Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Miss Monika Jain And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 8 October, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2000(3)WLN524
Bench: Shivaraj V. Patil, Bhagwati Prasad
JUDGMENT Shiva Raj V. Patil, C.J.
1. The petitioners in this writ petition have claimed that at Jasma, the school was promoted by the respondent department for girls vide Annex. 2 dated 1.7.1999. Pursuant to this upgradation the present petitioners took admission in Class IX. Without there being any reason, the order Annex. 5 was passed by the respondent State whereby the upgradation of the school at Jasma was withdrawn. Instead a school at Nilodh was sought to be promoted. The case of the petitioners is that the act of the respondents is arbitrary. Having upgraded a school they could not have degraded it to the detriment of the petitioners because the right to education is a right enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Unni Krishnan, J.P. and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. .
2. The second ground of the learned Counsel for the petitioners to attack the order Annex. 5 is that this has violated the principles of natural justice. No one was heard before passing of the order impugned and, thus, the right which has accrued to the petitioners has been infringed. He has placed reliance on a Supreme Court decision rendered in Gadde Venkateswara Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. .
3. Counsel for the petitioner further stated that in the entire area the school in question was the only girls' school. Therefore, the petitioners have been deprived of their right to seek education.
4. Counsel for the State has contested the stand of the petitioners and has stated that the order of upgradation was passed on 1.7.1999 and on 9.7.1999 the order of revocation of upgradation has been passed. Thus, before any unreasonable delay was caused, the correction was made. In terms of Annex.4 the petitioners took admission on 19.7.1999 i.e. after revocation of the order upgrading the school. Therefor, no right has been accrued to the petitioners in claiming preference on the basis of the admission sought by them. Since the right to the petitioners if at all accrued only after 19.7.1999 and the order of revocation has already been passed on 9.7.1999. Therefore, they have no right to be heard in the matter. Further at Jasma there is already a secondary school may be that it is not exclusively for the girls but the girls can also be admitted in that school. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners have no place to take admission. Further at the new place there is no school of secondary level and, therefore, the students of that area have been benefited by upgradation.
5. Counsel for the State has placed reliance on a Supreme Court decision rendered in the State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Lok Shikshan Sanstha and Ors. , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under-
So long as there is no violation of any fundamental rights and if the principles of natural justice are not offended, it is not for the High Court to lay down the policy that should be adopted by the educational authorities in the matter of granting permission for starting schools. The question of policy is essentially for the State and such policy will depend upon an overall assessment and summary of the requirements of residents of a particular locality and other categories of persons for whom it is essential to provide facilities for education. If the overall assessment is arrived at after a proper classification on a reasonable basis, it is not for the courts to interfere with the policy leading up to such assessment.
6. In the instant case, there is no question of any violation of the principles of natural justice because before the petitioners took admission the order of revocation was passed. Further the petitioners have not been able to make out a case where they claim any fundamental right which has been denied to them altogether because there is already a school at Jasma where they can take admission and right of education is not defeated altogether.
7. During the course of the arguments, the learned Counsel for the petitioners requested that the original record may be called just to see as to under what circumstances the revocation was made. The record was called and in the original proposal it has been recorded that the school at Jasma was promoted on the desire of the M.L.A. of the area. The State has considered the letter from the M.L.A. of the area wherein he has expressed that he never have any desire to promote the school at Jasma. He has contended in his letter that he has desired that the school at Nilodh be upgraded. The State Government considering the request of the M.L.A. has issued the correction order and the school at Nilodh was substituted in place of Jasma. Thus, from the available record it is clear that the basic proposal for upgradation of the school at Jasma was prepared purportedly at the desire of M.L.A. Kapasan, Shri Mohan Lai Chittoriya. But in a letter this M.L.A. has expressed that he never gave any desire. Thus, the very foundation of the State Government order in upgrading the school at Jasma was missing and, therefore, if the correction has been made in the order then it is a matter of policy and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Lok Shikshan Sanstha (supra) it would not be proper for this Court to substitute the decision of the State Government by the decision of this Court. The students have taken admission after revocation of the order. Therefore, it cannot be said that any right of the petitioners has been infringed by the order of cancellation. In this view of the matter it is not seen that there is any right which can be enforced by this writ petition.
8. Consequently, there is no force in this writ petition and the same is dismissed.