Headmistress vs State Of Orissa And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 3900 Ori

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

  W.P.(C) Nos.37102, 37097, 37101, 37105 and 37860 of 2021

(In the matter of applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).

                 In W.P.(C) No.37102 of 2021
Headmistress, Jageswaree Uchha          ....               Petitioner
Bidyalaya, Aloi
                                 -versus-
State of Orissa and Ors.                    ....        Opp. Parties

Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner            :        Mr. Sameer Kumar Das, Adv.
                                 -versus-

For Opp. Parties                :           Mr. R.C. Pattanaik, SC
                                              (for S & ME Deptt.)
                                            Mr. S.S. Rao, Sr. Adv.
                                                   (for O.Ps.4 & 5)

                   In W.P.(C) No.37097 of 2021
Managing Committee of Baladev Jew      ....                Petitioner
Vidyalaya, Bhusandapur
                                 -versus-
State of Orissa and Ors.                    ....        Opp. Parties

Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner            :        Mr. Sameer Kumar Das, Adv.
                                 -versus-

For Opp. Parties                :           Mr. R.C. Pattanaik, SC
                                              (for S & ME Deptt.)
                                            Mr. S.S. Rao, Sr. Adv.
                                                   (for O.Ps.4 & 5)

W.P.(C) No.37102 of 2021 & batch of cases            1 of 15
                 In W.P.(C) No.37101 of 2021
Managing Committee of Santiduta        ....                       Petitioner
Prasanna Patshani Girls High School,
Orabarsingh
                                -versus-
State of Orissa and Ors.                        ....          Opp. Parties

Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner            :        Mr. Sameer Kumar Das, Adv.
                                -versus-

For Opp. Parties               :                 Mr. R.C. Pattanaik, SC
                                                   (for S & ME Deptt.)
                                                 Mr. S.S. Rao, Sr. Adv.
                                                        (for O.Ps.4 & 5)



                 In W.P.(C) No.37105 of 2021
Headmistress, Gurujang Girls High       ....                      Petitioner
School, Gurujang
                                -versus-
State of Orissa and Ors.                        ....          Opp. Parties

Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner            :        Mr. Sameer Kumar Das, Adv.
                                -versus-

For Opp. Parties               :                 Mr. R.C. Pattanaik, SC
                                                   (for S & ME Deptt.)
                                                 Mr. S.S. Rao, Sr. Adv.
                                                        (for O.Ps.4 & 5)




         W.P.(C) No.37102 of 2021 & batch of cases    2 of 15
                   In W.P.(C) No.37860 of 2021
Managing Committee of Kumudini P.A.N. ....                       Petitioner
Girls High School, Bankoi
                                -versus-
State of Orissa and Ors.                         ....         Opp. Parties

Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner            :        Mr. Sameer Kumar Das, Adv.
                                -versus-

For Opp. Parties                :                Mr. R.C. Pattanaik, SC
                                                   (for S & ME Deptt.)
                                                 Mr. S.S. Rao, Sr. Adv.
                                                        (for O.Ps.4 & 5)

            CORAM:
            DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

              DATE OF HEARING:-27.07.2022
              DATE OF JUDGMENT:-11.08.2022


  Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. Since similar questions of law or facts are involved in all the

Writ Petitions listed above, all the matters were heard

together. However, this Court felt it apposite to decide

W.P.(C) No.37102 of 2021 first and whatever the outcome of

the said Writ Petition, the same will be covered to other

similar connected Writ Petitions mentioned above.

I. Facts of the case:

2. The petitioner, in the present Writ Petition, has challenged

the legality of the Letter No.292 (R & G) dated 06.11.2021

under Annexure-5 issued by the Opposite Party No.5-

Deputy Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Odisha,

Zonal Office, Bhubaneswar withdrawing recognition from

the petitioner's institution from the session 2020-2021 sans

issuance of any notice or giving any opportunity to the

institution. Such withdrawal of recognition has been done

on the basis of recommendation received by the Opposite

Party No.5/Deputy Secretary, Board of Secondary

Education, Odisha, Zonal Office, Bhubaneswar from the

Opposite Party No.3/District Education Officer, Khurda.

