Dismissed

Geeta Senior Secondary School v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Feb 2011CWP/13785/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ten writ petitions filed by schools sought quashing of orders denying permanent recognition and withdrawing temporary recognition. The court held petitions infructuous as the Education Department granted one more opportunity to fulfill norms and provisional affiliation for session 2010-11.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions disposed of as infructuous; respondents directed to pass appropriate orders.

Geeta Senior Secondary School Vs State of… — Education and Admissions | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

CWP No.7072 of 2010 (O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

1. CWP No.7072 of 2010 (O&M)

¶4

Haryana Vidya Mandir, District Ambala, Haryana

¶5

....Petitioner

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

State of Haryana and others

¶8

....Respondents

¶9

2. CWP No.8884 of 2010 (O&M)

¶10

S.D.High School and another

¶11

....Petitioner

¶12

VERSUS

¶13

State of Haryana and others

¶14

....Respondents

¶15

3. CWP No.9224 of 2010 (O&M)

¶16

Adarsh Senior Secondary School

¶17

....Petitioner

¶18

VERSUS

¶19

State of Haryana and others

¶20

....Respondents

¶21

4. CWP No.13785 of 2010 (O&M)

¶22

Geeta Senior Secondary School

¶23

....Petitioner

¶24

VERSUS

¶25

State of Haryana and others

¶26

....Respondents

¶27

CWP No.7072 of 2010 (O&M) 2

¶28

5. CWP No.9230 of 2010 (O&M)

National High School

....Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana and others

¶33

....Respondents

¶34

6. CWP No.15981 of 2010 (O&M)

¶35

Maharaja Aggarsain Sr. Sec. School

¶36

....Petitioner

¶37

VERSUS

¶38

State of Haryana and others

¶39

....Respondents

¶40

7. CWP No.9231 of 2010 (O&M)

Star Way High School

....Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana and others

¶45

....Respondents

¶46

8. CWP No.9330 of 2010 (O&M)

¶47

Swarn Vidya Mandir High School

¶48

....Petitioner

¶49

VERSUS

¶50

State of Haryana and others

¶51

....Respondents

¶52

9. CWP No.9392 of 2010 (O&M)

¶53

Vishav Samta High School

¶54

....Petitioner

¶55

VERSUS

¶56

State of Haryana and others

¶57

....Respondents

¶58

CWP No.7072 of 2010 (O&M) 3

¶59

10. CWP No.9393 of 2009 (O&M)

¶60

Nav Gyan Jyoti Senior Secondary School

¶61

....Petitioner

¶62

VERSUS

¶63

State of Haryana and others

¶64

....Respondents

¶65

Decided on : 07-02-2011

¶66

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

¶67

Present:Mr.Rahul Sharma and Mr. Jitender Nara , Advocates for the petitioners

¶68

Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana

¶69

Mr. D.K.Khanna, Advocate for respondent no.2.

¶70

MAHESH GROVER, J

¶71

This order will dispose of 10 writ petitions bearing nos. 7072 of 2010, 8884 of 2010, 9224 of2010, 13785 of 2010, 9230 of 2010, 15981 of2010, 9231 of 2010, 9330 of 2010, 9392 of 2010 and 9393 of 2009 .

¶72

The petitioners-Schools pray for quashing of orders impugned in each writ petition, by virtue of which the petitioners- schools were denied permanent recognition and the temporary recognition/permission already granted to them to run classes of 9^th and 10^th standards stood withdrawn with immediate effect and further application for permanent recognition was rejected.

¶73

The reason for declining this permission to the petitioners was given in the paragraph preceding the conclusive decision and which said that the District Level Committee constituted by the Haryana Government vide notification dated 21.2.2009 has been instructed to inspect the classes

¶74

CWP No.7072 of 2010 (O&M) 4

¶75

already in existence before 31.3.2007 and which list has been sent to the said committee, to dispose of all the cases relating to permanent recognition of schools and since the Committee found that the schools are not complying with the terms and conditions laid down for permanent recognition their plea was rejected. The petitioners pleaded that the norms laid down under Haryana School Education Rules,2003 were arbitrary as they did not draw distinction between the schools recognized under the Haryana Education Code and the Schools recognized under Haryana School Education Rules,2003. They placed reliance on Rule 38 of Haryana School Education Rules,2003 as amended to plead that all existing recognized and deemed recognized schools running before 30.4.2003 were now not required to seek fresh recognition or no objection certificate from the Department and that these schools were only required to submit returns regarding their land and building. Rule 38 is extracted herebelow:-

¶76

“ 38. No fresh recognition – Section 3 and 24(2)

¶77

(a), (b) and (d), - Existing recognized/deemed recognized schools running before 30^th April, 2003 shall not have to seek any fresh recognition or No Objection Certificate from the Department. However, they shall have to submit their land and building in the Form as specified by the Department for record purposes within six months from the date of notification of these rules in the Official Gazette.”

¶78

Upon notice having been issued the respondents have filed their replies. Of importance is the reply submitted by the Haryana School Education Board – respondent no.2 which has stated in para no.4 as follows:-

¶79

CWP No.7072 of 2010 (O&M) 5

¶80

That the Commissioner and Secretary, Education Department, Haryana vide his memo no. 8/34-08PS(3) dated 18.5.2010 has intimated that the Haryana Education Department has decided to grant one more opportunity to such existing schools to fulfill the norms whose cases have been rejected by District Level Committee and also to allow provisional Affiliation to the schools with Haryana Board of School Education, Bhiwani for the academic Session 2010-11. In view of the decision taken by the Education Department, Haryana the schools whose cases have been rejected by the District Level Committee have been allowed provisional Affiliation by the Board of School Education for the current academic year 2010-11. In view of it, the present writ petition has become infructuous.”

¶81

This satisfies the learned counsel for the petitioners' who states that in view of the fact that provisional affiliation has been granted to the petitioners for the current year 2010-2011 and the Education Department has allowed one more opportunity to the existing schools to fulfill the norms, all the instant petitions have been rendered infructuous and the same may be disposed of as such.

¶82

At this stage, both the learned counsel for the State of Haryana and the Board have expressed their apprehension that the petitioners will not comply with the norms for the ensuing session after 2010-11 and would continue to admit students thereby jeopardizing their future. They have pleaded that the petitioners should be directed to desist from admitting more students till the time they comply with the norms.

¶83

CWP No.7072 of 2010 (O&M) 6

¶84

Learned counsel for the petitioners then referred to a decision rendered in CWP No.15042 of 2009 decided on 11.8.2010 wherein this Court while dealing with the cases of similar schools, had concluded as follows:-

¶85

“The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider this aspect and see if any of the School, which is part of the petitioner Association and has come up after 2003 and is required to apply fresh for recognition or not. In case they are pre-existing schools prior to the advent of these Rules, they apparently would be exempted from seeking recognition and appropriate order accordingly be passed.”

¶86

The respondent, therefore are required to pass appropriate orders in view of the observations made by this Court and they would be thus free to evaluate the cases of the petitioners on the lines of what has been observed in the aforesaid judgment. The writ petitions are therefore disposed of as having rendered infructuous and in terms of the observations made above.

¶87

February 07 , 2011 rekha

¶88

(Mahesh Grover) Judge

Geeta Senior Secondary School v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geeta Senior Secondary School v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kavita Kumari and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Manju Vs State of Haryana and Others

Brijesh Sharma Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Iqbal Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Maharaja Aggarsain Sr. Sec. School Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Tara Chand and Anr. Vs Maharshi Dayanand Uni, Rohtak and Ors.