[Cites 19, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Abdus Sattar vs The State Of Bihar on 9 December, 2025
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12304 of 2021
======================================================
Dr. Zakir Hussain 10 plus 2 High School Sultanganj, Patna, Bihar through its
Secretary Mumtaz Ahmad, male, aged about 59 years, S/o Ejaz Ahmad, R/o
Garhua Tola, Lane Opposite Sultanganj Thana, Near Kanji House, Sultanganj,
Mahendru, Patna-800006.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department,
Patna.
2. The Director, Higher Education, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.
4. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.
5. The Director (Academic), Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.
6. Dr. Mohammad Nazar Imam Son of Qasim Ahsan Warsi Ex-Secretary, Dr.
Zakir Hussain Millat Memorial Educational Society, Dr. Zakir Hussain High
School Campus, Patna-800006.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13142 of 2023
======================================================
1. Abdus Sattar S/o Jalil Ahmad, R/o Chhota Badheya, Sarfara, P.S. Barauli,
District Gopalganj- 841405.
2. Mahjabeen Naz, D/o Md. Qasim Ahsan, R/o Mahendru, Naugharwa, Patna -
800006.
3. Perveen Jahan, W/o Gauhar Alam, R/O Banwari Chouk, New Azimabad
Colony, Mahendru, Patna - 800006.
4. Md. Waris Imam Warsi, S/o Md. Qasim Ahsan Warsi, R/o Naugharwa,
Sultanganj, Patna, Bihar 800006.
5. Md. Mateen, S/o Md. Hashim, R/o Dargah Road, Sultanganj, Patna, Bihar-
800006.
6. Md. Naqui Imam Warsi, S/o Md. Qasim Ahsan, R/o Mandai, Sultanganj,
Patna - 800006.
7. Md. Ali Imam, S/o Md. Fahimuddin, R/o New Azimabad Colony,
Sultanganj, Patna, Bihar 800006.
Patna High Court CWJC No.12304 of 2021 dt.09-12-2025
2/24
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education
Department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Vikas Bhawan, Patna -
800015.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Govt of Bihar,
New Secretariat, Vikas Bhawan, Patna.
3. The District Education Officer, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12304 of 2021)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Purushottam Kumar Jha, Adv.
Mr. Suman Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr P. Mishra, AC to SC-16
For the Resp-BSEB : Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, Adv.
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13142 of 2023)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Purushottam Kumar Jha, Adv.
Mr. Avanindra Kumar Jha, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Madhaw Prasad Yadaw, GP-23
For the Resp-BSEB : Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 09-12-2025
Heard Mr. Purushottam Kumar Jha, along with Mr.
Avanindra Kumar Jha, learned Advocate for the petitioners,
learned Standing Counsel No. 16 and Government Pleader No.
23 for the State and Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, learned Advocate for
the Bihar School Examination Board (for short 'the BSEB').
2. The school, represented through its Secretary in
CWJC No. 12304 of 2021, is aggrieved with the letter no. BSEB
(SS) Coll-Estab/806/D-2021 dated 14.06.2021 issued by the
respondent-Director (Academic), BSEB, whereby the
Patna High Court CWJC No.12304 of 2021 dt.09-12-2025
3/24
recognition and affiliation, including code of the petitioner-
school (Secondary Code 71102 and Higher Secondary Code
17011) has been cancelled.
3. The petitioners in CWJC No. 13142 of 2023 are the
teaching and non-teaching employees of the school, who have
preferred the writ petition for a direction upon the concerned
respondents to make the payment of monthly salary, which has
been withheld by the District Education Officer, Patna, from the
month of June 2021.
4. Since the order of de-affiliation of the school, in
question, is under challenge in CWJC No. 12304 of 2021, and
the claim of the petitioners in CWJC No. 13142 of 2024 is
dependent upon the outcome of the afore-noted writ petition,
hence, both the matters are being heard together and disposed
off by this common order.
5. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the
school in question, namely Dr. Zakir Hussain High School,
Sultanganj, Patna, was established on 06.01.1970. Subsequently,
under the provisions of the Society Registration Act, "Dr. Zakir
Hussain Millat Memorial Education Society" was registered on
29.06.1978
. Further, under the order of the Hon'ble Governor of
Bihar, the Department of Education, Government of Bihar, vide
Patna High Court CWJC No.12304 of 2021 dt.09-12-2025
Memo No. 1999 dated 02.10.1980, had acquired 2860 Non-
Government Secondary Schools in the State of Bihar, including
the present school with effect from 02.10.1980. It is the specific
case of the petitioner that before conferring the status of
Government-Aided Minority School to the school in hand, the
matter was placed before the Hon'ble State Education Minister,
who recommended affiliation of the school by waiving the
condition of land and building. Based upon said decision of the
Hon'ble Education Minister, the Director, Secondary Education,
Government of Bihar, Patna, vide Memo No. 10235-44 dated
19.04.1983, conferred the status of minority school, and thereby
the services of teaching and non-teaching employees of the said
school have been granted approval. Upon grant of approval by
the State Government of Bihar, the authorities concerned of the
Education Department started making payment of salary to the
teaching and non-teaching employees of the school in the
regular pay scale till May 2021. It is further contended that
during the interregnum period, vide Memo No. 648 dated
03.09.1991, the then Director, Secondary Education,
Government of Bihar, Patna, has granted permission to the
school in hand to impart teaching of +2 students in Arts,
Science, and Commerce from the session 1991-1992.
Patna High Court CWJC No.12304 of 2021 dt.09-12-2025
Accordingly, the school had been authorized to admit 100
students in Arts, 75 students in Science, and 50 students in
Commerce.
6. Notwithstanding the aforesaid facts, which are not
in dispute; on 06.04.2021, the BSEB received a complaint
against the school, which led to the constitution of a Three-
Member Enquiry Committee. On 10.04.2021, the Committee
visited the school, however, the Principal of the said school
could not provide the required documents and requested more
time. The Director (Academic), BSEB, under Memo No. 302
dated 13.04.2021, allowed one week's time to the Secretary of
the school. Despite the time allowed, when the required
documents had not been furnished, the respondent-Director
(Academic), BSEB, vide its letter number 743 dated
29.04.2021, put the affiliation of the school under suspension
and issued a show cause notice as to why permanent affiliation
of the school should not be cancelled.
7. The petitioner replied to the show cause but did not
find any favour and finally the impugned order came to be
passed, which is put to challenge in the present writ petition.
8. Mr. Purushottam Kumar Jha, learned Advocate for
the petitioner, while assailing the impugned order, submitted
Patna High Court CWJC No.12304 of 2021 dt.09-12-2025
that besides procedural lapses and malafide, no written notice
has been issued, and only telephonic intimation was given to the
Principal. Suspension of affiliation code during peak of COVID-
19 pandemic clearly shows haste and ulterior motive. The very
initiation of inspection of the school was acted upon an
anonymous complaint without any basis, and no copy of the
complaint has ever been handed over to the petitioner; thus, the
entire order suffers from the vice of the violation of the
principles of natural justice. It is admitted that the letter no. 227
dated 29.06.1982 issued by the Regional Deputy Director, Patna
Division, clearly states that minority schools like the petitioner
can be granted permanent affiliation by relaxing building/land
requirements, and the said order of Regional Deputy Director of
Education is still in force. At the time of affiliation, the
condition regarding certain requirement of land was relaxed by
the then Education Minister for minority schools, in the light of
the prescription of Bihar Education Board, Ordinance, 1974
read with Bihar Education Board Act, 1976 where there had
been no specific requirement of land for grant of approval to the
secondary school. All the more, the affiliation was obtained in
the year 1983; hence, the rules and regulations which were
applicable at that point of time, and to be more precise, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.12304 of 2021 dt.09-12-2025
Bihar Non-Government Secondary School (Taking Over of
Management and Control) Act, 1981, will apply to the school,
and in no case the Bihar School Examination Board 2013
Affiliation Rules as well as Bihar School Examination Board
Act, 2019 would apply to the school in question.