Even the said recommendation letter received from the

Opposite Party No.3/District Education Officer, Khurda has

not been served on the petitioner's institution. On the

contrary, the Opposite Party No.3- District Education

Officer, Khurda vide Letter No.13316 dated 08.11.2021

under Annexure-6 requested the Opposite Party No.5-

Deputy Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Odisha,

Zonal Office, Bhubaneswar to allow the students of the

schools mentioned therein to appear the Annual H.S.C.

Examination-2022 as quasi-regular candidates through the

nearby located Government High School. Further, the

Opposite Party No.3/ District Education Officer, Khurda

vide order dated 13601 dated 17.11.2021 under Annexure-7

requested the Opposite Party No.5/Deputy Secretary, Board

W.P.(C) No.37102 of 2021 & batch of cases 4 of 15 of Secondary Education, Odisha, Zonal Office,

Bhubaneswar to change the enrolment of Class-IX students

of the schools mentioned therein to appear the Annual

H.S.C. Examinatjion-2023 as quasi-regular candidates

through the nearby Government High School. All these

letters of the Opposite Party Nos.3 and 5 are contrary to the

Section-6-B (4) of the Odisha Education Act, 1969

(hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for brevity) and also

against the provisions contained in Chapter-IX of the Board

of Secondary Education, Odisha Regulation. Hence, the

petitioner prays for quashing of the letter dated 06.11.2021/

Annexure-5 issued by the Opposite Party No.5/Deputy

Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Odisha, Zonal

Office, Bhubaneswar and letters dated 08.11.2021 and

17.11.2021 issued under Annexures- 6 and 7 respectively by

the Opposite Party No.3/ District Education Officer,

Khurda.

II. Submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner:

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

Jageswaree Uchha Bidyalaya, Aloi, in the district of Khurda

was established in the year 1992 and got permission from

the State Government from the academic session 1996-97 to

open Class-VIII as required under the statute. Recognition

of the said school was granted by the Director, Secondary

Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar vide order dated

14.01.1999 from the session 1996-97.

4. He further submitted that as per the law, once the

institution is opened with the permission and recognition

by the Prescribed Authority, the institution has to apply for

grant of recognition for both classes i.e. Classes-IX and X

through the prescribed format to the Board of Secondary

Education, Odisha. Accordingly, the Opposite Party No.4/

Board of Secondary Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar

granted recognition to the institution for Classes-IX and X

vide letter dated 29.12.2001. It is further submitted that

Regulation 16 of Chapter-IX of the Board Regulation

prescribes certain criteria to be filled up by the institution

seeking recognition from the Board such as Classroom,

Headmaster's room, Teachers' common room, Library

room, Science equipment and Trained Teaching staffs as

prescribed in the yardstick. The present institution has

complied all the requirements and the recognition has been

renewed from time to time by the Board of Secondary

Education. At this backdrop, he pointed out that it is the

duty of the Board to point out whether there is any

deficiency or not so that the institution can take steps to

rectify the said defects in time. So far as the present

institution is concerned, no deficiency was pointed out by

W.P.(C) No.37102 of 2021 & batch of cases 6 of 15 the Board. Opposite Party No.5/Deputy Secretary, Board of

Secondary Education, Odisha, Zonal Office, Bhubaneswar

vide letter dated 06.11.2021/Annexure-5 withdrew the

recognition of the petitioner's institution retrospectively

from the academic session 2020-21. The said withdrawal

was purely based on the recommendation stated to have

been made to the Board by Opposite Party No.3/ District

Education Officer, Khurda. It is further submitted that

Opposite Party No.3/ District Education Officer, Khurda

has never communicated to the petitioner's institution

regarding such recommendation nor was it offered any

opportunity to put-forth their case. The recommendation

sent by the Opposite Party No.3/ District Education Officer,

Khurda was totally illegal because it has failed to pass

muster of opportunity of being heard.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of

the Court to Clause-14 of Chapter-IX of the Board with the

heading "Recognition of Institutions by the Board" which

specifically prescribes that the Director of Public

Instructions or any two members of the Board may bring

forward a proposal regarding deprivation of school from its

recognition. The said Clause has not been complied with in

the present case. The said Clause is quoted below:

"The Director of Public Instruction or any two members of the Board may bring forward a proposal that a school shall be deprived either in whole or in part, of its recognition. The recognition and Grants Committee shall, after affording the managing authorities of the school all reasonable facilities for stating its objections to the proposal, consider the proposal and transmit a copy of its proceedings, including a copy of any representation which may be made by such managing authorities thereon, to the Board. The Board shall consider the proposal and shall decide as it things fit and its decision shall be final."

