V R Shah Smruti Adarsh Education Trust & 1 Other(s) vs Director Of Primary Education & 1 Other(s)

Biren Vaishnav, J

1 Heard Mr.J F Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner and Ms.Nidhi Vyas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State.

2 The present petition is filed by the petitioner Trust for quashing of the show cause notice dated 19.02.2020. A further direction is prayed for that the

press note issued in the three daily newspaper which propagate a fact of de-recognition of the school be withdrawn. The prayers arise in the

background of the following facts:

2.1 The petitioner initially in the year 2000 was running school with both Gujarati medium and English medium of instruction. The present controversy

is restricted to the school which is run imparting education through English medium. The case of the petitioner in the petition is that without there being

an express de-recognition , the respondents could not have issued press note informing the parents that the school is de-recognized. According to

Mr.Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner, there is no order of de-recognition in accordance with Section 40(A) of the Bombay primary Education

Act read with rule 109 of the Rules. On issuance of notice, an affidavit-in-reply has been filed by one Hitendrasinh Padheriay, Education Inspector,

District Education Office, Ahmedabad. Relevant para of the affidavit-in- reply, read as under:

“5 It is said and submitted that on 17.03.2016, the petitioner trust, vide letter issued to the answering respondent, submitted a proposal to close the

primary school. It is further submitted that pursuant to this, on 15.04.2016, the petitioners were called for personal hearing by the respondent no. 1, I.e.

the Director of Primary Education and during the hearing, the petitioners informed that the trust has resolved to close operation of classes 1 to 8, I.e.

effect was submitted by the petitioner before the respondent no.1.

6 It is submitted that on the basis of the resolution, affidavit submitted by the petitioner, the answering respondent vide order dated 15.07.2016 gave

the permission to close the operation of the primary school. It is specified that there were no students in the Standard 1 to 3 and there were a few

students in the standard 4 to 8 (130 students) and thus, to see that these students may not face hardships, the closing of these standards should be in a

staggered and gradual manner. the order of the answering respondent has been attached hereto and marked as Annexure R 2. It is specified that this

order was in consonance with Rule 40 (B) of the Bombay Primary Education Rules, 1949

3 In short it is the case of the respondents that pursuant to a request made by the petitioner trust on 17.03.2016, on a personal hearing granted to the

petitioner, by an order dated 15.07.2016, permission to close the operation of the school was granted. The permission was to close the school in a

staggered and gradual manner. This was done in accordance with Rule 40(B) of the Bombay Primary Education Rules, 1949.

4 Ms. Nidhi Vyas, learned Assistant Government Pleader, would submit pointing out to the show cause notice dated 19.02.2020 that the school has

been closed no admission could have been taken by the school, hence the show cause notice.

5 Mr.Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner, in the rejoinder would submit that there is no de- recognition and in fact an application was made that

he may be permitted to start classes 1 to 8. He drew the attention of this Court to the communication of the District Education Officer dated

07.05.2018, by which permission to close standard 7, 8 and 9 was refused.

6 The controversy therefore which is at large before the authorities is the question whether the petitioner school could have granted admission when

the school have been closed in accordance with communication dated 15.07.2016. It is in this context that the show cause notice dated 19.02.2020 is

issued. The show cause notice is in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the school announcing admission for the academic year 2020-21. The

stand of the government is that the school was not recognized to run primary section by virtue of the communication dated 15.07.2016. The petitioner

school has an issue to join at this stage inasmuch as, it is their stand that refusal to run classes in a staggered manner infact did not see the light of the

day and there is no other cancelling recognition. Be that as it may. The petitioner shall furnish a copy of the paper book of this petition including the

rejoinder filed before the authority who has issued the show cause notice dated 19.02.2020. The respondent shall consider this in addition to the

response filed by the petitioner already, especially in context of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that permission to run the

classes 7, 8 and 9 still subsist since the issue is at large before the authority without expressing any opinion whether there is de-recognition of the

school at all. The respondents are directed to take a decision on the submissions made before this Court in the context of closure / de-recognition and

take an appropriate decision within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Petition is disposed of.

The respondents shall consider the request of the petitioner and grant an opportunity of personal hearing, on which date the petitioner shall appear. An

appropriate decision shall be taken as directed hereinabove within the time so stipulated.

At the time when the opportunity of hearing is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner will request the authority to consider the application dated

11.02.2020. The petition is disposed of, accordingly. Registry to communicate the order through E-mail