Single judge allowed the petitioner's plea that the 1993 Rules were inapplicable but dismissed the writ petition holding the school did not fulfill the requirements of the 1993 Rules.
Writ petition dismissed as school failed to fulfill requirements of 1993 Rules.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8990 of 2004
====================================================== Mahesha Nand Jha son of late Basuki Nath Jha, resident of villageManikpur, P.S.-Tarapur, District Munger, at present Secretary, Managing Committee Ratneshwar Jha Sanskrit Prathmik-Sah- Madhya Vidyalaya Kashba, P.S. Tarapur, District- Munger. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1.The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2.The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Secondary, Primary and Adult Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3.The Special Director, Department of Secondary Education (Sanskrit), Bihar, Patna. 4.The Joint Secretary, Department of Secondary Education (Sanskrit),Government of Bihar, Patna. 5.The Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna through its Chairman. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Durganand Jha Mrs. Shashi Priya Pathak. For the State : Mr.Devendra Kumar Sinha, AAG-2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH ORAL ORDER 9 06-12-2012 The petitioner is the Secretary of Ratneshwar Jha Sanskrit Prathmik-Sah- Madhya Vidyalaya Kashba, Police Station-Tarapur, District- Munger. He is aggrieved by the action of the State by which the State- Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board has refused to recognize the said institution. The facts are not in dispute. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and with their consent this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. The petitioner claims that this Sanskrit School was
Patna High Court CWJC No.8990 of 2004 (9) dt.06-12-2012
2
established in 1978. It had been seeking recognization from the State Government. By Annexure 1, dated 19.11.1991 the recognization was rejected on the ground that the proposed school did not confirm to the conditions of recognization and as such recognization was rejected. The petitioner challenged the same before this Court in C.W.J.C.No. 1708 of 1992, which was disposed of on 13.7.1993 (Annexure 2).The Division Bench of this Court held that the order (Annexure 2), being a cryptic order, could not be sustained. This Court noticed that there were Rules /Regulations being statutory framed for grant of recognization or otherwise and as such , such an order could not be passed. Court then noticed the decision of this Court dated 4.5.1993 passed in another writ petition being C.W.J.C.No. 12125 of 1992 wherein it had categorically been ordered that the State would be obliged to frame rules and upon rules being framed, the matter of recognization of proposed school would be taken up in accordance with the rules. The Division Bench, while disposing of the writ petition, disposed it of in the said terms of the judgment. Thus, the direction of the Division Bench was to consider the matter of recognization of petitioner’ proposed Sanskrit School in accordance with the rules that was to be framed. It is not in dispute that in 1993 Bihar Non- Government Sanskrit School
Patna High Court CWJC No.8990 of 2004 (9) dt.06-12-2012
3
(Recognization and Conditions) Rules, 1993 were framed. Those rules have came into force. As the petitioner’s case was not being considered for grant of recognization, the petitioner filed present writ petition. By order dated 8.5.2006 once again the matter of recognization of petitioner’s proposed school was rejected by the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board on ground of non payment of fee of Rs. 1000/-, as contemplated under Rule 5(1) of 1993 Rules. The said order is contained in Annexure 8. In this writ petition, this order being produced before the Court.This Court by order dated 10.7.2006 ordered Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board to reconsider the matter without insisting on the fee and place the inspection report before this Court within two weeks. Accordingly the inspection report has been brought on record. In the counter affidavit, as contained in Annexure- A/5, being the inspection report dated 18.7.2006. In this case it is pointed out that the school does not comply with the condition, as specified in 1993 Rules and the notification of the government dated 18.6.1994 issued there under and as such no recommendation for recognization has been made. Thus, virtually the fate of the petitioner’s school stands closed so far as recognization matter is concerned.
Shri Durganand Jha, learned counsel in support of the writ petition submits that the authorities erred in applying 1993 Rules
Patna High Court CWJC No.8990 of 2004 (9) dt.06-12-2012
4
in respect of the petitioner, whose case was to be considered much prior to that. He further submits that under 1981 Rules, these conditions were not available and had the authorities acted in due time due the validity of 1981 Rules, then recognization would have been granted. In that view of the matter, he submits that sub rule 5 of Rule, 1993 provides that in matter of recognization inspection shall be conducted by a local officer and report sent to the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board for further action.
Sri Devendra Kumar Sinha, learned Senior Counsel and A.A.G-2 opposes the writ petition .
So far as first issue is concerned, in my view, the position, as submitted by the petitioner with regard to applicability of 1981 Rules is untenable for the simple reason that they had come to this Court and on the very first occasion the writ petition was disposed of by order as contained in Annexure 1 .The said order clearly directed that upon making of new rules the question of recognition would be considered and order passed. This order also shows that earlier there were no rules or regulations laying down. In the case of petitioner itself it was directed that upon rules being framed with regard to recognition, petitioner’s case would be considered. Thus it meant that once 1993 rules were made , the petitioner’s case has to be judged by the said rules. There cannot be any view
Patna High Court CWJC No.8990 of 2004 (9) dt.06-12-2012
5
possible. Thus, it cannot be disputed that the petitioner’s case for grant of recognition had to be decided in accordance with newly framed rules. The inspection report, which is in accordance with 1993 Rules ,is Annexure-A/5. The petitioner has not controverted the fact, as noted therein. That being so, it is clear that the school does not fulfil the requirements of 1993 rules. Be that as it may, Shri Jha, then contended that this, in view of the report , is invalid inasmuch as it has been submitted by a person who is not authorized in terms of rule 5(2). I am not impressed. If the facts stated therein are not controverted then on the facts, as found, the question of grant of recognition in accordance with rule 1993 does not arises. That being so, in my view, no relief can be granted to he petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed.
(Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)
singh/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioner's school is entitled to recognition under 1981 Rules rather than the 1993 Rules?
Whether the school meets the recognition criteria set by the 1993 Rules?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Mahesha Nand Jha
State Of Bihar
Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board
Navaniti Prasad Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
