Snehdeep Shikshan Sanstha vs The Joint Director of Education (School Education) and Others

V.A. Naik, J.—By this petition, the petitioner - Sanstha challenges the order of the Deputy Director of Education, withdrawing the recognition of the School and Junior College, run by the petitioner - Sanstha. The petitioner - Sanstha also challenges the order of the Director of Education, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirming the order of the Deputy Director of Education.

The petitioner - Sanstha was running a Junior College at Goregaon in Bhandara District. The Junior College was duly recognized by the State of Maharashtra under the provisions of the Secondary Schools Code. The College was being run and administered by the petitioner - Sanstha since the year 1985. There was an inspection of the Junior College by the respondents - authorities in the year 1996 and the Deputy Director of Education issued a notice to the petitioner dated 27.1.1997, asking the petitioner to show cause as to why the recognition of the Junior College should not be withdrawn or cancelled in view of the breach of conditions of recognition. According to the Deputy Director of Education, there were several deficiencies in the Junior College and the same were not removed despite the issuance of notices and communications in that regard. The petitioner - Sanstha replied to the show-cause-notice and pleaded that the recognition should not be cancelled. The Deputy Director of Education, by the impugned order dated 29.4.1997, cancelled the recognition of the Junior College from the academic Session 1996-97. The order of the Deputy Director of Education was challenged by the petitioner in an appeal before the Director of Education under Rule 7.5 of the Secondary Schools Code. The Director of Education dismissed the appeal by the order dated 29.4.1997. The orders of the Deputy Director of Education and the Director of Education are impugned in the instant petition.

Mrs. Raskar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there were hardly any deficiencies in the Junior College of the petitioner - Sanstha and the Deputy Director of Education was not justified in cancelling the recognition. It is stated that the deficiencies that were pointed out by the respondents to the petitioner - Sanstha from time to time were cured by the Sanstha and therefore, the recognition could not have been cancelled. It is submitted that there was improvement in the HSSC results of the students and the said fact could be depicted from the reply of the petitioner to the show-cause-notice. It is submitted that in view of the provisions of Rule 7.3 of the Secondary Schools Code, it was necessary for the Deputy Director of Education to give a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to remove the defects or deficiencies and such an opportunity was not granted to the petitioner in this case. It is stated that though the petitioner - Sanstha had prayed for an opportunity before the Director of Education, the Director of Education did not consider the request of the petitioner. It is submitted that the order of the Director of Education is liable to be set aside as the same is cryptic. It is stated that no reasons are recorded by the Director of Education while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner.

Shri Rode, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents supported the orders of the authorities and submitted that there were several serious defects/deficiencies in the Junior College, run by the petitioner - Sanstha. It is stated that despite the issuance of the communications by the respondents - authorities from time to time the defects/deficiencies were not cured by the petitioner - Sanstha. It is submitted that it was found in the inspection conducted by the authorities that the staff in the College was not adequate. The infrastructural facilities were also inadequate inasmuch as a separate room and washroom was not provided for the girl students. It is stated that there was no playground for the students and the question papers set out for the terminal examinations were also not as per the standard prescribed by the Board. It is stated that in an area of 286 sq. ft. sixty students were seated in a cramped manner. It is submitted that the results of the HSSC examination were extremely bad and in respect of some faculties the pass percentage was nil. It is submitted that despite the warnings by the authorities, the petitioner was not able to cure the defects and hence, there was no course open for the authorities except to cancel the recognition of the Junior College. It is submitted that the order of the appellate authority - Director of Education cannot be said to be cryptic as the order is accompanied by a report - Minutes of the proceedings conducted before the authority, wherein the reasons are recorded for the failure on the part of the petitioner - Sanstha to prove that the deficiencies in the Junior College were removed. It is submitted that after a long lapse of nearly two decades, the petitioner cannot place reliance on the provisions of Rule 7.3 of the Secondary Schools Code. It is submitted that the said provisions could not have been resorted to in the circumstances of the case when the petitioner was granted ample opportunity even before the issuance of the first show-cause-notice to cure the defects or remove the deficiencies but they were not removed despite opportunity. The learned Assistant Government Pleader sought for the dismissal of the writ petition.

On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the show-cause-notice, the reply filed thereto and the orders of the Deputy Director of Education and the Director of Education, it appears that the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. It appears from a reading of the show-cause-notice and the reply that there were several serious deficiencies in the Junior College, run by the petitioner - Sanstha and the conditions of grant of recognition were breached by the Sanstha by not curing the defects despite warnings. The deficiencies are not minor deficiencies. A finding of fact has been recorded by the Deputy Director of Education that there were several deficiencies in the Junior College. There was no space in the classrooms, attendance of the students was very less and despite the notice to the Sanstha in regard to the inspection only 50% students were present in the Junior College. The teachers in the Junior College were not adequate and no teachers were appointed to teach the subject of English. The result of the HSSC examination was extremely poor and during some academic years, the pass percentage was nil in respect of certain faculties. Despite the warnings by the respondents - authorities to improve the results, the results could not be improved. The question papers set by the teachers for the terminal examinations were not as per the Model Question Papers that are required to be set by the Board. There was no playground in the School and physical education was not imparted in the School. There was no arrangement for the tutorials for the language subjects in the time table. The Junior College lacked in teaching staff and also in the infrastructural facilities. There was a breach of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Secondary Schools Code in running and administering the Junior College. Though the petitioner had stated in the reply that the defects were removed, the Deputy Director of Education found that the defects were not cured by the Sanstha. The Director of Education gave an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. The order of the Director of Education cannot be said to be cryptic or without reasons. The order is accompanied by a report - extract of the proceedings conducted before the Director of Education. It is clearly mentioned in the extract of the proceedings that the petitioner - Sanstha had failed to prove that the deficiencies were cured. It is rightly submitted on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner cannot seek the benefit of Rule 7.3 of the Secondary Schools Code at this stage. The recognition stands cancelled since 1997 and in the absence of any stay to the orders of the authorities in the writ petition, the petitioner - Sanstha has ceased to run the Junior College. At this stage, it would not be proper to grant an opportunity to the petitioner - Sanstha to cure the defects. The Junior College is not functioning for nearly 20 years. Also, it is rightly submitted on behalf of the respondents that an opportunity to cure the defects under Rule 7.3 of the Secondary Schools Code was not required in this case as it is an admitted position that the petitioner was asked from time to time by the respondents - authorities to cure the defects/deficiencies in the Junior College but the same were not cured. Since it was found that the petitioner was not in a position to remove the defects, the Deputy Director of Education rightly cancelled the recognition of the petitioner - Sanstha. We do not find any illegality in the orders of the authorities so as to interfere with the same in exercise of the writ jurisdiction.

In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.