Allowed

Parwatidevi Apang Shikshan Va Prashikshan Prasarak Mandal and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC8 Jul 2014WP/3347/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Aurangabad allowed multiple writ petitions challenging orders withdrawing recognition from private elementary schools. The bench held that the Deputy Director lacked jurisdiction and failed to follow Rule 12 procedure before cancellation.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders withdrawing school recognition were set aside, leaving respondents free to follow the prescribed procedure.

Parwatidevi Apang Shikshan Va Prashikshan Prasarak… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

21 WP.3347.14 ORS.odt

¶3

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3347 OF 2014

¶5

1.	Parwatidevi Apang Shikshan Va Prashikshan Prasarak Mandal, Khedi (Bk) Tq,. And Dist. Jalgaon. Through its Chairman, Shri Shantram Tukaram Patil, Age: 45 years, Occup. Agril., R/o Kehdi (Bk), Tq. And Dist. Jalgaon.
2.	Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Khedi (Bk), Tq. And Dist. Jalgaon Through its Headmaster.	... PETITIONERS .
	V E R S U S
1.	The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2.	The Director of Education, Maharashtra State, Pune.
3.	The Deputy Director of Education, Nashik Region, Nashik.
4.	The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon.
	[The copy of Respondents No.1 to 4 be served on G.P.
	High Court, Bench at Aurangabad].	... RESPONDENTS

¶6

W I T H

¶7

¶8

21 WP.3347.14 ORS.odt

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 4975 OF 2014

¶10

Adiwasi Devmogra Education Society, Natawad, Ta. and District, Nandurbar, Through its authorized Director, Mr. Marotirao Pandurang Gawit, Age: 64 years, Occupation Social, Worker, R/o Nandurbar, Tq. and District Nandurbar. ... PETITIONER.

¶11

V E R S U S

¶12

The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶13

The Director of Education, Maharashtra State, Pune.

¶14

The Deputy Director of Education, Nashik Division, Nashik. Tq. and District Nashik.

¶15

The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nandurbar. Tq. and District Nandurbar. [The copy of Respondent Nos. No.1 to 4 be served on G.P. High Court, Bench at Aurangabad]. ... RESPONDENTS

¶16

WITH

¶17

WRIT PETITION NO. 4899 OF 2014

¶18

Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Adiwasi Sarwangin Vikas Mandal, Nandurbar Through its Vice-Chairman

¶19

¶20

21 WP.3347.14 ORS.odt

¶21

Mr. Mukesh Pralhad Patil, Age: 47 years, Occupation Social, Worker, R/o Nandurbar, Tq. and District Nandurbar.

¶22

... PETITIONER.

¶23

V E R S U S

¶24

The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Director of Education, Maharashtra State, Pune. 3. The Deputy Director of Education, Nashik Division, Nashik. Tq. And District Nashik. 4. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nandurbar. Tq. And District Nandurbar. [The copy of Respondent Nos. No.1 to 3 be served on G.P. High Court, Bench at Aurangabad]. ... RESPONDENTS

¶25

W I T H

¶26

WRIT PETITION NO. 4901 OF 2014

¶27

Gayatrimata Gramin Parisar Vidya Prasarak Mandal, Hondamali Tq. and District Nandurbar. Through its Secretary, Mr. Patil Jitendra Naval, Age: Major, Occupation Social, Worker, R/o Nandurbar, Tq. and District Nandurbar. ... PETITIONER.

¶28

¶29

21 WP.3347.14 ORS.odt

¶30

V E R S U S

¶31

The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Director of Education, Maharashtra State, Pune. 3. The Deputy Director of Education, Nashik Division, Nashik. Tq. and District Nashik. 4. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nandurbar. Tq. and District Nandurbar. [The copy of Respondent Nos. No.1 to 4 be served on G.P. High Court, Bench at Aurangabad]. ... RESPONDENTS

¶32

W I T H

¶33

WRIT PETITION NO. 4900 OF 2014

¶34

Yahamogi Devi Shikshan Sanstha Nagsar, Ta and District, Nandurbar Through its Cice-Chairman, Mr. Mukesh Pralhad Patil, Age: 47 years, Occupation Social, Worker, R/o Nandurbar, Tq. and District Nandurbar.

¶35

... PETITIONER.

¶36

V E R S U S

¶37

The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶38

¶39

21 WP.3347.14 ORS.odt

¶40

2.	The Director of Education, Maharashtra State, Pune.
3.	The Deputy Director of Education, Nashik Division, Nashik. Tq. And District Nashik.
4.	The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nandurbar. Tq. And District Nandurbar.
	[The copy of Respondent Nos. No.1 to 3 be served on G.P. High Court, Bench at Aurangabad]. ...	RESPONDENTS
	A N D
	WRIT PETITION NO. 4921 OF 2014
1.	Mahalaxmi Mahila Mandal, Ta. and District Dhule Through its President, Mr. Prathiba Devaji Marahte, Age: Major, Occupation Social, Worker, R/o Nandurbar, Tq. and District Dhule.
2	Sau Jijabai Haribhau Madyamik Vidyalaya Taloda, Ta. Nandurbar, Through its Headmaster. ...	PETITIONERS.
	V E R S U S
1.	The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2.	The Director of Education,
	Maharashtra State, Pune.

¶41

¶42

21 WP.3347.14 ORS.odt

¶43

The Deputy Director of Education, Nashik Division, Nashik. Tq. And District Nashik.

