Patna High Court
Ucchatar Madhyamik School vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 24 August, 2017
Author: Chakradhari Sharan Singh
Bench: Chakradhari Sharan Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1366 of 2017
===========================================================
1. Ucchatar Madhyamik School, (+2), Kabar, Anti Gaya through its Secretary
Ramesh Kumar, S/o Ramchandra Yadav, R/o Anti, P.O.- Kabar, P.S.- Anti,
Distt.- Gaya.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Education Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Gaya.
4. The Additional Collector, Gaya.
5. The District Education Officer, Gaya.
6. The Bihar School Examination Board, Patna through its Chairman, Patna.
7. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.
8. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.
.... .... Respondents
with
===========================================================
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1024 of 2017
===========================================================
1. S.M.P. Uchach Madhyamik School, Fatehpur, Gaya through its Secretary
Rakesh Kumar, S/o Mahadeo Prasad, R/o vill. Khree, P.O. Jethion, P.S. Atari,
District - Gaya
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Education Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
3. The District Magistrate, Gaya
4. The Additional Collector, Gaya
5. The District Education Officer, Gaya
6. The Bihar School Examination Board, Patna through its Chairman, Patna
7. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna
8. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna
.... .... Respondents
with
===========================================================
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1364 of 2017
===========================================================
1. Mahamaya Prajapati Gautami Mahila U. M. Vidyalaya, Bodh Gaya through its
Principal cum Secretary, Dr. Markandey Pandey, S/o Late Ramchandra
Pandey, R/O Moh Ambedkar Nagar, Behind Bhojpur Transformer Factory,
Police Line Road P.O. & P.S.- Rampur, District- Gaya.
2
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Education Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Gaya.
4. The Additional Collector, Gaya.
5. The District Education Officer, Gaya.
6. The Bihar School Examination Board, Patna through its Chairman, Patna.
7. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.
8. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.
.... .... Respondents
with
===========================================================
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1948 of 2017
===========================================================
1. Trimurti Inter College, Ismailpur, Nisarpura, Via - Punpun, Patna, through its
Secretary Surendra Singh, son of Ram Sevak Singh, resident of F/139, P.C.
Colony Kankarbag, P.S.- Kankarbag, District- Patna.
2. Surendra Singh, son of Ram Sevak Singh, resident of F/139, P.C. Colony
Kankarbagh, P.S.- Kankarbag, District- Patna.
.... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The Bihar School Examination Board, Sinha Library Road, Patna through its
Secretary.
2. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board, Sinha Library Road, Patna.
3. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Sinha Library Road, Patna.
.... .... Respondent/s
with
===========================================================
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3270 of 2017
===========================================================
1. Nandlal Singh Uchhatar Madhyamik Vidhyalaya Shikraul Lakh, Dafa Dehri,
Buxar through its President Dharmendra Kumar Singh, Son of Late Nandlal
Singh, Resident of Village Dafa Dehri, P.O.- Shikraul, Lakh, District- Buxar
(Bihar).
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
2. The State of Bihar.
3. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
5. The District Education Officer, Buxar.
6. The Bihar School Examination Board (Senior Secondary), Buddha Marg, Patna
through its Secretary.
7. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board (Senior Secondary), Buddha
3
Marg, Patna.
8. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board (Senior Secondary), Buddha
Marg, Patna.
.... .... Respondent/s
with
===========================================================
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2474 of 2017
===========================================================
1. B. D. +2 Uchhatar Madhyamik Vidhyalaya Kukudha Road, Bijhoura, Buxar
through its Principal Devendra Kumar Singh, Son of Shri Harihar Singh,
Resident of Village + P.O.- Pandetpatti, P.S.- Muffasil, District- Buxar (Bihar).
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Education Officer, Buxar.
5. The Bihar School Examination Board (Senior Secondary), Buddha Marg, Patna
through its Secretary.
6. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board (Senior Secondary), Buddha
Marg, Patna.
7. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board (Senior Secondary), Buddha
Marg, Patna.