9. Referring to the impugned order, learned Advocate
for the petitioner further contended that regarding allegation of
infirmity in the appointment of the Principal of the school, it is
needless to state that the same was done by the management on
the recommendation of the Vidyalaya Seva Board vide letter no.
1755 dated 01.07.1996 issued by the District Education Officer,
Patna. Thus, no fault could be attributed to the school.
Moreover, the Principal Md. Naqui Imam, is possessing all the
qualifications to be appointed as Principal under the rules. There
is no provision authorizing de-affiliation for malafide
appointment of the Principal of the school. In case the
appointment of the Principal is said to be bad or illegal, proper
action was required to be taken against the petitioner, but in no
circumstances the affiliation of the school should be cancelled.
The allegation of misappropriation of Government funds is also
false in view of the fact that the funds received under the Poshak
and Cycle schemes were directly transferred to the students via
Patna High Court CWJC No.12304 of 2021 dt.09-12-2025
Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT).
10. Mr. Purushottam Kumar Jha, learned Advocate for
the petitioner further submitted that over the period, many
schools were granted recognition without meeting land/building
requirements, and they continue to run. To support the aforesaid
contention, a list of 28 schools provided by filing Interlocutory
Application No. 1 of 2021 has been brought on record, and thus
a plea of patent discrimination has been alleged. The action of
the respondent-BSEB is said to be violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India, as on the one hand, the BSEB cancelled
the affiliation of the school in spite of having infrastructure, and
on the other hand, the respondent-BSEB allowed such
Government schools which are landless and building-less. It is
lastly contended that since the respondent-BSEB has not granted
affiliation to the petitioner-school; hence, the-respondent BSEB
could not have cancelled the affiliation of the petitioner- school,
and thus the impugned order is fit to be set aside.
11. Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, learned Advocate for the
BSEB, taking this Court through the impugned order, submitted
that besides the same being a detailed and reasoned order, it has
been passed in conformity with the due process of law under the
specific prescription of the BSEB Act, 2019 and the BSEB
Patna High Court CWJC No.12304 of 2021 dt.09-12-2025
(Senior Secondary) Affiliation Regulation, 2011 (as amended
2013) with adequate opportunity provided to the petitioner. The
Enquiry Committee conducted on-spot inspection, but the
school management failed to produce required documents,
which led to the issuance of suspension of the school affiliation,
following with a show cause notice. After the suspension of
affiliation, the petitioner submitted its reply. A proper enquiry
was undertaken and a report was submitted, which was duly
examined by the Director (Academic), BSEB, and on being
found that the school did not possess the prescribed land area as
per Regulation 3(3)(D), Chapter 2, BSEB Affiliation Regulation
2013, as well as the records submitted by the school had been
interpolated, the impugned order cancelling the affiliation and
codes was passed. The enquiry report also shows infirmity in the
appointment of the Principal, who was initially appointed as a
clerk in the school and later on appointed as a Principal without
having the prescribed eligibility.
12. Mr. Siddharth Prasad, learned Advocate for the
BSEB further contended that it is not in dispute that the
recognition and affiliation of schools are presently governed by
the Bihar School Examination Board (Senior Secondary)
Affiliation Regulation, 2011 which clearly prescribes mandatory
Patna High Court CWJC No.12304 of 2021 dt.09-12-2025
land requirement under Chapter 2, Regulation 3(3), that a school
must possess at least 1158 square metres (0.29 acres) of land for
physical infrastructure and a minimum playground of one acre
(shared in urban areas) and in cities, land should not be less than
one acre with a minimum of two acres of total land area (either
owned or on a 30-year lease). Under Regulation 15(3)(vii) of
the 2011 Regulations, the BSEB is empowered with the
authority to withdraw affiliation on the ground of non-
availability of proper space, staff, or equipment for teaching.
