Disposed

Saraswati Devi Inter College through Its Manager Bheemarajan v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary and Another

Allahabad HC13 Feb 2020SPLA/134/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special appeal filed against the Single Judge's order dismissing a writ petition for directing the State to sanction an examination centre. The court upheld the dismissal on grounds of delay but granted liberty to approach the Secretary for redressal within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to approach the Secretary High School and Intermediate Education, Government of U.P., Lucknow for redressal by filing a representation within 15 days.

Saraswati Devi Inter College through Its Manager… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 134 of 2020

¶3

Appellant :- Saraswati Devi Inter College Through Its Manager Bheemarajan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Principal Secretary And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Indra Sen Singh,Mohd. Naushad Ahmad Khan

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶7

This special appeal is directed against the order dated 10.01.2020 passed by Learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing Writ C No. 754 of 2020 (Saraswati Inter College Vs. State of U.P. and another) preferred by the appellant before this court.

¶8

The impugned order dated 10.01.2020 runs as hereunder :

¶9

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-Respondent.

¶10

Present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the following prayer:

¶11

"(A) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 to decide the representation dated 14.11.2019 filed by the petitioner-institution by a reasoned and speaking order and in accordance with law.

¶12

(B) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to accord sanction to the petitioner-institution to conduct the High School and Intermediate Examination for the year 2020."

¶13

It reflects from the record that Government Order dated 16.10.2019 has been issued by the State Government in respect of allotment of Centres for conducting High School and Intermediate Examinations 2020. A detailed procedure has been prescribed in the said Government Order and as per Clause (Gha) thereof, the Parishad shall publish list of the examination Centres for conducting the High School and Intermediate examination by 30.11.2019. Clause 13 of the said Government Order further provides that the aggrieved colleges may file their objection within five days from the date of publication of the final list of allotted centres on the website of respondent No.2.

¶14

Admittedly, in the present case, the list of examination centres was published on 30.11.2019 and the objection/representation has been made by the petitioner's Institution on 14.11.2019 before the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh and not before the proper authority i.e. beyond time and the proper authority for filing the representation is Secretary, High School and Intermediate Education, Government of U.P., Lucknow. Copy of the said representation has been appended at page 15 to the Writ Petition.

¶15

Learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner has no legal right to be declared as Examination Centre of the Board as he failed to file his objection within the time prescribed under the Government Order dated 16.10.2019 and in view thereof, no direction can be issued to the concerned respondents as prayed for. Learned Standing Counsel has further placed reliance on Judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Misc. Single No.35384 of 2019, C/M S. Ram Shankar A.P.G. Inter College Thru Its Manager & Another Vs. State of U.P. Thru Addl. Chief Secy/Prin Secy Sec. Edu & Other in which this Court took the view that the Petitioner's College does not have any vested right to be declared as an examination centre and the petition in this regard is not maintainable. The Judgment dated 18.12.2019 passed in Misc. Single No.35384 of 2019 for ready reference is quoted herein under:

¶16

"Petitioner Committee of Management, S. Ram Shankar A.P.G. Inter College, Lebuduwa Kodiya Bazar, distt. Gonda, has approached this Court praying that its College should be fixed an examination centre of Board of High School and Intermediate Examination, 2020. It has also prayed the final list of examination centre of district Gonda for the U.P.

¶17

Board of High School and Intermediate Examination, 2020 published by the opposite party, U.P. High School and Intermediate Education Board, Prayagraj, to be quashed to the extent it excludes the name of petitioner Institution.

¶18

It was specifically put to learned counsel for petitioner as to under which law, the petitioner College has any legal right to be declared as examination centre of the Board, he could not reply to the same. It is always the discretion of the Board to allocate a College the examination centre of the Boarde after looking into large number of aspects while fixing examination centres. The Board after looking into the relevant aspects have already declared the list of examination centres. Since the petitioner College does not have any vested right to be declared as an examination centre, the petition is not maintainable in writ jurisdiction.

¶19

Learned counsel for petitioner has prayed that he may be permitted to make representation to the appropriate authorities. I am not inclined to accept such request, as there was large scale of mass copying being done in the State for many many years. With great difficulty, the same has come in control of the authorities. Therefore, any indulgence given at this stage, may seriously jeopardize the efforts of the authorities. Thus, the said request is refused.

¶20

With the aforesaid, the petition is dismissed."

¶21

It is well settled that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the power of the High Court to issue appropriate writ is discretionary and the relief cannot be claimed as of right. One of the grounds for refusing the relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is that petitioner is guilty of delay and laches. In the present case, as indicated above, the petitioner himself has filed his objection/representation beyond the prescribed time limit.

¶22

In S. Ram Shnakar A.P.G. Inter College (supra), the Court has rightly taken the view that the petitioner's Institution has no legally enforceable right to be declared as one of the examination centres, as the primary purpose of a writ of mandamus is to protect a statutory right and to enforce the corresponding imperative duty created or imposed by law.

¶23

In view of what has been indicated above, this Writ Petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed."

¶24

The only ground on which the learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the impugned order is that under a wrong legal advise, the appellant instead of filing his objection/representation against the list of examination centres published on 30.11.2019 before the Secretary High School and Intermediate Education, Government of U.P., Lucknow had filed his objection before the District Inspector of School Azamgarh and hence the Learned Single Judge instead of dismissing the writ petition on the ground of latches should have relegated the appellant to the Secretary High School and Intermediate Education, Government of U.P., Lucknow for the redressal of his grievances as the Saraswati Devi Inter College is a girls college and presently 157 girls students are appearing in High School & Intermediate Examinations of this year and the centre which has been allotted to them is at the distance of 15 kms from the village where the appellant-institution exists and it will be too cumbersome for the girls students to travel a distance of 15 kms for appearing in their High School & Intermediate Examination. He further contended that the impugned order may be modified by giving liberty to the appellant to approach the Secretary High School and Intermediate Education, Government of U.P., Lucknow.

¶25

Per contra learned Standing Counsel has made his submissions in support of the impugned order.

¶26

Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as the other material brought on record. We are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Learned Single Judge. However, keeping in view the ends of justice and the interest and safety of the girls students who are appearing in the High School and Intermediate Examinations of this year from the

¶27

petitioner's college, we dispose of this special appeal with liberty to the appellant to approach the Secretary High School and Intermediate Education, Government of U.P., Lucknow for redressal of his grievances by filing a representation before him within a period of 15 days from today. In case any such representation is filed by the appellant before the Secretary High School and Intermediate Education, Government of U.P., Lucknow, the same shall be dealt with by him in accordance with law within a further period of two weeks from the date of filing of such representation by the appellant before him.

¶28

A copy of this order shall be provided to the learned counsel for the parties within 24 hours.

¶29

Order Date :- 13.2.2020 SA

Saraswati Devi Inter College through Its Manager Bheemarajan v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saraswati Devi Inter College through Its Manager Bheemarajan v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neetu Mittal Vs Brajesh Kumar Agarwal Alias Mintu

The Deputy Chief Engineer Construction-Ii Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Dharmwati Devi Vs State of U.P. and Others

Kishan Pal @ Keshan Pal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S Vardan Construction Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Durga Dutt Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others