.... .... Respondent/s
with
===========================================================
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3244 of 2017
===========================================================
1. Amarnath Mishra Uchhatar Madhamik Vidyalaya, Dayalpur, Dhansoi, Buxar
through its Principal Seema Kumari @ Seema Devi Wife of Amarnath Mishra,
Resident of Village- Dayalpur, P.O.- Gogaura, P.S.- Dhansoi, District- Buxar
(Bihar).
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Education Officer, Buxar.
5. The Bihar School Examination Board (Senior Secondary), Buddha Marg, Patna
through its Secretary.
6. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board (Senior Secondary), Buddha
Marg, Patna.
7. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board (Senior Secondary), Buddha
Marg, Patna.
.... .... Respondent/s
4
with
===========================================================
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3195 of 2017
===========================================================
1. Sunil Singh Yadav Uchh Madhyamik Vidhyalaya, Indrhiyan, Sasaram, Rohtas
through its Principal -Cum-Secretary,Sunil Kumar Singh Son of Bhaiya Ram
Singh Resident of Village- Indrhiyan, P.O.- Karup, Indrhiyan,P.S. Sasaram
Moffasil, District- Rohtas(Bihar).
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Education Officer, Rohtas.
5. The Bihar School Examination Board (Senior Secondary), Buddha Marg, Patna
through its Secretary.
6. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board (Senior Secondary), Buddha
Marg, Patna.
7. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board (Senior Secondary), Buddha
Marg, Patna.
.... .... Respondent/s
with
===========================================================
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5043 of 2017
===========================================================
1. Harinandan Chandrabanshi Uchh Madhyamik Vidhyalaya, Bikramganj, Rohtas
through its President Lakshman Prasad Son of Harinandan Chandrabanshi,
Resident of Mohalla- Askamani Nagar, P.O.+ P.S.- Bikramganj, District-
Rohtas (Bihar).
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Education Officer, Rohtas.
5. The Bihar School Examination Board (Senior Secondary), Buddha Marg, Patna
through its Secretary.
6. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board (Senior Secondary), Buddha
Marg, Patna.
7. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board (Senior Secondary), Buddha
Marg, Patna.
.... .... Respondent/s
with
===========================================================
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3977 of 2017
===========================================================
5
1. B. N. Bhagat +2 Uchhatar Madhyamik Vidhyalaya, Itarhi, Buxar through its
President Om Prakash Bhagat Son of Vishwanath Bhagat, Resident of Village-
Sarasti, P.O.-Itarhi, District-Buxar (Bihar).
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna,
4. The District Education Officer, Buxar,
5. The Bihar School Examination Board (Senior Secondary), Buddha Marg, Patna
through its Secretary,
6. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board, (Senior Secondary), Buddha
Marg, Patna
7. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board (Senior Secondary), Buddha
Marg, Patna.
.... .... Respondent/s
with
===========================================================
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 789 of 2017
===========================================================
1. Santosh Uchh Madhyamik ( +2) School, Guraru, District- Gaya through its
Principal Santosh Kumar S/o Indradeo Yadav Village & P.O.-Digghi, P.S.-
Konch, District-gaya
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Education Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
3. The District Magistrate, Gaya
4. The Additional Collector, Gaya
5. The District Education Officer, Gaya
6. The Bihar School Examination Board, Patna through its Chairman, Patna
7. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board Patna
8. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna
.... .... Respondent/s
with
===========================================================
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4744 of 2017
===========================================================
1. Kanya Uchhatar Madhyamik Vidhyalaya, Naya Bazar, Buxar through its
Principal Janardan Singh Son of Late Nanak Singh, Resident of Village- Thora,
P.O.- Cental Jail Buxar, P.S.- Buxar Muffasil, District- Buxar (Bihar).
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
6
2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Education Officer, Buxar.
5. The Bihar School Examination Board (Senior Secondary), Buddha Marg, Patna
through its Secretary.
6. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board (Senior Secondary), Buddha
Marg, Patna.
7. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board (Senior Secondary), Buddha
Marg, Patna.
.... .... Respondent/s
with
===========================================================
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16941 of 2016
===========================================================
1. Ram Nath Rear Trust, Lakhisarai, At- Lakhisarai, P.S.- Lakhisarai, District-
Lakhisarai through its President Ram Balak Prasad Singh
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Bihar School Examination Board (Higher Secondary), Patna through its
Chairman, Patna.
4. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.
5. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.
6. The District Magistrate, Lakhisarai.
7. The Superintendent of Police, Lakhisarai.
.... .... Respondent/s
with
===========================================================
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17206 of 2016
===========================================================
1. Ram Nath Rear Trust, Lakhisarai, At- Lakhisarai, P.S.- Lakhisarai, District-
Lakhisarai through its President Ram Balak Prasad Singh
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Bihar School Examination Board (Higher Secondary), Patna through its
Chairman, Patna.
4. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.
5. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.
6. The District Magistrate, Lakhisarai.
7. The Superintendent of Police, Lakhisarai.
.... .... Respondent/s
with
7
===========================================================
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 20312 of 2016
===========================================================
1. Subhash Senior Secondary School Moratalab, Sohsarai, Biharsharif, District -
Nalanda through Suraj Bhatt, Principal-cum-Secretary.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. District Education Officer, Nalanda.
5. Bihar School Examination Board (Senior Secondary), Buddha Marg, Patna
through its Secretary.
.... .... Respondent/s
with
===========================================================
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 390 of 2017
===========================================================
1. Janardan Uchchtar Madhyamik (+2) Vidyalaya, Narkariyagan, District-West
Champaran represented through its Secretary, Pramod Kumar Choubey, S/o-
Late Janak Choubey, Resident of Village-Banu Chhapar, Deo Nagar, P.O. +
P.S.-Bettiah, District-West Champaran, Permanent resident of Village-Sathi
(Semari), P.O. + P.S.-Sathi, District-West Champaran
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department, of Education,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
3. The Director, Higher Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
4. The Bihar School Examination Board, Patna through its Secretary, the Bihar
School Examination Board, Patna
5. The Secretary, the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna
6. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.
7. The Affiliation Committee of Bihar School Examination Board, Patna,
Constituted Under Rule 3 of the Bihar School Examination Board (Sr. Sec.)
Affiliation Bylaws, 2013
8. The District Magistrate, West Champaran,
9. The District Education Officer, West Champaran, Bettiah
.... .... Respondent/s
with
===========================================================
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 127 of 2017
===========================================================
1. Makhdum Bakhash Memorial Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Uttarvahini,
Chanpatiya, District - West Champaran represented through its Secretary,
8
Sheikh Najarul Haque, S/o Late Makhum Baksh, resident of village -
Uttarvahini, P.O. Pokhariya Rai, P.S. Chanpatiya, District - West Champaran
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Education,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
3. The Director, Higher Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
4. The Bihar School Examination Board, Patna through its Secretary, the Bihar
School Examination Board, Patna
5. The Secretary, the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna
6. The Chairman, the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna
7. The Affiliation Committee of Bihar School Examination Board, Patna,
Constituted under Rule 3 of the Bihar School Examination Board ( Sr. Sec. )
Affiliation Bylaws, 2013
8. The District Magistrate, West Champaran
9. The District Education Officer, West Champaran, Bettiah
.... .... Respondent/s
with
===========================================================
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 418 of 2017
===========================================================
1. Asha Sinha Memorial Uchcha Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Dariyapur Barua,
Sonepur, District - Saran represented through its Principal, Manjay Lal, S/o
Shri Lakshman Singh, resident of village - Kochas, P.O. + P.S. Kochas, District
- Rohtas
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Education,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
3. The Director, Higher Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
4. The Bihar School Examination Board, Patna through its Secretary, the Bihar
School Examination Board, Patna
5. The Secretary, the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna
6. The Chairman, the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna
7. The Affiliation Committee of Bihar School Examination Board, Patna,
Constituted under Rule 3 of the Bihar School Examination Board ( Sr. Sec. )
Affiliation Bylaws, 2013
8. The District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra
9. The District Education officer, Saran at Chapra
.... .... Respondent/s
with
===========================================================
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 166 of 2017
===========================================================
9
1. Polhawan Singh Ramjyoti Devi Brijnandan Singh Sharda Devi Uchchtar
Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Nayaka Barka Baiju Tola, Rivilganj, District- Saran at
Chapra represented through its Principal, Santosh Kumar Singh, S/o Shri
Brijnandan Singh, resident of Village- Godna More, Gautam Asthan, P.O. +
P.S.- Rivilganj, District- Saran at Chapra.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Education,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Higher Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Bihar School Examination Board, Patna through its Secretary, the Bihar
School Examination Board, Patna.