The petitioner was properly noticed and extended the
opportunity of being heard. The reply of the petitioner was duly
considered before passing the impugned order.
13. So far the contention of the petitioner with respect
to other schools which do not fulfill the requisite land criteria, it
has been informed to this Court that necessary action and
enquiry is being done against those schools in accordance with
law.
14. Mr Prasad, lastly contended that the Affiliation
Regulation 2011 provides no power to waive/relax statutory
conditions, thus the Regional Deputy Director of Education,
Patna, had no authority to relax affiliation conditions. So far as
the issue regarding competence of the BSEB to inspect schools
Patna High Court CWJC No.12304 of 2021 dt.09-12-2025
which have been violated pre requisite terms and conditions
prior to its coming into force has been decided affirmatively by
this Court in CWJC No. 8752 of 2017 and further in LPA No.
1478 of 2017; hence in the ground afore-noted, he prayed for
dismissal of the present writ petition.
15. Learned Advocate for the State and the private
respondents have also filed separate counter affidavits and,
while adopting the submissions advanced by the learned
Advocate for the respondent-BSEB, have submitted that since
the petitioner-school does not possess the mandatory
requirement for affiliation, hence there is no infirmity in the
order impugned. It is also informed that Title Suit No. 80 of
2022 is pending before the learned Sub-Judge 1st Patna, whereby
it is alleged that the society illegally mutated the part of the
school's land and thus it is yet to be decided in title suit. The
private respondent also alleged fraud in the mutation process
and an FIR has also been instituted against the petitioner under
the penal provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
16. After having careful consideration of the
submissions advanced by the learned Advocate for the
respective parties, the issues which have cropped up and require
determination are as follows:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.12304 of 2021 dt.09-12-2025
(i) Whether the action of the BSEB in
cancelling the affiliation of the petitioner-school
on account of the school having no requisite land
as per the Regulations 2011, while allowing
similarly situated other allegedly violating
schools, is a violation of Right To Equality under
Article 14?
(ii) Whether statutory conditions be waived
off by an executive order or the authorities of the
State Government?
(iii) Whether the BSEB has the power to
inspect schools which have been affiliated prior to
its coming into force of Regulation 2011?
(iv) Whether minority institutions can be
given autonomy/relaxation from application of
certain statutory measures that regulate their
working on account of protection of minority
institution?
17. Before dealing with the issue (i), it would be
pertinent to state that it is the admitted position that the
petitioner school is only possessing 9 katha of land under the
ownership of society. However, under the Regulation 2011,
especially Regulation 3 of Chapter 2 stipulates that a school
must possess at least 1158 square metres of land for physical
infrastructure, a minimum playground of one acre (shared in
urban areas) and in cities, land should not be less than one acre,
Patna High Court CWJC No.12304 of 2021 dt.09-12-2025
with minimum two acres of total land area (either owned or on
30-year lease). Hence, the school in question does not fulfill the
minimum requirement of affiliation.
18. Now coming to the issue, it is suffice to observe
that there is no concept of negative equality and in case there
had been any wrong exemption, one cannot justify another.
19. In the case of Basawaraj and Anr. v. Special
Land Acquisition Officer [(2013) 14 SCC 81], the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, while emphasizing over the principle of
negative equality, has held that "Article 14 of the Constitution is
not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud even by extending the
wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provision does
not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect.
Thus, if some other similarly situated persons have been
granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such an
order does not confer any legal right on others to get the same
relief as well. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it
cannot be perpetuated. Equality is a trite which cannot be
claimed in illegality and therefore cannot be enforced by a
citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality and
irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a
group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a
Patna High Court CWJC No.12304 of 2021 dt.09-12-2025
judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the
higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same
irregularity or illegality or for passing a similarly wrong order.
