Quashed

M.C.of Maa Ambika Harijana Adivasi Residential Sikhya Seva Shrama v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC17 Nov 2016WP(C)/16883/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order withdrawing recognition of a school because it merely communicated the Resolutions and Grievances Committee's resolution without providing the requisite procedure for objection or a final decision by the Board as mandated by regulations.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the order dated 15.07.2015 withdrawing recognition of the school.

15. 17.11.2016 The petitioners institution by filing this writ application se eks quashment of an order dated 15.07.2015 passed by the opposite party no.4 as communicated b y opposite party no.5 under Annexure-10 as regards withdrawal of the recognition of the school and also for a direction to opposite party nos. 4 and 5 for renewal of the recognition of the institution in view of the compliance of the requirements.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners referring to Annexure-8 contends t hat it has been merely reflected there in that the enquiry report and recommendation of the Di strict Education Officer, opposite party no.3 having been taken into consideration, the R. and G. Committee of the Board in its meeting has taken a decision for withdrawal of the recogniti on of the school from the academic session 2013-2014. Placing regulation-14 of the Board of Se condary Education Regulations, he contends that the course adopted in the matter is contrary t o the same. Moreover, the R. & G. Committee of the Board before taking any decision in the mat ter of withdrawal of recognition ought to have given the opportunities to the petitioners-inst itution to have their say in the matter for necessary consideration not only with regard to th e deficiencies as pointed out by opposite party no.3 but also with regard to the ratification, if any, in the meantime. Therefore, he submits that the order under Annexure-10 is liable to be quashed.

3. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.4 submits that on the earlie r occasion in W.P.(C) No. 2192 of 2015, this Court having observed that the withdrawal of the recognition would arise on the face of the recommendation made by the opposite party no.3 unl ess those are complied with, the opposite party no.4 having acted upon the said recommendation in the absence of any material being placed as regards to the compliance of the conditions st ipulated therein, the action of opposite party no.4 vide Annexure-10 has to be held just and p roper.

4. Chapter -IX of the Board of Secondary Education Regulations deals wit h recognition of the institution by the Board. Regulation-14 provides that the Director or any two members of the Board may bring forward the proposal regarding deprivation of the recognit ion of the school either in whole or part and in that event the R. and G. Committee of the Boa rd after affording the Managing authorities of the school, all reasonable facilities for stati ng its objections to the proposal would consider the same and having taken a decision to that regard would transmit a copy of the proceeding along with a copy of the representation, if so given to the Board for consideration of the proposal in taking the final decision in the matt er. Even the next regulation i.e. regulation 15 further provides that when recognition has be en withdrawn, it can be so restored upon an application made by the managing authorities of th e school if the Board arrives at a satisfaction that the defects which led to the withdrawal o f recognition have been fully removed and the institution has become fit for recognition.

For proper appreciation, the communication with regard to the withdraw al of recognition made by opposite party no.5 which is said to be the only communication that the petitioners institution has received in the matter of withdrawal of the recognition from o pposite party no.4 is reproduced herein below:-

Taking into consideration of the enquiry report and recommendation of the D.E.O., Jagatsinghpur the R&G Committee of the Board has resolved in its meeting held on 0 2.02.2015 to withdrawal your School recognition from the academic Session 2013/14. This is for your information and necessary action.

A simple reading being given to the same, this Court is not in a posit ion to conclude that said decision has been taken in consonance with the Regulation-14. Moreo ver, when the regulation reads that the Board is to take the decision after considering the re solution of its R. and G. Committee, after going through all other material in support of such resolution including the objection, if any, this order under Annexure-10 as communicated does not appear to be the decision of the Board, the opposite party no.4. Rather it is found from Annexure-10 that merely the resolution of the R. and G. Committee of the Board for withdrawal of the recognition of the school from the academic session 2013-14 being received, has been so communicated to the petitioners. Thus, the opposite party no.4, Board appears have abdicated its power as envisaged in the regulation in favour of the R. & G. Committee, as if the resolut ion of the R. & G. Committee is final in the matter. This is wholly contrary to the regulation itself.

For the aforesaid discussion and reasons, the said order of withdrawal of recognition of Maa Ambika Harijana Adivasi Residential Sikhya Seva Sharma at Sidhal in the district of Jagatsighpur as communicated under Annexure-10 is hereby quashed. No order as to cost.

M.C.of Maa Ambika Harijana Adivasi Residential Sikhya Seva Shrama v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.C.of Maa Ambika Harijana Adivasi Residential Sikhya Seva Shrama v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar Mahapatra Vs State of Odisha

Nalini Kanta Jena Vs State of Odisha

Laxmidhar Nayak Vs Orissa Agro Industri

Dhani @D.Parida Vs Bansidhar Parida

Satabdi Bastia Vs Controller of Examination

Janaki Ghadei Vs Bansihdar Martha