5. The Secretary, the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.
6. The Chairman, the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.
7. The Affiliation Committee of Bihar School Examination Board, Patna,
constituted under Rule 3 of the Bihar School Examination Board (Sr. Sec.)
Affiliation Bylaws, 2010.
8. The District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra.
9. The District Education Officer, Saran at Chapra.
.... .... Respondent/s
with
===========================================================
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 399 of 2017
===========================================================
1. Mahendra Prasad Memorial U. M. V., Dariyapur, Cherki through its Secretary
Jugal Kishor Son of Mahendra Prasad Resident of Dariyapur, Cherki, P.S.
Sherghat, District- Gaya.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary Education Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Gaya.
4. The Additional Collectariate, Gaya.
5. The District Education Officer, Gaya.
6. The Bihar School Examination Board, Patna through its Chairman, Patna.
7. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.
8. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.
.... .... Respondent/s
with
===========================================================
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 594 of 2017
===========================================================
1. Sanjay Singh Yadav Uachh Mahavidhyalya ( +2 ) School ,Rafiganj,
Aurangabad through its President Sanjay Singh Yadav S/o Shri Sheoratan Singh
10
P.S. Rafiganj, Aurangabad.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Education Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Gaya.
4. The Additional Collector, Gaya.
5. The District Education Officer, Gaya.
6. The Bihar School Examination Board, Patna through its Chairman, Patna.
7. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.
8. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Bihar, Patna.
.... .... Respondent/s
with
===========================================================
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5685 of 2017
===========================================================
1. Bindeshwar Prasad Memorial Senior Secondary School, Maranchi, Paraiyya,
Gaya through its teacher Akash Dayal Son of Sunil Kumar, Village-Maranchi,
P.s.-Paraiyya, District Gaya
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Education Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Gaya
4. The Additional Collector, Gaya
5. The District Education, Officer, Gaya
6. The Bihar School Examination Board, Patna through its Chairman. Patna.
7. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.
8. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna
.... .... Respondent/s
with
===========================================================
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5658 of 2017
===========================================================
1. Shri Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav Uchh Vidhyalaya, Nardiganj, Pandupa,
Nardiganj (Nawada) through its Principal Ram Chandra Prasad, son of
Mahaveer Mahto, Parma, P.S. Parman District- Nawada.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Nawada.
11
4. The Additional Collector, Nawada.
5. The District Education Officer, Nawada.
6. The Bihar School Examination Board, Patna through its Chairman, Patna.
7. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.
8. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.
.... .... Respondent/s
with
===========================================================
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5072 of 2017
===========================================================
1. Mahatma Gandhi Inter Mahavidhyalaya, Jehanabad through its Principal Arbind
Kumar Dwivedi, S/o Dinesh Chandra Dwivedi, R/o Village- Amair, P.S. Paras
Bigha, District- Jehanabad.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Education Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Gaya.
4. The Additional Collector, Gaya.
5. The District Education Officer, Gaya.
6. The Bihar School Examination Board, Patna through its Chairman, Patna.
7. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.
8. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.
.... .... Respondent/s
with
===========================================================
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 467 of 2017
===========================================================
1. Ideal Public Senior Secondary School, Manpur, District - Gaya through its
Secretary Ajay Kumar, Son of Mohan Prasad, Resident of Village Mastalipur,
P.O. Bara Gandhar, P.S.- Muffasil, District- Gaya.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Education Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Gaya.
4. The Additional Collector, Gaya.
5. The District Education Officer, Gaya.
6. The Bihar School Examination Board, Patna through its Chairman, Patna.
7. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.
8. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.
.... .... Respondent/s
with
12
===========================================================
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4 of 2017
===========================================================
1. Haroon Memorial Senior Secondary ( Uchchtar ) School, Sansaraiya, Nautan,
District - West Champaran represented through its Secretary, Roohul Amin
Khan S/o - Late Md. Haroon Khan resident of village + P.O. - Sansaraiya, P.S. -
Muffasil Bettiah, District - West Champaran.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Education,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Higher Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Bihar School Examination Board, Patna through its Secretary, the Bihar
School Examination Board, Patna.