A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does
not entitle any other party to claim benefits on the basis of the
wrong decision. Even otherwise, Article 14 cannot be stretched
too far for otherwise it would make functioning of
administration impossible."
20. It would be further worth benefiting to recapitulate
the relevant paragraphs which underscored the aforenoted
principle in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. v. Kameshwar
Prasad Singh & Anr. [(2009) 9 SCC 1994].
"30. The concept of equality as envisaged
under Article 14 of the Constitution is a positive
concept which cannot be enforced in a negative
manner. When any authority is shown to have
committed any illegality or irregularity in favour of
any individual or group of individuals, others
cannot claim the same illegality or irregularity on
the ground of denial thereof to them. Similarly
wrong judgment passed in favour of one individual
does not entitle others to claim similar benefits. In
this regard this Court in Gursharan Singh v. New
Delhi Municipal Committee [(1996) 2 SCC 459]
held that citizens have assumed wrong notions
regarding the scope of Article 14 of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.12304 of 2021 dt.09-12-2025
Constitution which guarantees equality before law
to all citizens. Benefits extended to some persons in
an irregular or illegal manner cannot be claimed by
a citizen on the plea of equality as enshrined in
Article 14 of the Constitution by way of writ
petition filed in the High Court. The Court
observed: (SCC p. 465, para 9)
"Neither Article 14 of the Constitution
conceives within the equality clause this concept
nor Article 226 empowers the High Court to
enforce such claim of equality before law. If such
claims are enforced, it shall amount to directing to
continue and perpetuate an illegal procedure or an
illegal order for extending similar benefits to
others. Before a claim based on equality clause is
upheld, it must be established by the petitioner that
his claim being just and legal, has been denied to
him, while it has been extended to others and in
this process there has been a discrimination."
Again in Secy., Jaipur Development Authority v.
Daulat Mal Jain [(1997) 1 SCC 35] this Court
considered the scope of Article 14 of the
Constitution and reiterated its earlier position
regarding the concept of equality holding: (SCC
pp. 51-52, para 28)
"Suffice it to hold that the illegal allotment
founded upon ultra vires and illegal policy of
allotment made to some other persons wrongly,
would not form a legal premise to ensure it to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.12304 of 2021 dt.09-12-2025
respondent or to repeat or perpetuate such illegal
order, nor could it be legalised. In other words,
judicial process cannot be abused to perpetuate the
illegalities. Thus considered, we hold that the High
Court was clearly in error in directing the
appellants to allot the land to the respondents."
21. Having gone through the decisions noted
hereinabove, there is no hesitation to hold that the plea of the
petitioner regarding discrimination on account of the facts that
other schools have been allowed to run without having requisite
infrastructure violates Article 14 of the Constitution, does not
persuade this Court. Hence, the action of the respondent-BSEB
does not suffer from the vice of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Thus the issue no.(i) answered accordingly.
22. To answer the issue no.(ii), it would be pertinent
to take note of the settled proposition of law that a party cannot
issue orders/office memorandums/executive instructions in
contravention of the statutory rules. The series of the decisions
rendered by the Apex Court time to time has consistently held
that the executive instructions cannot supplant the statutory
rules; they can only supplement or clarify the statutory rules.
23. In Pimpri Chinchwad New Township
Development Authority v. Vishnudev Cooperative Housing
Society & Ors. [(2018) 8 SCC 215], the Hon'ble Supreme
Patna High Court CWJC No.12304 of 2021 dt.09-12-2025
Court held that exercising the power by an authority which the
said authority does not possess tantamounts to abuse of
discretionary power/colourable exercise of power.
24. The Constitution Bench, while interpreting the
expression "abuse" in the case of M. Narayan Nambiar v.
State of Kerala [1962 SCC OnLine SC 85], defined it to mean
misuse, i.e. using his position for something for which it is not
intended.