6. It is further submitted that as per Regulation-7 of Chapter-

IX of the Board Regulation, it is mandatory that no

institution shall be granted recognition without fulfillment

of any of the conditions laid down by the Director of

Secondary Education. In the present case, the Opposite

Party No.2/ Director, Secondary Education, Odisha,

Bhubaneswar has not yet pointed out any deficiency of

non-fulfillment of condition of recognition by the petitioner.

It is further submitted that Section 6-B of the Act as

amended from time to time, prescribes detailed procedures

for withdrawal of the recognition from any institution.

Undeniably, it is the fact that before withdrawal of

recognition of the institution, no opportunity was given to

the institution in order to remove the deficiency. Before

passing of the order of withdrawal of recognition, the

W.P.(C) No.37102 of 2021 & batch of cases 8 of 15 institution should have been afforded opportunity to put-

forth its position and if any deficiency is there, it could have

been removed by the institution. Hence, the decision to

withdraw the recognition from the present institution is per

se illegal.

7. It is further submitted that letter No.13316 dated 08.11.2021/

Annexure-6 has been issued by the Opposite Party No.3/

District Education Officer, Khurda requesting the Opposite

Party No.5/Deputy Secretary, Board of Secondary

Education, Odisha, Zonal Office, Bhubaneswar to allow the

students of the schools mentioned therein to appear the

Annual H.S.C. Examination-2022 as quasi-regular

candidates through the nearby Government High School

and letter No.13601 dated 17.11.2021/ Annexure-7 has been

issued by the Opposite Party No.3/ District Education

Officer, Khurda requesting the Opposite Party No.5/

Deputy Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Odisha,

Zonal Office, Bhubaneswar to change the enrolment of

Class-IX students of the schools mentioned therein to

appear the Annual H.S.C. Examination-2023 as quasi-

regular candidates through the nearby Government High

School which smacks contradictions between the orders of

the same authority. He further submitted that the letters

dated 08.11.2021 and 17.11.2021 issued by the Opposite

Party No.3/ District Education Officer, Khurda are

completely illegal and colorable exercise of power thwack

an inherent bias.

8. He further submitted that Section 6-B (4) of the Act which

in clear and unambiguous terms provides that

notwithstanding withdrawal of recognition of a school, the

students so admitted prior to such date of withdrawal or

suspension shall be allowed to appear the examination

conducted by the Board as if the recognition of the

institution has not been withdrawn. Section-6-B (4) of the

Act is quoted hereunder:

"(4) Notwithstanding the withdrawal or suspension of recognition under Sub-section (3), the students admitted to that educational institution till the dates of such withdrawal or suspension shall be allowed to continue as if the said educational institution continues to be recognised till that batch of students appear in the examination conducted by the Board, the Council or the University, as the case may be. The educational institution shall not admit fresh students during the period of suspension or after withdrawal of recognition."

9. From the aforesaid position of law, it is quite clear that the

students pursuing in Classes-IX and X of the school even

though they have taken admission prior to 06.11.2021 and

now forced to be treated as quasi-regular candidates which

W.P.(C) No.37102 of 2021 & batch of cases 10 of 15 is illegal. Nowhere, under any law it has been provided that

an institution which was regularized will be automatically

affected by the withdrawal of recognition and student will

suffer. Such action is contrary to the spirit of Section-6-B (4)

of the Act. Hence, the students who have been admitted to

Classes-IX and X prior to the letter dated 06.11.2021/

Annexure-5 issued by the Opposite Party No.5/ Deputy

Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Odisha, Zonal

Office, Bhubaneswar ought to have been treated as regular

candidates.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the judgment

passed by this Court in the case of Tarini Thakurani

Vidyapitha, Keonjhar -vrs.- State of Odisha & others1

wherein at paragraph-7 it has been observed as under:

"In the case in hand, neither the prescribed authority has submitted any report in terms of sub-

section 2 of Section 6 (B) of the Act to the committee nor a decision has been taken by the committee for withdrawal of recognition of the school for consideration of the Board to decide. Here in the case, the District Education Officer, the opposite party No.4 has sent his recommendation to opposite party No.3 for taking necessary action for withdrawal of recognition when admittedly opposite party No.4 is not prescribed authority under the Act either to recommend to opposite party No.3 or to take any decision himself for

2017(I) OLR 523

withdrawal of recognition. However it is seen that the opposite party No.3 has acted upon that report of opposite party No.4. Thus the order is without jurisdiction."

