Lbs Convent School Vs Central Board of Secondary Education

[2025:RJ-JP:16723]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17060/2024

Shiv Jyoti Convent Senior Secondary School, Rathkankara, Kota represented through Mahesh Gupta S/o Shri Ramesh Chand Gupta, aged about 60 Years, Resident of Royal Artena, Pratap Nagar, Kota.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Central Board of Secondary Education, (Autonomous Organization under the Ministry of Education, Government of India), Preet Vihar, Delhi represented through Secretary, Central Board of Secondary Education.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17067/2024

¶11

LBS Convent School, IPD-2, RIICO Institutional Area, Ranpur, Kota, Represented Through Manager Abhishek Mathur S/o Shri Kishore Mathur, aged about 40 Years, Resident of 1 P 24 Talwandi, Kota.

¶12

----Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

Central Board of Secondary Education, (Autonomous Organization under the Ministry of Education, Government Of India), Preet Vihar, Delhi represented Through Secretary, Central Board of Secondary Education.

¶15

----Respondent

¶16

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17068/2024

¶17

The Lord Buddha Public School, I.P.D. - 8, Institutional Area, Riico Ranpur, Kota, Represented Mayur Saxena S/o Shri Dinesh Kumar, Aged About 34 Years, Resident of House No. 318, Kishorepura Kota.

¶18

----Petitioner

¶19

Versus

¶20

Central Board of Secondary Education, (Autonomous Organization under the Ministry of Education, Government Of India), Preet Vihar, Delhi, represented through Secretary, Central Board of Secondary Education.

¶21

[2025:RJ-JP:16723]		(2 of 7) [CW-17060/2024] ----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr.	R.B. Mathur-Sr. Advocate Yug Singh Falak Mathur Manish Bhodiwal Nikhil Simlote Salim Khan Gori Divyansh Mathur
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mr.	M.S. Raghav with Vishwas Saini

¶22

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶23

Order

¶24

21/04/2025

¶25

Since common question of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions, hence with the consent of counsel for the parties, arguments have been heard together and the same are being decided by this common order.

¶26

For the sake of convenience, the facts and prayer mentioned in the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17060/2024 is taken into consideration.

¶27

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with

¶28

the following prayer:-

¶29

“i. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order of penalty dated 29/30.10.2024 passed by the Respondent may kindly be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice.

¶30

ii. Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in favour of the petitioner may also be passed. iii. Cost of this writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.”

¶31

By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to

¶32

the impugned order dated 30.10.2024 passed by the Central Board of Secondary Education (for short, ‘the CBSE’) by which the

[2025:RJ-JP:16723]

[CW-17060/2024]

(3 of 7)

penalties mentioned below were imposed against the petitionersSchools.

¶37

i. The Provisional Affiliation granted to the school upto Senior Secondary Level be withdrawn with immediate effect.

¶38

ii. Student in class X and XII are permitted to appear from the same school for Academic Session 2024-25.

¶39

iii. However, the students who are presently in class IX and XI shall be shifted to nearby school by Regional Officer, CBSE Ajmer. The school shall not take any new admissions or promote the students of lower classes in IX and XI by natural progression, hereafter

¶40

iv. The school may seek restoration of affiliation upto Secondary Level after lapse of one academic year from 2026-27, after ameliorating the deficiencies pointed out with regard to running upto Secondary Level.

¶41

v. The school may seek restoration of affiliation upto Senior Secondary Level only at least after 02 academic years of restoration upto Secondary Level, if so sought and granted. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a sudden surprise inspection of the petitioner-schools was conducted by the inspecting team and it was alleged that on inspection, students were not found in the schools and several irregularities were there in the daily affairs of the schools. Counsel submits that in the case of petitioner- Shiv Jyoti Convent Sr. Sec. School, the inspection was done on 03.09.2024 and the mid term examination of the students of the Class XI and XII were commencing from 04.09.2024, thus the preparatory leave was granted to the students for preparation of the examination, hence all the

[2025:RJ-JP:16723]

[CW-17060/2024]

