Partly allowed

Nalanda Education Society v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC12 Sept 2013WP/3993/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court examined closure order against school recommended only partial discontinuation. Observing Education Officer lacked jurisdiction for elementary levels, Court directed respondents to decide within four months following appropriate law.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to respondents to decide within four months in accordance with provisions of law.

Nalanda Education Society Vs the State of… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

WP/3993/2013+

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3993 OF 2013 NALANDA EDUCATION SOCIETY

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶7

Advocate for Petitioners : Shri V.D.Sapkal AGP for Respondents 1 to 3 : Shri V.D.Godbharale Advocate for Respondent 4 : None present.

¶8

WITH

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 5891 OF 2013 HANUMAN SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶12

Advocate for Petitioners : Shri N.R.Pawade AGP for Respondents 1 to 3 : Shri V.D.Godbharale Advocate for Respondent 4 : Shri D.N.Bankar Patil

¶13

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ. Dated: September 12, 2013

¶14

PER COURT :-

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶16

Reply affidavit tendered by learned AGP is taken on record. Learned Advocate Shri Sapkal for the petitioner has objected to the same. We have rejected his objection.

¶17

In the midst of the hearing, learned AGP also requested for adjournment to enable him to obtain instructions to assist the Court in better manner. However, we have also rejected that request.

¶18

WP/3993/2013+

¶19

¶20

Learned Advocate Shri Sapkal for the petitioner submits that the petitioner institute runs classes from Standard I to Junior College. Inspection of the institute was undertaken in the month of October 2011. On the strength of that inspection, impugned order has been passed on 6.4.2013. Though in the inspection, the Education Officer (Extension) recommended only dis-continuation of Standards V to VII, by the impugned order, entire school has been closed down. According to him, entire school is one unit and the impugned order cannot therefore be severed. He submits that the education is being extended from Standards I to XII. Elementary education is defined under Right of Children to free Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter, referred to as "2009 Act") and hence in terms of Right of Children to free Education Rules (hereinafter "the said Rules"), particularly Rule 12 framed thereunder, the impugned order could not have been passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad without following the procedure prescribed therefor in the said Rules. He is relying upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court, dated 5.7.2013 in the case of Sai Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Khatgaon Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, in Writ Petition Nos. 4091 of 2013 and others petitions.

¶21

Learned AGP has relied upon the reply affidavit and also invited our attention to lacunae and irregularity noticed in the report of the Education Officer (Extension), dated 16.10.2012.

¶22

The Division Bench of this Court in its judgment in the case of Sai Shikshan Prasarak Mandal (supra) has considered the provisions of Rule 12 of

¶23

WP/3993/2013+

¶24

¶25

the said Rules and the orders of similar nature passed by the Education Officer. The Division Bench has found that after coming into force 2009 Act and Rules framed thereunder, Education Officer does not possess that jurisdiction. Because of that finding, the orders have been quashed and set aside.

¶26

Here, the authority taking inspection, namely, Education Officer (Extension) has only recommended dis-continuation of Standards V to VII. He sent that communication to the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. Said authority, therefore, was duty bound to abide by provisions of Rule 12. Said authority, however, appears to have ignored the said decision and submitted a proposal on 28.1.2013 to the office of the Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad. Deputy Director had then conducted hearing and passed the impugned order. The impugned order does not give any reasons for not accepting the recommendation to discontinue only Standards V to VII. We note that the lacunae or omissions noticed therein may apply to the entire school or entire education if building is one and the same.

¶27

However, said exercise undertaken in respect of elementary education i.e. Standards I to VIII is unsustainable in law as recommendation by the Education Officer (Extension) is only in relation to Standards V to VII, which forms of elementary education, the impugned order cannot be sustained. It is apparent that in so far as elementary education is concerned, the procedure to be followed shall be in accordance with the judgment of the

¶28

WP/3993/2013+

¶29

¶30

Division Bench in the case of Sai Shikshan Prasarak Mandal (supra) and the procedure prescribed in the Secondary School Code may be required to be followed in so far as education from Standards IX onward is concerned. Thus controversy needs to be viewed by two different authorities in different perspective.

¶31

Needless to mention that this Court has on 7.5.2013 granted interim orders and therefore, school of the petitioner is functioning.

¶32

Looking to the recommendations made and without observing on merits of the controversy, we direct the respondents to proceed further in accordance with provisions of law in the matter and take a suitable decision within further period of four months.

¶33

If necessary, opportunity of hearing be extended to the petitioner in the matter.

¶34

With these observations, we partly allow the Writ Petition with no order as to costs.

¶35

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ) ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. )

¶36

akl

Nalanda Education Society v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nalanda Education Society v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Manoj Dayaram Chaudhari Vs Sunil Supadu Mahajan and Ors.

Manoj Dayaram Chaudhari Vs Sunil Supadu Mahajan and Ors.

Manoj Dayaram Chaudhari Vs Sunil Supadu Mahajan and Ors.

Ashok Rabhaji Auti Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Hari Limji Patil and Ors. Vs the Union of India through Ministry of Law of Judiciary Govt of India New Delhi and Ors.

Sidtarth Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others