Allowed

C/M, Pandit Moti Lal Nehru Inter College, Sultanpur Thr. Manager, Dileep Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./ Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education, Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC30 Apr 2025WRIC/3901/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An inter college sought recognition for additional subjects; the Board rejected it citing delay in sending the file and minor laboratory/library deficiencies despite a coordinate Bench order that delay was immaterial and defects were cured. The High Court found the rejection arbitrary, set aside the impugned order, and directed reconsideration within six weeks.

What the court decided

AI extract

C/M, Pandit Moti Lal Nehru Inter College… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:24711

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3901 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- C/M, Pandit Moti Lal Nehru Inter College, Sultanpur Thr. Manager, Dileep Kumar Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./ Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education, Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manushresth Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 4 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel. Sri Rahul Shukla learned Additional Chief Standing counsel for the State has provided a copy of the written instructions dated 29.04.2025 under the signature of the D.I.O.S, Sultanpur as well as copy of the written instructions on behalf of the State under the signature of Additional Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Board Regional Division Varanasi dated 23.04.2025 for perusal of the Court and the same is taken on record.

¶7

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner prays for following reliefs:

¶8

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 19.03.2025 passed by the Additional Secretary, Regional Officer Secondary Education Board, Varanasi contained in Annexure no. to this writ petition.

¶9

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorizes to grant recognition of additional subject i.e. Home Science, Drawing Design, Education in the petitioner's college namely Pandit Moti Lal Nehru Inter College, Pratappur Kamaicha Sultanpur."

¶10

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had sought the recognition from the respondent, however, in the first instance, the same was refused on account of certain deficiencies found in the institution. At that stage, the petitioner had approached this Court by means of Writ C no.10328 of 2024 wherein a coordinate Bench of this Court by means of the order dated 07.02.2025 had noticed that the stand taken by the respondents was not sufficient in as much as the deficiencies which were pointed out had been cured and in fact

¶11

the file was being sent beyond the period with delay which was also not held to be cogent ground. The Court further directed the respondent no.2 to consider and decide the case of the petitioner within a period of six weeks.

¶12

It is urged that in furtherance thereof, yet again the impugned order dated 19.03.2025 has been passed which takes note of the order passed by the High Court dated 07.02.2025 but on the same ground of delay the case of the petitioner has been rejected.

¶13

Submission is that once the deficiencies had been cured and the coordinate Bench of this Court in its order dated 07.02.2025 had already observed that the delay in moving file would not be a consideration yet it has passed its order on the same consideration which is per se arbitrary and also against the observation in the order passed by this Court in its order dated 07.02.2025.

¶14

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and from a perusal of the written instructions which have been placed before this Court, apparently, what is evident is the fact that the order impugned noticed that the file of the petitioner institute was sent after the prescribed period and there was no recommendation by the District Inspectors of Schools, Sultanpur. In the impugned order, there is a reference to certain deficiencies however, it may be noticed that the said deficiencies would not have any major impact for the reason that it was not as if this institution had been created for the first time, the said institution was already running the College and it only sought recognition for the purpose of introducing new stream in the College. As far as the alleged deficiencies are concerned it was noticed that the size of the laboratory and library was not as per norms however, the petitioners have clearly stated that they have made the necessary extensions and both laboratory and library are within norms and this was inspected by the authorities and to this effect there is no denial or dispute. Therefore, the only ground which per se remains in the order impugned is that the file had been sent with delay.

¶15

As noticed above, a coordinate Bench of this Court in its order dated 07.02.2025 had clearly noticed that the issue of delay may not be considered yet the same has been taken as ground which in the opinion of this Court is per se both arbitrary and indicates ipse dixit.

¶16

For the said reasons, the petitioner cannot be faulted and thus this Court finds that the order dated 19.03.2025 is not sustainable.

¶17

The only thing comes up from perusal the instruction as provided to this Court is that file was sent by the DIOS with delay and as far as the hard copy is concerned that has been sent through peon. The fact remains that in so far as the petitioner is concerned he cannot be faulted for the aforesaid.

¶18

This Court in its order dated 07.02.2025 had already observed that the delay could not come in the way of the petitioner, therefore, it could not be a ground, upon which the representation of the petitioner was rejected. There is nothing to say that the deficiency which were earlier pointed out have not been rectified and as far as, sending the hard copy of the application is concerned, the respondent no.2 had even if it was sent through some peon could not validate or create any obstacle for consideration of the petitioners for grant of of the recognition.

¶19

In this view of the aforesaid, this Court finds that the order impugned is arbitrary and runs contrary to the observation made by this Court in its order dated 07.02.2025 passed in Writ C no.10328 of 2024.

¶20

For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not inclined to call for a counter affidavit, in as much as, the written instructions are clear on the aforesaid point, hence, the impugned order is set aside. The respondent no.2 shall reconsider the case of the petitioner after taking note of the earlier order as well as order passed in this writ petition and, in case, if the respondent no.2 wants to verify the documents he may call upon the D.I.O.S concerned to send the documents appropriately and take a decision preferably within a period of six weeks from the date, a copy of this order is placed before the respondent no.2.

¶21

With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed. Costs are made easy.

¶22

Order Date :- 30.4.2025 Harshita

¶23

Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

C/M, Pandit Moti Lal Nehru Inter College, Sultanpur Thr. Manager, Dileep Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./ Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education, Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

C/M, Pandit Moti Lal Nehru Inter College, Sultanpur Thr. Manager, Dileep Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./ Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education, Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Satyendra Pratap Singh Vs Commissioner Lucknow Division Lucknow and Another

Kailash Chandra Srivastava vs Sri Sanjay Kumar Mishra, the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad Gonda

Charu Mishra vs Union of India Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Deptt.Thru. Its Prin. Secy. and 5 Others

Arvind Kumar Vs Registrar Vibhagiya Examination U.P. Allahabad and Others

C/M, Gyan Chand Balika Sanskrit Vidyalaya, Ambedkar Nagar Thr. Manager, Hari Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Secondary Education, Lko and Others

Rajshree Singh Vs Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi Thru. Secy. Delhi and Others