Raja Rajeswari Vidya Peetha vs Secretary II, Govt. of Karnataka

B. Veerappa, J. - The petitioner-Society is before this Court for issue of writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 21.10.2014 bearing No. ED 268 PMC/2014 passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-F, 17.11.2014 bearing No.C7(4) Pra.She.A/Ma.Radhu 01/2013-14 issued by respondent No.2 Annexure-G and 26.11.2014 bearing No.Le.Sha.6/Kha.Pra.Sha/duru/2013-14 passed by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-H and to direct the respondents to continue the recognition to the Higher Primary School administered by the petitioner-Management called ''Sri Raja Rajeswari Higher Primary School, Channagiri'' in future.

It is the case of the petitioner that it is a Society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 with an object of imparting education in the rural area of Shimoga District earlier now Davangere District under registration dated 19.7.1988 and the petitioner-Society has obtained the permission from the Department to commence the Kannada Medium Higher Primary School after providing basic infrastructure facilities needed to establish the primary school at Channagiri for the academic year 1989-90 and the petitioner-Society is running the Kannada Medium School in the name called ''Sri Raja Rajeswari Higher Primary School, Channagiri'' for the academic year 1989-90 and has obtained necessary periodical recognition from 1989 till 6.12.2014 as required under the provisions of Section 38 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983.

While recommending recognition periodically, the respondents have assessed the suitability, eligibility, academic excellence and the infrastructure provided by the Management to run the Higher Primary School. It is the further case of the petitioner-Society that after having noticed the eligible staff required to impart the education have appointed the teaching and non-teaching staff in the Higher Primary School and after following the procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Recruitment and Terms and Conditions of Employees in Private Aided Primary and Secondary Educational Institutions) Rules, 1999, has proceeded to approve the appointment of four Assistant Teachers. Thereafter, 1st responding on 11.11.2008 noticing the infrastructure provided by the Management to run Kannada Medium Higher Primary School has proceeded to admit the primary school for salary aid, a copy of which is marked as Annexure-C. The petitioner-Society has purchased an extent of 0.30 3A guntas of converted land situated at Chennagiri for the purpose of establishment of School Building, Staff Room, Laboratory, Playground, etc., under the registered sale deed dated 13.3.1998 executed by Sri. G.R. Gopal and family members in favour of the President of the Society, a copy of which is marked as Annexure-D.

The petitioner-Society constructed the school building comprising of the required five class rooms, staff room, laboratory, toilets/bath rooms and play ground, but ignoring all the above relevant materials showing that the petitioner-society is running the Kannada Medium Higher Primary School up to VII Standard, without any hindrance have taken steps to de-recognise the Kannada Medium Higher Primary School located at Channagiri on the ground that the petitioner has not provided infrastructure needed in this regard, respondent No.1 has proceeded to pass the impugned order cancelling the recognition to run the Kannada Medium Higher Primary School without giving notice and opportunity to the petitioner vide Annexure-F. Accordingly, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have proceeded to pass the consequential order in pursuance of the order passed by the State Government vide Annexures-G and H. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court for the relief sought for.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis.

Sri. M.V. Hiremath, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned orders passed by the respondents, cancelling recognition of the petitioner which is run for a period of more than 24 years, are without notice and without affording an opportunity to the petitioner which is unjust, arbitrary and is in utter violation of the principles of natural justice and hence are liable to be quashed.

He further contended that the material documents produced as per Annexures-A to E clearly depicts that petitioner-Society has provided all the basic infrastructures like school building, staff room, laboratory, toilets and bath-rooms, play ground, etc., though, without considering the same, the 1st respondent has taken unilateral decision for cancellation of the recognition of the petitioner without mentioning the reason on whose complaint such an action is initiated which is contrary to the provisions of Section 38 of the Karnataka Education Act. Therefore, he sought to set aside the orders passed by the respondents.

Per contra, Smt. Pramodhini Kishan, learned HCGP appearing for the respondents on instructions submits that during the pendency of this proceeding, this Court by an interim order dated 19.12.2014 while issuing notice to the respondents, granted an interim order as prayed for with an observation that the petitioner-institution shall endeavour to secure all infrastructures to be kept ready which shall be inspected notwithstanding the pendency of this petition. Therefore, in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court, the jurisdiction Block Education Officer-respondent No.4 conducted the spot inspection on 6.8.2016 and submitted the report to the Deputy Director of Public Instructions stating that the petitioner-Management has provided all the infrastructs as required. However, the dispute with regard to title of the land is pending adjudication. Therefore, she submits that the matter requires reconsideration by the Deputy Director of Public Instructions-respondent No.3.

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned Counsel for the parties, the points that arise for consideration are :

Whether the impugned orders passed by the 1st respondent and the consequential orders passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are in accordance with law ? and

Whether the petitioner has made out any case for interference in the facts and circumstances of the present case ?

I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record carefully.

It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner-Society is registered 19.7.1988 and obtained permission from the respondents for the academic year 1989-90 to run the Kannada Medium Higher Primary School and it is also not in dispute that the respondents have recognised the petitioner by renewing the periodical recognition from 1989 till 2014-15. It is the specific case of the petitioner that it has also provided the eligible staff as required under the provisions of Section 39 of the Education Act, 1983 and without noticing the material facts, the 1st respondent-State Government has proceeded to pass the unilateral order vide Annexure-F. The consequential orders passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 - Annexures-G and H also do not disclose that the petitioner has been given notice and heard before cancellation of the recognition of the petitioner. In the absence of the same, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. Be that as it may.

This Court on 19.12.2014 passed an interim order and directed the petitioner to endeavour to secure all infrastructures to be kept ready which shall be inspected notwithstanding the pendency of this petition, as submitted by the learned HCGP on instructions, that the Block Education Officer has conducted the spot inspection on 6.8.2016 and submitted the report that the petitioner has provided all the infrastructures. Therefore, the points raised in this petition has to be answered in the negative holding that the respondents are not justified in cancelling the recognition without giving notice and hearing the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioner has made out a case for interference.

In view of the aforesaid reasons, writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders passed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 - Annexures-F, G and H are quashed. The matter is remanded to the 3rd respondent for reconsideration with liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed proposal regarding all the infrastructures provided along with material documents before the 3rd respondent, who shall consider the same and pass orders in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.