(4 of 7)

students of Class XI and XII were not present in the class rooms when the said inspection was done. Counsel submits that as per Clause 11.4 of the CBSE Affiliation Byelaws-2018 framed by the CBSE, a sudden surprise inspection can be conducted and the procedure for the same has been mentioned in Clause 11.7. Counsel submits that as per Clause 11.7.12, videography is an important aspect of the inspection. The member of Inspection Committee shall ensure that complete process including the infrastructure, classrooms, laboratories, playgrounds, boundary wall, aerial view, etc. are covered in the Videography and the same can be uploaded/ sent in the manner, as described by the Board. Counsel submits that in the instant case, no videography was conducted by the inspecting team, while on the contrary, the petitioners-Schools called certain students from the hostel and in all 18 students from the different stream i.e. Arts, Commerce and Science were present before the inspecting team in their respective classes. Counsel submits that the entire exercise was recorded in the cameras installed in the campus of the petitionerschool and the photographs in this regard have been placed on record before this Court and the same was also produced before the respondent along with reply submitted to the show cause notice. Counsel submits that the inspection report is faulty and as per the inspection report, total strength of students of Class IX were 90 and on inspection only 76 students were found. Counsel submits that on the contrary, in the report prepared by the inspection team, it was stated that at the time of inspection of Class IX and X the presence of 50% students was shown. Counsel submits that a contradictory inspection report has been submitted

[2025:RJ-JP:16723]

[CW-17060/2024]

(5 of 7)

by the same inspecting team which creates doubt on the entire inspection report prepared by them and the said report does not bear any signature of the persons who inspected the premises which also creates doubt about the genuineness of the same. Counsel submits that after the inspection was carried out by the inspecting team of CBSE, the entire inspection process was conducted by the State Authority in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Education Act. During this process, the presence of certain students was shown, hence, there is no basis of the allegations levelled against the petitioner-school that dummy admissions had been shown in the school’s records. Counsel submits that as per the guidelines of the CBSE a lessor penalty could have been imposed but in the instant case, maximum and severe penalties have been imposed by which the affiliation of the entire school has been withdrawn and cancelled, hence interference of this Court is warranted.

¶50

Per contra, counsel for the respondent-CBSE opposes the prayer and submits that sudden surprise inspections of several schools of the State of Rajasthan and other States of nation were conducted by the inspecting team of the CBSE and almost in all those schools, the students were not found on the day of inspection which reveals that dummy admissions were given to the students, who were in fact preparing for any other competitive examination at different coaching centres. Counsel submits that a complete procedure was followed at the time of inspection of the premises of the petitioners-schools and even videography was conducted. Counsel submits that at the time of inspection, no cogent document/ evidence was produced by the petitioner in

[2025:RJ-JP:16723]

[CW-17060/2024]

(6 of 7)

support of their defence, which reveals that the inspection conducted by the inspecting team was genuine and perfect and on the basis of the same and considering the reply to the show cause notice, the order impugned has been passed by the CBSE, which requires no interference of this Court and lastly, counsel argued that as per Clause 13.10 of the Bye-laws, 2018, the school may send a representation against the order of the Board imposing any kind of penalty and in case, such representation is submitted by the school authorities, the same would be decided by the Board, after affording them opportunity of hearing. But, in the instant case, without availing the alternative remedy, all the petitionerSchools have been approached this Court straightway, hence, on this count alone, the writ petitions are liable to be rejected and the petitioners-Schools may be relegated to avail the remedy of filing representations before the Board. 7. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 8. Perusal of the record as well as the arguments raised by counsel for the rival sides indicate that several versions and cross versions have been made against the sudden inspections conducted by the CBSE inspecting team. This Court is not going into the matter to the extent of examining the correctness of the allegations and the defence taken by the school authorities. Looking to the provisions contained under Clause 13.10, of the Bye-laws, 2018, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of all these writ petitions by granting liberty to the petitionersschools to approach the CBSE by way of filing representations along with all the documents available with them in their defence.

¶55

[2025:RJ-JP:16723]

¶56

[CW-17060/2024]

¶57

In case, the petitioners-school approach the respondent-CBSE Board within a period of two weeks from today, it is expected from the respondent-Board to decide their representations expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks considering the interest of the students.

¶58

With the aforesaid observations, all these writ petitions stand disposed of.

¶59

It is made clear that till disposal of the representations, the respondents would not shift the students of the petitioners-schools to any other institutions.

¶60

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶61

Ashu/244-246

Lbs Convent School v. Central Board of Secondary Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lbs Convent School v. Central Board of Secondary Education

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

Shrawan S/O Late Jagdish Vs Smt. Gulab Devi W/O Late Jagdish

M/S Pinkcity Packaging Pvt. Ltd. Vs Unity Small Finance Bank

Nanagram S/O Barda Vs Pokharlal

Shiv Jyoti Convent Senior Secondary School Vs Central Board of Secondary Education

Satyanarayan Jangir S/O Shri Laxmi Narayan Jangir Vs State of Rajasthan

Fateh Chand Mahatma S/O Shri Devi Chand Vs the State of Rajasthan