5. The Secretary, the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.
6. The Chairman, the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.
7. The Affiliation Committee of Bihar School Examination Board, Patna,
constituted under Rule 3 of the Bihar School Examination Board (Sr. Sec.),
Affiliation Bylaws, 2013.
8. The District Magistrate, West Champaran.
9. The District Education Officer, West Champaran, Bettiah.
.... .... Respondent/s
with
===========================================================
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 104 of 2017
===========================================================
1. Indu Devi Memorial Senior Secondary School, Maldahiya, Narkatiyaganj,
District - West Champaran represented through its Principal, Mritunjay Kumar
S/o - Shri Arbind Kumar Verma resident of village - Maldahiya, P.O. -
Narkatiyaganj, P.S. - Sikarpur, District - West Champaran, Secretary of Indu
Dev Memorial Senior Secondary School, Maldahiya, Narkatiyaganj, District -
West Champaran.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Education,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Higher Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Bihar School Examination Board, Patna through its Secretary, the Bihar
School Examination Board, Patna.
5. The Secretary, the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.
6. The Chairman, the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.
7. The Affiliation Committee of Bihar School Examination Board, Patna,
constituted under Rule 3 of the Bihar School Examination Board (Sr. Sec.),
Affiliation Bylaws, 2013.
8. The District Magistrate, West Champaran.
13
9. The District Education Officer, West Champaran, Bettiah.
.... .... Respondent/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
(In CWJC No.1366 of 2017)
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Shama Sinha
For the Respondent/s : Smt. Shilpa Singh- GA12
(In CWJC No.1024 of 2017)
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Shama Sinha
For the Respondent/s : Smt.Shilpa Singh-GA12
(In CWJC No.1364 of 2017)
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Shama Sinha
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Madhaw Pd. Yadav- GP23
(In CWJC No.1948 of 2017)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajey Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Gyan Shankar
(In CWJC No.3270 of 2017)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh
For the Respondent/s : Smt. Shilpa Singh-GA12
(In CWJC No.2474 of 2017)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey -AAG 15
(In CWJC No.3244 of 2017)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh
For the Respondent/s : Smt. Binita Singh- SC28
(In CWJC No.3195 of 2017)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Madanjit Singh- GP20
(In CWJC No.5043 of 2017)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey-AAG15
(In CWJC No.3977 of 2017)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr. A.R. Pandey- AAG15
(In CWJC No.789 of 2017)
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Shama sinha
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kameshwar Kumar- GP17
(In CWJC No.4744 of 2017)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Madanjeet Singh -GP20
(In CWJC No.16941 of 2016)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh
For the Respondent/s : Smt.Shilpa Singh-GA12
(In CWJC No.17206 of 2016)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey- AAG15
(In CWJC No.20312 of 2016)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raj Kishor Prasad
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Roy No. 1, SC13
(In CWJC No.390 of 2017)
14
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shri Prakash Srivastava
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Madhaw Pd. Yadav- GP23
(In CWJC No.127 of 2017)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shri Prakash Srivastava
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Roy No. 1 SC13
(In CWJC No.418 of 2017)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shri Prakash Srivastava
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey-AAG15
(In CWJC No.166 of 2017)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Subhash Chandra Mishra- SC16
(In CWJC No.399 of 2017)
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Shama sinha
For the Respondent/s : Smt.Shilpa Singh-GA12
(In CWJC No.594 of 2017)
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Shama sinha
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Madhaw Prasad Yadav-GP23
(In CWJC No.5685 of 2017)
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Shama Sinha
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Madanjeet Singh- GP20
(In CWJC No.5658 of 2017)
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Shama Sinha
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kameshwar Kumar -GP17
(In CWJC No.5072 of 2017)
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Shama Sinha
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Jitendra kr. Roy No. 1- SC13
(In CWJC No.467 of 2017)
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Shama Sinha
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kameshwar Kumar-GP17
(In CWJC No.4 of 2017)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shri Prakash Srivastava
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Subhash Chandra Mishra- Sc16
(In CWJC No.104 of 2017)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shri Prakash Srivastava
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kameshwar Kumar-GP17
For the Board : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Senior Advocate
(in all cases) Mr. Satyabir Bharti
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN
SINGH
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
C.A.V.
