Madhya Pradesh High Court
State Bank Of India vs Director M/S Soni Ispat Limited And 8 ... on 1 August, 2014
Page no 1
W.A. no. 169/2014
01/08/2014
Mr. Anand Pathak, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Ms. Mini Ravindran, Dy.G.A for respondent no. 1.
Mr. R.S. Rathuwanshi, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3.
Heard.
By this writ petition, the appellant has assailed the order dated 12th February, 2014 passed in W.P. no. 959/2014 which was dismissed by learned Single Judge.
2 Relevant portion in impugned order reads as under :
" After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the various documents filed along with the writ petition, it is clear that petitioner had done as a private student High School from Institute of Secondary Distance Education Madhya Pradesh from the former Delhi Board. The said Board is not recognized by the Madhya Pradesh Higher Secondary Education Board. Perusal of Annexure-P/6 shows that the earlier Board was some kind of dubious institution. The very existence of the same was in doubt.
After having heard the learned counsel and going through the material available on record, we do not find any merit and substance in the petition. Same, Page no 2 therefore, stands dismissed summarily. "
3 Learned counsel for the respondents have brought to our notice the certificate with respect to the qualification on which learned counsel for the appellant is placing reliance for further admission vide Annexure-P/4. Bare perusal of this certificate goes to show that this certificate has been issued by the Institution of Secondary Distance Education MP ( Formerly - Board of Secondary Education, Delhi ).
4 Learned counsel for the respondents submits that this certificate has been given by the Institution which is not a recognized institute, in fact, he has brought to our notice the decision taken in this regard by the State of M.P ( Annexure-R-2/3) filed along with their return to Writ Appeal which reads as under :
ek/;fed f'k{kk e.My] e/;izns'k] Hkksiky] dzekad@123 @fo|ks-@10] Hkksiky] fnukad 20@04@2012 @@foKfIr@@ ikB~;p;kZ lfefr dh cSBd fnukAd 23-02-2010 ds fo"k; dzekad 03 eas fd;s x, fu.kZ; }kjk cksMZ vkWQ lsds.Mjh ,T;qds'ku] fnYyh dh led{krk lekIr djus dk fu'p; fd;k x;k gS A vr% ek/;fed f'k{kk e.My] e/;izns'k] Hkksiky] } kjk izdkf'kr xkzgrk@ekU;rk@led{krk iqfLrdk dzekad 216] o"kZ 2004 ds i`"B dzekad&9] fnYyh] fcUnq dazekd&1] ij vafdr cksMZ vkQ lsds.Mjh ,T;qds'ku] fnYyh] dh gkbZLdwy ijh{kk dh led{krk lekIr dh tkr gS ;g ?
Page no 3 kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gS fd rFkkdfFkr cksMZ vkWQ lsds.Mjh ,T;qds'ku] fnYyh] }kjk---gkbZLdwy ijh{kk] ek/;fed f'k{kk e.My] e/;izns'k] Hkksiky] ls ugha ekuh tkosxh vkSj mlls mRrh.kZ Nk= ek/;fed f'k{kk e.My] e/;izns'k] Hkksiky ls ekU;rk izkIr gk;j lsds.Mjh Ldwyksa dh 11oha d{kk eas izos'k gksus ,oa ek/;fed f'k{kk e.My] e/;izns'k] Hkksiky] }kjk vk;ksftr gk;j lsds.Mjh ijh{kkvksa eas cSBus ds fy;s ik= ugha gS A lfpo] ek/;fed f'k{kk e.My] e/;izns'k] Hkksiky]
5 This clearly goes to show that the institution from where, the appellant claims to have cleared 10th Standard Examination, is not a recognized institute and in fact, the recognition of the institution of which there is reference made by the appellant as the institution from which they have taken examination of 10th Standard, stands de-recognized in the year 2010 itself, whereas the examination undertaken by the appellant is in the year 2013. It will be appropriate to take note of some paragraphs of the reply filed by the respondents to appreciate and understand their stand on the matter " 9. The contents of paragraph no. 8 of writ appeal are denied. It is denied that the said Institute in which the appellant was admitted is a recognized Institute by the answering respondents. In fact, the said Institute viz Institute of Secondary Distance Education. M.P ( formerly known as " Board of Secondary Education, Delhi ) ( hereinafter referred to as " the said Institute ) not recognized by the answering respondents.
Page no 4 It is submitted that the said Institute was recognized with the answering respondents only till 2009. The answering respondents vide order dated 30/07/2009 declared that as per orders issued by the Government of India, the said Institute was ordered to be de-recognized and it was declared that the examination conducted by the said Institute shall not be equivalent to the examinations conducted by the answering respondents and the students who passed. Class-X from the said Institute will not be permitted to right the examinations conducted by the answering respondents for Class-XI and they shall also not be given any permission for such examinations. Copy of the said order dated 30/07/2009 is annexed and marked as Annexure R-2/2 to the return.
Thereafter, vide order dated 20/04/2010 again the same stand was reiterated by the answering respondents that such students from the said Institute shall not be allowed to right examinations for Class-XI conducted by the answering respondents. Copy of the said order dated 20/04/2010 is annexed and marked as Annexure- R-2/3 to the return."
It is submitted that the said Institute is not recognized which is evident further from the internal letters dated 26/08/2013, 07/10/2013 and 22/10/2013 of the answering respondents. Copies of these letters are collectively annexed and marked as Annexujre R-2/4 to the return.
The said RTI note sheet dated 09/08/2012 ( Annexure- P/6 to the writ petition ) cannot help the appellant as the Page no 5 same was purportedly issued mistakenly. It is submitted that a mistake cannot be perpetuated to be continued and hence the appellant cannot take any benefit of the same.
6 In view of the aforesaid clear cut stand, the appellant has no legs to stand in this regard. We therefore, dismissed the present appeal and maintain the order impugned passed by learned Single Judge as there is no infirmity in the impugned order.
C c as per rules.
( SHANTANU KEMKAR ) ( M.C. GARG )
JUDGE JUDGE
amol