High Court of Bombay

Annapurnadevi Vidya Prasarak Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

MANU/MH/0403/2018

06.03.2018

Education

If the decision of Government granting permission to start new school is contrary to the rules and against principles of natural justice, permission granted by State can be cancelled

The petition is filed under Articles 14, 19 (1)(g) and 226 of Constitution of India for relief of quashing and setting aside the permission granted by Respondent No. 1, the State to Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to start the Junior College, 11th Standard Science and also for preventing the Government from giving such permission. It is contended that, the permission granted on 22nd January, 2013 is illegal.

The procedure has been laid down in Secondary School Code for obtaining permission to start new college or school. In Section 1 at clause 2.1 from Chapter 2, the procedure is given for submitting proposal and it shows that, the proposal needs to be sent to reach the Education Officer before 30th October in the year preceding the year which the school is proposed to be started. With every proposal the fees prescribed in this clause needs to be deposited. Clause 2.12 shows that, the application for obtaining permission to start secondary/higher secondary school will be considered only for that year and the application will not be considered next year or the application will not be kept on waiting list. It provides that, the application along with the fee will automatically extinguish. Clause 2.13 shows that, in no case the school should be started unless the written previous permission of the Government is obtained. However, it also provides that, school started without such permission shall not ordinarily be considered for permission.

Present Court had an occasion to consider the provisions of Secondary School Code in Annaji Raut Shikshan Sanstha, Umri and Anr. v. Secretary, Department of Education and Employment, Bombay and ors. This Court has laid down that if the decision of the Government granting permission to start new school was illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the rules and against principles of natural justice, permission granted by the State can be cancelled. When some procedure is prescribed for obtaining permission and the opinion of the authority which is required to study the ground reality is required to be considered, the State Government cannot go away from that procedure. In the present matter, the aforesaid circumstances show that, due to the influence of M.L.A. and also due to the circumstance that the President of Respondent No. 5 and 6 institution was a member of Zilla Parishad and he was also ruling party worker, such steps were taken by the State Government. Due to the aforesaid circumstances, Present Court holds that the petition needs to be allowed and the relief as claimed by the petitioner needs to be granted.

The decision of the Government granting permission to Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to start 11th standard science division with effect from academic year 2011-12 stands quashed and set aside. The students who are admitted in said division are to be transferred to the nearest school as per the convenience of the students and care of those students is to be taken to see that they do not suffer in their academic year or in facing examinations of that standard. It will be open to Respondent Nos. 5 to 6 to approach the Government again and if the due procedure is followed, the Government will be entitled to consider the new proposal for future. The petition is allowed.

Relevant

Annaji Raut Shikshan Sanstha, Umri and another vs. Secretary, Department of Education and Employment, Bombay and others MANU/MH/1452/2001

Tags : Permission Grant Validity

Share :