III. Submissions by the Opposite Parties:

11. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5/Board

of Secondary Education submitted that Chapter-IX of the

Board's Regulation mandates certain criteria which must be

fulfilled by the school seeking recognition. The said criteria

are like Classroom, Headmaster's room, Teachers' common

room, Library room, Science equipment and Trained

Teaching staffs etc. All these conditions must be complied

with prior to granting recognition. The deficiency of criteria

for fulfilling recognition was found in the year 2020-21

which led to the withdrawal of recognition in the year 2021.

12. He further submitted that the contentions of the petitioner

regarding withdrawal of recognition from the academic

session 2020-2021 on the basis of recommendation of the

Opposite Party No.3/ District Education Officer, Khurda

without communicating such recommendation to the

petitioner is dumbfounded. The Board of Secondary

Education is not the solitary authority to withdraw the

recognition of the petitioner's institution on the basis of the

recommendation of the Opposite Party No.3/ District

W.P.(C) No.37102 of 2021 & batch of cases 12 of 15 Education Officer, Khurda. It also seems that the students

have taken admission prior to withdrawal of recognition,

yet they were asked to appear as quasi-regular candidates

through nearby Government High School, is also incorrect.

13. Learned counsel for the Board of Secondary Education

further pointed that the deficiency found by the

Government authorities on physical verification insofar as

the petitioner's institution is concerned, the defects noticed

in the letter not recommending the renewal of recognition

as follows:

"i) A.H.S.C. results during the last three years not satisfactory.

ii) The student's enrollment in Class-IX is 20 (Twenty) and in Class-X is 15 (Fifteen) which is not encouraging.

iii) There non-availability of contiguous land of three acres in favour of the school. The headmaster has reported for same."

He further submitted that the matter was placed before the

R & G Committee for consideration of recommendation

made by the Opposite Party No.3/ District Education

Officer, Khurda. After thread bare discussion, the R & G

Committee approved the withdrawal of recognition of

seven schools including the petitioner's institution.

14. It was further contended that the Board of Secondary

Education felt it expedient to take the help of the Opposite

Party No.3/ District Education Officer, Khurda to conduct a

field enquiry and furnish a detailed report regarding

deficiency in the schools. He further pointed out that the

proceeding of the R & G Committee was circulated to the

Opposite Party No.5/ Deputy Secretary, Board of Secondary

Education, Odisha, Zonal Office, Bhubaneswar for taking

immediate action to provide facilities for appearance of the

candidates in Annual H.S.C. Examination-2021 as

quasi-regular candidates through different recognized High

School suggested by the Opposite Party No.3/ District

Education Officer, Khurda. The interest of the students is

fully protected by the Board of Secondary Education.

Allegation of different yardsticks adopted for different

schools is also baseless. He contended that the provisions

under Section 6-B (4) of the Act provides protection to the

students to appear in the examination through another

school. Hence, they are obviously treated as quasi-regular

candidates.

IV. Court's Reasoning:

15. In view of the argument advanced by the parties, it is

clearly evident that the petitioners' institutions, in the

present cases, do not meet the Chapter-IX of the Board's

Regulation which mandates certain criteria that must be

fulfilled by the school securing recognition. The said criteria

W.P.(C) No.37102 of 2021 & batch of cases 14 of 15 are like Classroom, Headmaster's room, Teachers' common

room, Library room, Science equipment and Trained

Teaching staffs etc. All these conditions must be complied

apriori in case of granting of recognition. The deficiency of

criteria for fulfilling recognition was found in the year 2020-

21 which led to the withdrawal of recognition of the

petitioner's institution in the year 2021.

16. Since the future of the students and those of the schools are

at stake, the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha is

directed to afford a fresh opportunity to the petitioners'

schools so as to comply with the requirements for the

recognition parameters as set out by the Board by affording

a reasonable opportunity and time to remove the defects. If

they fail to comply with the recognition parameters, the

Board is free to take decision as per law.

17. Accordingly, all these present Writ Petitions are disposed

of. No order as to cost.

( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi ) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 11th of August, 2022/B. Jhankar