Date: 24-08-2017
Since this batch of writ applications, filed under
15
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, involve common legal
issues for judicial determination and grounds of attack against
the impugned action of the Bihar School Examination Board
(hereinafter referred to as the Board) are almost identical, the
matters have been heard together with the consent of the
parties and are being disposed of by present common
judgment and order.
2. Certain Schools, privately managed, were granted
affiliation by the Board for preparing the students for
Secondary (Class 10) and Senior Secondary Schools (Class
12) Certificate Examination of the Board. The Schools, which
impart education for preparing students up to Class 10, are
known as "Secondary Schools" and those imparting education
up to Class 12 are known as "Senior Secondary Schools",
within the meaning of Bihar School Examination Board (Senior
Secondary) Affiliations Regulations, 2013 (hereinafter referred
to as the Regulations).
3. These applications have been filed either by such
Senior Secondary/Secondary Schools or the Trusts managing
the said Schools. They are aggrieved by respective orders
passed by the Board in purported exercise of the power of
withdrawal of affiliation under Regulation 15 of the
Regulations, whereby their affiliations have been withdrawn/
cancelled.
16
4. Heard Mr. Abhay Kumar Singh, learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioners ably assisted by Mr. Shri Prakash
Srivastava. Ms. Shama Sinha has appeared in many of the
cases representing the petitioner and has advanced her
submissions. Learned Counsel for Petitioners, in other cases,
have extended their valuable assistance. State Counsel
representing the State of Bihar have also been heard. Mr. Lalit
Kishore, learned Senior Counsel, has appeared on behalf of
the Board assisted by Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Mr. Gyan Shankar
and Mrs Vinita Singh. I might have missed to mention the
names of other learned counsel who extended their valuable
assistance at the hearing; I acknowledge the quality of
assistance extended by all of them.
5. A preliminary objection over maintainability of the
writ applications on the ground of availability of alternative
remedy of appeal before the State Government has been
taken on behalf of the Board with reference to sub-Section (4)
of Section 10B of the Bihar School Examination Board Act,
1952 (hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟), which in Court‟s
view is wholly misplaced and not at all tenable. Since, I will be
dealing with Sections 10B and 10C of the Act to address one of
the core issues involved in the present batch of cases, the said
provisions are being reproduced herein below:-
"10B. Committee of
Affiliation.- (1) A Committee of
17
Affiliation shall be constituted by the
Board for granting and withdrawing
affiliation of Secondary and Senior
Secondary Schools established by non-
governmental organizations.
(2) The Committee of Affiliation
shall consist of the following:
(i) Chairman of the Board;
(ii) A person to be nominated by
the Board.
(3) The Chairman of the Board
shall function as the Chairman of the
Committee, and the Secretary of the
Board shall function as Secretary of the
Affiliation Committee.
(4) Any person dissatisfied with
decision of the committee constituted
under Section 10B may prefer an appeal
within 30 (thirty) days of the
communication of the decision before
Principal Secretary, Human Resource
Development Department, Government of
Bihar, who shall be the appellate
Authority and his decision shall be final.
(Emphasis mine)
10C. Power to Grant and
Withdraw Affiliation.- The Board shall
have power to grant and withdraw
affiliation of Secondary and Senior
Secondary Schools established or to be
established by the non-governmental
organizations on the basis of
recommendation of Committee of
18
Affiliation, constituted under Section 10B
above and it shall have power to make
regulations in this regard with the
approval of the State Government:
Provided that the Institutions
imparting education of Intermediate (+2)
standard deemed to have been
recognized under Section 39 of the
Institutions established and recognized or
granted permission for establishment
under Section 41 of the Bihar
Intermediate Educational Council Act,
1992, shall be deemed to have been
affiliated with Board for the senior
secondary examination:
Provided further that all such
Institutions of Intermediate (+2)
Education shall reorganize and rename
themselves as senior secondary schools
with facilities and teachers for imparting
education at secondary stage and senior
secondary stage as prescribed by the
Regulations to be made by the Board in
this regard, and within the time-frame
indicated in it:
Provided also that before
withdrawing affiliation the Board shall
give to the school or the institutions
concerned a reasonable opportunity of
being heard, and the students admitted
into such schools or institutions shall be
allowed to complete their academic
sessions and appear at the next
19
examination conducted by the Board."
6. I have taken note of the fact that the words
"Principal Secretary, Human Resource Development
Department, Government of Bihar", in sub-section (4) of
Section 10B of the Act have been substituted by the words
"State Government" by Section 8 of the Bihar School
Examination Board (Amendment) Act, 2011 (Bihar Act 6,
2011).
7. On bare reading of sub-Section (4) of Section 10B
of the Act, it is clear that the said appeal lies against decision
of the Committee of Affiliation, whereas in the present case,
action of the Board is being assailed on the grounds, inter alia,
that the matter was never placed before the statutory
Committee of Affiliation and, therefore, there is no decision of
the Committee, appealable under sub-Section (4) of Section
10B of the Act. There is no gainsaying that the matters
relating to cancellation/withdrawal of affiliation, which are
under challenge in the present batch of cases, were never
placed before the Committee of Affiliation, constituted under
Section 10B of the Act. The preliminary objection so taken,
thus, stands overruled.
8. It appears that the action of the Board is aftermath
of detection merit scam in the State of Bihar. It is the stand of
the Board in the present proceedings that after the merit scam
20
surfaced, the Board received large number of complaints
against various institutions engaged in the business of
facilitating students to clear 10th/12th examinations though
illegitimate, backdoor method. In some of the cases the Board
received complaints that such Colleges/Schools did not exist
and they were found to be running on papers only. The Board
also received complaints that so many institutions were,
without carrying any teaching activity, getting students
admitted in their Schools and helping them smoothly pass the
examinations, with the use of unfair means and malpractices
so much so that they were passing with better division and
marks compared to well established schools and colleges,
where regular teaching was being imparted.
9. From the reading of the counter affidavits filed on
behalf of the Board, it can be easily seen that the present
administration of the Board has accused its earlier
dispensation which is said to have granted affiliations in favour
of 212 Schools/Colleges where there were absolutely no
infrastructure or other facilities nor sufficient number of
teachers. It is the further stand in the counter affidavits that
the present Chairman of the Board took the matter seriously
and under his guidance scrutiny started whereafter the Board
arrived at a conclusion that the then Chairman and the officials
of the Board had made compromises in the matter of grant of
21
affiliations. As a corrective measure, the Board decided to
enquire into the availability of infrastructure and other
teaching facilities in newly affiliated schools/colleges so that
proper decision in the matter could be taken. Accordingly, in
furtherance of the said decision, the Board prepared a district-
wise list of newly affiliated colleges/schools conducting
teaching up to Class 12 and requested the respective District
Magistrates of the District, vide letter No. 5684, dated 2nd July,
2016, to take steps for on the spot inspection and physical
verification of infrastructure and other facilities of such
colleges/schools by a Committee comprising:- (i) Officer not
below the rank of Additional District Magistrate nominated by
the District Magistrate. (ii) A member nominated by
Superintendent of Police of the concerned District not below
the rank of Inspector of Police.(iii) District Education Officer of
the concerned District or his nominee. (iv) One member
nominated by the Board and (v) An Officer as member
Secretary nominated by the District Magistrate.
10. The Committee was asked to make on the spot
inspection and physical verification of newly affiliated
Colleges/Schools of the district concerned on the touchstone of
minimum requirement for grant of affiliations. There were 18
issues which were required to be looked into by the Inspecting
Team, which were directly connected with the infrastructural
22
facilities and essential conditions for grant of affiliations,
according to the Board. The Inspecting Team so constituted,
submitted its reports with respect to the respective
schools/colleges recording shortcomings in the infrastructural
facilities, put in place by the respective institutions. The said
inspection reports of the Committee were made available to
the respective schools/colleges with show cause notices
directing them to submit their explanations within 15 days. It
is the plea of the Board, in the counter affidavits that the said
team was constituted by the Board. It is also the case of the
Board that the show cause replies submitted in response to
show cause notice were considered by the Board objectively
and, thereafter, the Board passed final speaking orders,
cancelling the affiliation in courses of study, granted to the
respective institutions.