25. Once under the regulation there is a clear
restriction of possessing the requisite land in order to get
affiliation from the BSEB, the same cannot be diluted, relaxed,
or waived by any authority unless such power is vested under
the Act or the regulation itself. It is to be noted that prior to
coming into force of Affiliation Regulation 2011, the
recognition and affiliation of the schools were governed by the
Intermediate Education Council Act 1992, which also prescribed
for requirements of land, building, playground, furniture, etc.
Though the 1992 Act was repealed, even under the said Act the
school never fulfilled the mandatory requirements as prescribed
under Section 18(1) and 18(2). Thus, in the opinion of this
Court, on the dictate of the Education Minister, the Regional
Deputy Director of Education had no authority to waive the
Patna High Court CWJC No.12304 of 2021 dt.09-12-2025
statutory conditions, and the issue no.(ii) is answered
accordingly.
26. Now coming to the issue no.(iii), with respect to
the power of BSEB to inspect the school which have been
affiliated prior to the coming into force. This issue has already
been answered by the learned division bench of this Court in the
case of Ganesh Prasad Singh & Anr. v. The State of Bihar &
Ors. [LPA No. 1478 of 2017]. The challenge in the Letters
Patent Appeal was the judgment dated 04.09.2017 passed in
CWJC No. 8752 of 2017. By the afore-noted judgment, the
learned writ court has refused to accept the contention of the
petitioner/appellant that the Bihar School Examination Board
cannot hold inspection of the school affiliated prior to coming
into force of Bihar School Examination Board (Senior
Secondary, Affiliation Bye-laws). The learned writ court has
taken note of the amendments brought in by the relevant bye-
laws and the effect of such amendments; the relevant part of the
Affiliation (Amendment) Regulations, 2013 has also been
quoted. The learned Division Bench after taking note of the
amendments brought in the relevant bye-laws and the effect of
such amendment, which was duly quoted in the order of the
learned Single Judge, has held that on the face of the provisions
Patna High Court CWJC No.12304 of 2021 dt.09-12-2025
existing in the amending bye-laws of 2013, the learned writ
court has rightly refused to accept the submissions of the
petitioner/appellant and accordingly dismissed the Letters Patent
Appeal.
27. Somewhat similar issue has come up for
consideration before the learned Division Bench of this Court in
LPA No. 405 of 2022 (The Chairman, Bihar School
Examination Board (Senior Secondary) & Anr. v. Sambadh
Degree Mahavidyalaya Seva Sangh] and other analogous
cases. The learned Single Judge has held that "the intermediate
colleges which were existing prior to the Bihar Intermediate
Education Council Act, 1992 were also deemed to be duly
recognized by the Council under Section 39 of the Act of 1992,
and the said situation continued till coming into force of the
Bihar Intermediate Education Act 2007, which repealed the Act
of 1992, and the Intermediate Council was merged with the
Bihar School Examination Board. Hence, the repeal did not in
any manner affect the deemed recognition of intermediate
colleges under the Act of 1992. However, subsequently a
resolution was passed on 4.7.2020 which interfered with the
release of grant issued on 19.5.2009 to 599 intermediate
colleges based on the pass standard ratio of students, on the
Patna High Court CWJC No.12304 of 2021 dt.09-12-2025
premise that these intermediate colleges do not fulfill the
requisite norms on or before 31.12.2020. The challenge in the
writ petitions was with respect to the said resolution and also an
order dated 3.10.2021 passed by the Bihar School Examination
Board notifying the list of colleges and schools which are to
comply with the norms for recognition by 31.12.2021, failing
which those colleges were restrained from allowing registration
of students for the academic year 2022-23, which spreads over
to the next academic year also.