¶44

The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nandurbar. Tq. And District Nandurbar.

¶45

[The copy of Respondent Nos. No.1 to 4 be served on G.P. High Court, Bench at Aurangabad]. ... RESPONDENTS

¶46

Mr. V.D.Sapkal, Advocate for the Petitioner in all the petitions. Mr. S.K.Kadam, AGP for Respondent / State in Writ Petition No.4901 of 2014

¶47

Mr. K.G.Patil, AGP for Respondent / State in Writ Petition No.4975 of 2014, Writ Petition No.3347 of 2014 and Writ Petition No.4900 of 2014. Mr. S.G.Karlekar, AGP for Respondent / State in Writ Petition No.4921 of 2014

¶48

Mrs. S.G.Chincholkar, AGP for Respondent / State in Writ Petition No.4899 of 2014.

¶49

CORAM : R. M. BORDE and V. L. ACHLIYA, JJ. DATE : 08^th July, 2014.

¶50

ORAL JUDGMENT: ( Per R.M.Borde, J. )

¶51

1 Heard.

¶52

2 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent

¶53

of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the

¶54

¶55

21 WP.3347.14 ORS.odt

¶56

petitions are taken up for final disposal at admission stage.

¶57

3 The Petitioners in all these petitions are taking exception

¶58

to the orders passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Nashik Division, Nashik withdrawing the recognition of the schools operated by the private institutions imparting education from 8^th std. to 10^th std. in Writ Petition Nos.4901 of 2014 and Writ Petition 4921 of 2014 and from 5^th std. to 10^th std. in remaining four petitions.

¶59

4 Section 2 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 defines elementary education as the education from I^st class to VIII^th class. In view of the definition contained in the Act of 2009, it can be said that the Petitioners are imparting elementary education. So far as the four Petitioners are concerned, the schools operated by such institutions from V^th std. to VIII^th std., forms part of elementary eduction, whereas in two petitions i.e. Writ Petition Nos.4901 of 2014 and Writ Petition 4921 of 2014, the schools operated by the institutions for imparting training to VIII^th std. students forms part of elementary education. Rule 12 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2010 provides procedure for withdrawal of the recognition of the schools

¶60

¶61

21 WP.3347.14 ORS.odt

¶62

under Sections 12(3) and 18(3) of the Act. On perusal of Rule 12, it transpires that, whenever the District Education Officer on consideration of representation or on his own motion has a reason to believe that the schools recognized under Rule 11 has violated one or more conditions for grant of recognition or has failed to fulfill the norms and standard prescribed in the Schedule, shall record the reason for his belief and than issue notice to the school, specifying the violation of conditions of grant of recognition and seek explanation from such schools. The Education Officer after reaching a conclusion that the explanation tendered by the school is not satisfactory or in the event of non-receipt of the explanation within the stipulated period, may cause an inspection of the school to be conducted by a committee of 3-5 number comprising of Educationalist, Civil Society Representative, Medical and Government Representative, which shall make due inquiry and submit its report alongwith recommendation for continuation of recognition or its withdrawal to the District Education Officer. The District Education Officer thereupon is required to forward the report to the Director of School Education (Primary) alongwith his comments and a copy is required to be forwarded for information to the State

¶63

¶64

21 WP.3347.14 ORS.odt

¶65

Commissioner for Protection of Child Rights. Thereupon the School Education and Sports Department shall have to convey its decision to the District Education officer through the Director of Education. Thereafter, the District Education Officer is required to pass an order on the basis of the decision of the School Education and Sports Department canceling the recognition of the school.

¶66

5 In the instant matter, the mandatory procedure as prescribed under Rule 12 has not been adhered to. It is not a matter of dispute that the power to withdraw the recognition of an elementary school as defined in the Act of 2009, vests with the State Government. In the instant matter, exercise of powers by the Deputy Director of Education is without jurisdiction and the consequential order amounts to exercise of jurisdiction by an authority, which is not entrusted with the powers under the Act or the Rules. In this context, reliance can be placed in the judgment in the group of petitions being Writ Petition No.4091 of 2013 and other companion matters decided on 5^th July, 2013 by the Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (R.M.Borde, J.) is a Member.

¶67

¶68

21 WP.3347.14 ORS.odt

¶69

6 In this view of the matter, the orders passed by the Deputy Director of Education impugned in these petitions are not sustainable and deserves to be set aside and the same are accordingly set aside.

¶70

7 It is clarified that it would be open for the Respondents – Authorities, if deemed necessary to take appropriate action in observance of the procedure prescribed under the Act of 2009 and the Rules made thereunder.

¶71

8 Rule is made absolute to the extent specified above. No

¶72

costs.

¶73

[ V. L. ACHLIYA, J. ] [ R. M. BORDE, J. ]

¶74

ndm

Parwatidevi Apang Shikshan Va Prashikshan Prasarak Mandal and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parwatidevi Apang Shikshan Va Prashikshan Prasarak Mandal and Another 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Baliram Sagar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sham Sudhakar Kasar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shrikrishna Shivaji Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra and Othres

Kai. Rajiv Gandhi Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Ahmednagar Vs the Head Master, Laxmibai Bhaurao Patil Madhyamik Vidyalaya and Others

Lubna Osmankhan Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Othres

Prayagbai Pralhad Suryawanshi and Another Vs Jagdish Saran Saharia and Others