Disposed

Esteem Public School through Its Director Shri Manoj Kumar Jha Chaibasa v. Human Resource Development

Jharkhand HC22 Mar 2023WPC/6567/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged a memo declaring the school's operation illegal for non-compliance with the RCE Act. The court disposed of the petition by remitting the matter to the Director, Secondary Education to pass a reasoned order on the No Objection Certificate and affiliation within three months after hearing the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of by enabling the petitioner to approach the Director, Secondary Education within two months; the Director shall pass a reasoned order within three months.

Esteem Public School through Its Director Shri Manoj Kumar Jha Chaibasa Vs Human Resource Development — Jharkhand HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W. P. (C) No. 6567 of 2012

¶4

Esteem Public School, Satsang Vihar, Tungri, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Muffasil, District Singhbhum West, Chaibasa through its Director, Shri Manoj Kumar Jha, son of Sri Upendra Jha, residing at Satsang Vihar, Tungri, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Muffasil, District Singhbhum West, Chaibasa … … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary/Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department having office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Town and District Ranchi

¶7

The Director, Secondary Education Directorate, Human Resources Development Department having office near Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Town and District Ranchi

¶8

The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Kolhan Division, Chaibasa having office at P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, District Singhbhum West.

¶9

The District Education Officer, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa having office at P.O. & P.S. Chaibsa, District Singhbhum West

¶10

… … Respondents

¶11

¶12

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶13

--For the petitioner : Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Kunal Chandra Suman, Adv.

¶14

¶15

05/22.03.2023

¶16

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶17

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: -

¶18

“(i) To quash/set aside the decision contained in memo no. 982 dated 04.10.2012 issued under the pen and signature of respondent no. 3, whereby and whereunder the respondent no. 3, who has no power and jurisdiction, has come to the conclusion that running of the present school/petitioner is irregular/illegal.

¶19

(ii) To hold and declare that respondent no. 3 is neither the prescribed authority nor any other authority to take such a decision in the impugned letter contained in memo no. 982 dated 4.10.2012 and he has done so only in colourable exercise of power just to defame the school/petitioner. (iii) For any other appropriate relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is found to be entitled to in the facts and circumstances of this case.”

¶20

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-School

¶21

had made a representation dated 03.05.2012 before the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Jharkhand with a request to issue ‘No Objection Certificate’ to run the school in question, so that the petitioner-school could get affiliation from C.B.S.E. The learned counsel submits that in view of such representation, Director, Secondary Education issued letter dated 02.07.2012 seeking a report after on the spot verification. The inspection

¶22

¶23

was conducted and recommendation was made vide letter dated 09.08.2012. However, before any final decision could be taken, the respondent No. 3 issued letter dated 27.08.2012 and 28.09.2012 asking the petitioner to submit representation and explain the position in connection with the compliance of the provision of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and ultimately passed the impugned order contained in Memo No. 982 dated 04.10.2012 by stating that the petitioner is not complying with the provisions of the aforesaid Act of 2009 and held that the running of the school itself is illegal. The petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid Memo dated 04.10.2012.

¶24

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is abiding by all the prescribed requirements in connection with issuance of ‘no objection certificate’ for grant of affiliation from C.B.S.E., but the impugned order had adversely affected the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is ready and duty bound to abide by all applicable laws. She submits that the matter was under consideration by the Director, Secondary Education and the condition prescribed for getting ‘no objection certificate’ was required to be scrutinized and considered by the Director, Secondary Education. She submits that the impugned order has unnecessarily created hindrance in the way of the petitioner to get ‘no objection’. She submits that the Director, Secondary Education may be directed to look into the grievance of the petitioner and if any compliance is to be done from the side of the petitioner, appropriate order can be issued by the said authority so that the petitioner may take steps for required compliance.

¶25

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has no objection if the matter is remitted to the Director, Secondary Education for passing appropriate order in connection with the plea of the petitioner seeking no objection to establish the C.B.S.E. school and get affiliation from C.B.S.E. However, he submits that the petitioner has to satisfy all the pre-conditions for grant of no objection.

¶26

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that the petitioner is a private school and had applied before the Director, Secondary School seeking no objection to take affiliation from C.B.S.E. Certain enquiries were also sought to be made in connection with the plea of the petitioner pursuant to letters issued from the office of the Director, Secondary Education. In the meantime, the respondent no.3 asked the petitioner, interalia, with regards

¶27

¶28

to certain compliances under the aforesaid act of 2009 and passed impugned order holding that the petitioner is not complying with the provisions of the aforesaid Act of 2009 and that the petitioner has not taken the permission to run the school under the act of 2011 framed by the state of Jharkhand. The impugned order is by way of a communication issued to the Director, Secondary Education before any final decision could be taken by the Director, Secondary Education.

¶29

7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of enabling the petitioner to approach the Director, Secondary Education by filing a representation raising its grievance along with a copy of this order and a copy of the entire writ records within a period of two months from today.

¶30

8. Upon filing of such representation, the Director, Secondary Education shall look into the grievance of the petitioner as well as the prayer of the petitioner seeking ‘no objection certificate’ for seeking affiliation from CBSE and pass a reasoned order after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of filing of the representation. In case, any further requirement or compliance is to be made from the side of the petitioner, the same be also intimated to the petitioner by the Director, Secondary Education, so that the petitioner may take steps as per law. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by all applicable laws, the Director, Secondary Education while taking final decision will not be prejudiced by Annexure-6 contained in Memo No. 982 dated 04.10.2012 and shall call for a fresh report regarding the necessary compliances by the school of the petitioner as required under law.

¶31

9. The reasoned order be also communicated to the petitioner through speed post at the address which may be provided by the petitioner in the representation itself.

¶32

10. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.

¶33

11. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

¶34

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶35

Mukul

Esteem Public School through Its Director Shri Manoj Kumar Jha Chaibasa v. Human Resource Development

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Esteem Public School through Its Director Shri Manoj Kumar Jha Chaibasa v. Human Resource Development

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

Bijoy Kumar Kedia And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Smt.Kiran Shally And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Meera Sahdeo Wife of Late Kailash Nath Sahdeo Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Bhikhendra Manjhi And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Bishwa Nath Prasad Nagar Vs District Administration

Rabindra Sarkar and Anr. Vs Collectariate