28. In the afore-noted case, there was specific
contention that the Senior Secondary Affiliation Bye-laws 2011
would not have any bearing on the institutions already existing
and recognized under the Act of 1992. The learned Division
Bench, though agreed with the contention of the respondent
college to the extent that the Act of 1992 stood repealed and the
recognition continued as per deeming provisions in the
subsequent enactments, however, the Court did not countenance
the argument of the respondent that once the institution having
been recognized there could be no further conditions imposed
on the recognized institutions or standards prescribed in
imparting secondary and senior secondary education. The
Division Bench observed that secondary and senior secondary
Patna High Court CWJC No.12304 of 2021 dt.09-12-2025
education are the foundation of any student who aspires to go
for higher studies. Unless the foundation is built of terra firma,
cemented with the required facilities and inputs, the aspirations
and hopes of students to take such higher education would be
frustrated. It cannot at all be said that the conditions and
standards that existed in 1992 should be allowed to be continued
in so far as the institutions recognized by an enactment of that
year. Changing times and the changing needs and requirements
of education would require implementation of better standards
and this cannot be compromised merely for continued
recognition and affiliation of the intermediate colleges."
29. After going through the decisions, afore-noted, it
does not require any further discussion on the issue under
answer. Hence, this Court has no hesitation to hold that BSEB
has the power to inspect schools which have been affiliated
prior to its coming into force of Affiliation Regulation, 2011.
30. Now coming to the issue no.(iv), it would be
suffice to observe that a seven-judge Bench of the Apex Court in
the case of P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, [(2005) 6
SCC 537], held that "minority communities do not have any
higher rights than the majority. They have merely been
conferred additional protection."
Patna High Court CWJC No.12304 of 2021 dt.09-12-2025
31. In the case of Kanya Junior High School, Bal
Vidya Mandir Etah, U.P. v. U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad
Allahabad & Ors. [(2006) 1 SCC 1992], the Hon'ble Supreme
Court observed in para-56 as follows:-
"56...But, only because an institution is
managed by a person belonging to a particular
religion, the same would not ipso facto make the
institution run and administered by a minority
community. A minority is determinable by
reference to the demography of a State. Whether an
institution is established and administered by a
minority community or not may have to be
determined by the appropriate authority in terms of
the provisions of the statute governing the field.
Furthermore, minority institutions are not immune
from the operations of the measures necessary to
regulate their functions. To what extent such
regulations would operate, however, again is a
matter which would be governed by the statute.
(emphasis supplied)
32. Taking apparent clue from the afore-noted
decision rendered by the Apex Court, it is manifest that minority
institutions are not immune from the operations of the measures
necessary to regulate their functions unless otherwise prescribed
under the Act or the rules. Under the Regulation 2011 and
amended Regulation 2013, there is no relaxation provided to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.12304 of 2021 dt.09-12-2025
minority institutions rather to possess the requisite infrastructure
besides fulfillment of other conditions are pre-requisites for
affiliation. Besides the other findings having been highlighted in
the inspection report regarding the interpolation of the record
and the appointment of a person on the post of Principal having
no requisite qualification, it is admitted fact that the school in
question does not have required infrastructure. Hence, even if
the school is a minority institution, there cannot be any
relaxation from application of certain statutory measures sine
qua non for affiliation and its continuance. Accordingly, issue
no.(iv) answered hereinabove.
33. After having answered the issues in the afore-
noted terms, this Court does not find any merit in CWJC
No.12304 of 2021. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed.
34. Since CWJC No. 13142 of 2023 is also dependent
upon the outcome of the afore-noted writ petition, the same also
failed. However, dismissal of both the writ petitions would not
come in the way to the teaching and non-teaching employees to
get all the benefits accrued on account of discharging their
services prior to the order of cancellation of affiliation of the
school in accordance with law, if the same has not been paid till
date, and for which they are at liberty to approach before the
Patna High Court CWJC No.12304 of 2021 dt.09-12-2025
appropriate authorities or the Court.
35 Pending application(s), if any, is also disposed off.
36. The parties shall bear their own cost(s).
(Harish Kumar, J)
rohit/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 15.12.2025
Transmission Date NA
