Rashreeya Vidya Peeta (Reg) Vs the State of Karnataka

RASHREEYA VIDYA PEETA (REG) REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT 1960 SRI.N.R.ASHWATH KUMAR, SON OF LATE N.V.RAJAGOPALA SETTY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, Y.N.HOSAKOTE, PAVAGADA TALUK-572 141 TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY MR. FAYAZ SAB B G.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶17

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ADMI) DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, TUMAKURU NORTH, MADHUGIRI EDUCATIONAL DISTRICT,

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:19006 WP No. 15313 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

MADHUGIRI-572 140, TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶22

THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, MADHUGIRI SHYKSHANIKA JILLE, PAVAGADA TALUK 572 140, TUMAKURU DISTICT.

¶23

THE HEAD MASTER, GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOLS, Y.N.HOSAKOTE, PAVAGADA TALUK-572 140, TUMAKURU DISTRICT

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY MRS. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA)

¶26

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO. ANU3. PROU. SHA.MA. NA 148/2024-25 DATED 16.04.2025 WHEREIN THE PETITIONER INSTITUTION IS TAGGED WITH FIFTH RESPONDENT GOVERNEMNT HIGH SCHOOL, Y.N.HOSAKOTE, PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE RENEWAL OF PETITIONER INSTITUTION FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2024-2025 IS NOT OBTAINED/APPROVED, WHICH IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE - A AS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AND DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION TO RUN OR CONTINUE

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:19006 WP No. 15313 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION AS EARLIER RUNNING FROM 1969.

¶31

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

The petitioner is running an Educational Institution [ a school ], which admittedly has received Recognition way back in the 1980s, and this Recognition is for the academic years up to 2023-24. The petitioner, which had to secure renewal for the academic years 2024-25 and for the further academic years, has not secured such renewal. The petitioner contends that it has requested for Recognition but this request is not considered, and the respondents contend that the petitioner’s request for Recognition is not within the window provided for during the months February - March 2025.

¶35

The petitioner is aggrieved by the third respondent's Order dated 16.04.2025 [ Annexure-A ].

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:19006 WP No. 15313 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

The third respondent by this Order, which is called a Communication by the respondents, has called upon the Director [Examination], Karnataka School Exams and Evaluation Board, Bengaluru to tag certain schools as mentioned in the appendix to such order to the corresponding Government School, and the petitioner’s School is also part of this list of Schools.

¶40

Mr. Fayaz Sab, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned Order [Communication] is issued even prior to the Show Cause Notice dated 17.04.2025, and that this Notice is issued informing the petitioner that, if it does not secure Recognition, action would be taken under Sections 34 and 53 of the Karnataka Education Act 1983. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioner has submitted documents to show that it complies with all the requirements and it is entitled for Recognition.

¶41

5 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:19006 WP No. 15313 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Ms. Sukanya Baliga, the learned

¶45

Additional Government Advocate for the respondents, submits that [a] Annexure-A, which is dated 16.04.2025, has to be read disjunctively because this Communication is to ensure that 10^th standard students enrolled with the petitioner for the academic year 2024-25 could successfully participate in the SSLC Board Exams for the academic year 2024-25 and [b] the Show Cause Notice is issued to extend an opportunity to the petitioner to make all submissions for renewal not just for the concluded academic year 2024-25 but also for the subsequent academic years.

¶46

It is seen from both the Show Cause Notice dated 17.04.2025 and the petitioner's response to this Notice [ which is received by the third respondent on 25.04.2025 ] that the petitioner is called upon to seek the renewal of its Recognition subject to certain compliances and that the petitioner has furnished documents to report compliance while

¶47

6 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:19006 WP No. 15313 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

contending that these documents could not be uploaded online because the online facility did not permit them. If the petitioner has indeed complied with all the requirements which entitles it to renewal of Recognition, there must be expedited decision and that would be very crucial for a resolution of the present dispute.

¶51

This Court must conclude that if renewal of the Recognition is granted/ renewed from now on, the students with the petitioner will pursue education in different classes. When heard in the light of the afore opinion, Mrs. Sukanya Baliga submits that this Court may dispose of the petition directing the third respondent to consider the material that the petitioner can once again submit in continuation of the reply that is received on 25.04.2025. Mr. Fayaz Sab is categorical that another set of all documents to show complete compliance would be furnished before 11.06.2025.

¶52

7 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:19006 WP No. 15313 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

7. The petitioner must obviously be at liberty

¶56

to produce such documents and this Court must call upon the third respondent [the competent authority] to consider the question of renewal of Recognition to consider the material placed without being pedantic. If the third respondent applies mind without a pedantic approach that should help the cause of the students who are pursuing education with the petitioner's institution, and such a decision must be at the earliest because it is stated that the admissions will have to be approved subject to recognition by the end of this month. In the light of afore, the following:

¶57

ORDER

¶58

[A] The petition is disposed of reserving liberty

¶59

to the petitioner, in continuation of its reply as per Annexure-J, to furnish all documents including further documents

¶60

8 -

¶61

NC: 2025:KHC:19006 WP No. 15313 of 2025

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

before 11.06.2025 without waiting for a

¶64

certified copy of this order.

¶65

[B] The third respondent is also called upon to consider such material and communicate the decision on renewal of Recognition to the petitioner by 20.06.2025 without insisting for a certified copy of this order.

¶66

SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶67

SA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45

Rashreeya Vidya Peeta (Reg) v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rashreeya Vidya Peeta (Reg) v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ebenezer Premkumar Vs Eva Judy

Louis Berger Consulting Pvt. Ltd. Vs Wadia Techno-Engineering Services Ltd.

M/S Ruchira Projects Private Limited Vs Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Sadashivanagar Youth Association Vs Income Tax Officer

M/S. N D Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sri. Rangappa

Diverse Retails Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka