it unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order cancelling recognition was quashed and the matter remitted to the District Basic Education Officer for passing a fresh speaking order after hearing.

Divya Children Public School and Anothr Vs State… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 19

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15677 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Divya Children Public School And Anothr Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Sinha,Mahesh Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anil Kumar Mishra,Vikram Bahadur Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Vinod Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Sri Vikram Bahadur Singh for respondent Nos. 4 & 5 and Sri Anil Kumar for the caveator applicant. With their consent, the instant writ petition is being decided finally, without inviting a formal counter affidavit.

¶6

By impugned order dated 27.3.2018, the District Basic Education Officer, Etawah (fourth respondent) has cancelled the recognition of the first petitioner, which is a primary level educational institution. The recognition order, which has been cancelled is dated 19.2.1999 meaning thereby that the Institution is being run on basis of said recognition since last more than 15 years. The impugned order recites that according to the report of the Enquiry Officer/Khand Shiksha Adhikari, Barthana, Etawah dated 30.3.2017, certain classrooms are not in accordance to the prescribed norms and that the Institution also does not have requisite number of class-rooms.

¶7

Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order is absolutely vague, as it does not specify that which norm prescribed for the purpose has not been complied with. He further submitted that the order also does not specify the number of class-rooms, which are required to be there as per the prescribed norms, except for observing that sufficient number of class-rooms are not there. Sri Vikram Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 & 5 is not in a position to point out from the impugned order as to what is the prescribed norm and how the petitioner Institution does not fulfil these norms. He very fairly submitted that the fourth respondent be granted liberty to pass a fresh order.

¶8

Having regard to the submissions made by counsel for the parties, this Court is satisfied that the impugned order could not be

¶9

sustained being a non-speaking order, and it is accordingly setaside. The matter is remitted back to the fourth respondent for passing a fresh order in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

¶10

The petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶11

(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

¶12

Order Date :- 1.5.2018 AM/-

Divya Children Public School and Anothr v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Divya Children Public School and Anothr v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Km. Shikha Dubey Vs Vice Chancellor, Chhatrapati Sahu Ji Maharaj University and 3 Others

C/M through Manager Ankit Shukla, C.K.J.H. School and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

C/M Bara Intermediate College Vs Union of India and Another

Divyangi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Committee of Management , Nehru Smarak Inter College , Ganwar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Lakhan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others