AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.—The petitioner society is running an Educational Institution namely Dr. Ambedkar, Higher Secondary School, Motipur, Tehsil Motipur, District Rajnandgaon (CG). Respondent No. 4 i.e. District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, issued the impugned order dated 12.2.2004 (Annexure-P/2) against the petitioner-society stating therein that on account of certain irregularities committed by the Institution, the recognition of the Institution is being withdrawn after completion of Education Session 2003-2004. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the said order on two grounds, i.e. the facts relating irregularities committed by the Institution are wrong and no opportunity of hearing has been granted to the petitioner before passing the said order.
Even after giving many opportunities, the State and other respondents, except respondent No. 5 have not filed their return Respondent No. 5 has contended that according to the provisions of Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal (Maniyata) Viniyam, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations 1994) such action can be taken by the concerned authority of the State. However nothing has been pleaded with regard to show that any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioned before passing the impugned order and the impugned order was passed by the Board.
Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argued that the impugned order has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing the petitioner. He referred to the provisions of rule 32 contained in M.P. & C.G. Shiksha Sanhita.
On the other hand, Mr. H.B. Agarwal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 5 & & Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State/respondents 1 to 4, opposed these arguments and supported the impugned order passed by the district Education Officer.
I have heard the learned counsel for the partied at length and have also perused the records of the writ petition.
Rule 32 of M.P. & C.G. Shiksha Sanhita deals with the provisions for Recognition. Clause 13 to Clause 18 of this Rule deal with the relevant provisions relating to de-recognition of an Educational Institution. They are quoted as under:
If the Head of the Education Department is of opinion that any Institution recognized by the Board has by reason of deterioration ceased to meet the requirements of the Board, he shall make a report of the same to the Board. On receipt of this report, the Board may institute such enquiry as it thinks fit, the report of the enquiry will be submitted to the Board which will take it into consideration as its next meeting and inform the institution of its decision through the Head of the Education Department.
In any case in which the Board may decide that action is necessary upon the report, it will first call upon the institution, through the Head of the Education Department to show cause why such action should not be taken.
No action shall be taken by the Board on any report by the Head of Education Department without first giving the institution concerned an opportunity of making any representation it may wish to make, through the Head of the Education Department, to the Board.
The Board shall, if satisfied that the institution is no longer fit for the recognition, direct the secretary to issue a warning to the Government Body, through the Head of the Education Department that unless within a period fixed by the Board the institution removed the defect or defects, to which attention has been called, it will be struck off the list of recognized institutions, or that recognition will be withdrawn in one or more optional subjects. The Board shall have power to extend from to time the period to fixed.
If within the time fixed by the Board or within such further time as may be allowed by it, the institution fails to satisfy the Board that it is conforming to its requirements the Board shall strike the institutions of the list of recognized institutions, or shall withdraw recognition in one or more optional subject''s.
The Board may, at to subsequent date after report by such person or persons as it deems fit, reinstate an institution on the list of recognized institutions, or if recognition was withdrawn in one or more optional subject, restore to it the privilege of preparing candidates therein.
Clause 19 of the Regulation 1994 dealing with the provisions of derecognition reads as under:-
A perusal of the provisions quoted (supra) make it clear that the recognition of an Educational Institution can be withdrawn in the manner indicated above and a due opportunity of hearing has to be given to the concerned Institution after giving it show cause notice after considering the reply submitted by the Institution, if any, in this regard.
It is a settled principle of law that if a particular provision has been enacted by the Legislature for doing a particular act, in a particular manner, the said act shall be done in accordance with the particular provisions meant for it and not by any other strange device for the same, because in that situation any such act which goes against the specified provision would be without authority of law because the law has provided an authority for it.
In present case, no record has been brought by the respondents to show that either the action was taken under the aforesaid provisions or it was taken by the Board. The impugned order has been signed by the District Education Officer and it only contains an endorsement as
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the impugned order has been passed without following the principles of natural justice as also the procedure laid down for the same. Therefore, the impugned order has to be quashed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.2.2004 (Annexure-P/12) is quashed. However, it shall be open to the concerned authorities that if so advised, they may initiate appropriate proceeding in accordance with law for de-recognition of the petitioner''s Institution. There shall be no order as to cost.