11. In view of the specific stand taken on behalf of
the Board that the decision to constitute Inspecting Teams
was taken by the Board and; based on enquiry reports so
submitted and show cause replies so filed, decisions to cancel
the affiliations were taken by the Board, which was being
disputed on behalf of the petitioners, I had directed for
production of original records in relation to the cancellation of
affiliations of the respective schools/colleges of the petitioners,
which have been produced and have been perused by me.
23
12. In course of hearing of these cases, Mr. Lalit
Kishore, learned Senior Counsel, representing the Board, has
submitted that it is true that in some of the cases, the matter
was not placed before the Board, i.e., Chairman and other
Members of the Board, after receipt of the show cause replies
from the respective schools/colleges before cancellation of
such affiliations. It has, however, been submitted that at least
in 12 cases, the matter was placed before the Board in its
meeting held on 22.10.2016.
13. I have perused some of the original records
produced by the Board to ascertain the correctness or
otherwise of the stand taken on behalf of the Board that the
matters were placed before the Board for consideration. In
particular, I have perused original files produced by the Board
pertaining to schools which are petitioners in CWJC No. 20312
of 2016 and CWJC No. 5072 of 2017. What has been
commonly found in original records of both these cases is that
based on enquiry reports of five-member Committee
constituted as aforesaid, the Vigilance Officer of the Board put
up the file before the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Board
proposing to seek show cause replies from the respective
schools/colleges. The files were, thereafter, placed before the
Chairman of the Board with the noting "Yatha Prastwait" (as
proposed). The Chairman endorsed the view of the Chief
24
Vigilance Officer and accordingly show cause notices were
issued to the schools, seeking their explanations against the
proposal to cancel their affiliations of the courses. The show
cause replies were received in the Board, which were, again,
dealt with by the Vigilance Officer. He, in his noting, dated
15.10.2016, in CWJC No. 20312 of 2016 (Subhash Senior
Secondary School Moratalab), recommended for cancellation
of affiliation. The Chief Vigilance Officer approved the
proposal, which finally came to be endorsed by the Chairman
of the Board. The letters, cancelling the affiliations, were
issued, before the meeting of the Board is said to have been
held to consider cancellation of affiliations of these
schools/colleges.
14. It cannot be, thus, the plea of the Board that the
decisions to cancel affiliations of these schools/colleges were
taken by the Board since there is nothing on record to show
that before the decision was taken, the matter was placed
before the Board.
15. Absence of any noting in the file that the matter
was subsequently placed before the Board casts a serious
doubt on the stand taken on behalf of the Board that these
matters were ever placed before the Board.
16. I have discussed these facts in the very beginning
to address the arguments advanced on behalf of the
25
petitioners and the Board on the question of legality of the
action in issuance of the impugned letters, cancelling
affiliations granted to the concerned schools/colleges.
17. I have no hesitation in recording a definite finding
at this stage that even in respect of 12 cases as noted above,
the decision to cancel affiliations of the schools/colleges were
not taken by the Board. The action started at the behest of the
Chairman of the Board and ended with his decision to cancel
affiliations. There is no dispute about rest of the schools/
colleges affiliations of which have been cancelled by different
orders and are there before this Court in the present batch of
cases, that the decisions to cancel the affiliations have been
taken by the Chairman and not by the Board. Regulation 15
of the Regulations confers upon the Board, power and
jurisdiction to withdraw affiliations of the schools/colleges or
disaffiliate it in certain circumstances as enumerated in the
said Regulations. The Board in the said Regulations has been
defined as Bihar School Examination Board. The constitution of
„Bihar School Examination Board‟ is under Section 4 of the Act,
which reads thus:-
"4. Constitution of the Board-(1)
The Board shall consist of-
(a) the Chairman;
(b) the Director of Public
Instruction, Bihar Ex-officio;
(c) one representative from each
26
of the Universities in Bihar established by
law, to be nominated by the State
Government;
(d) one Principal of a Training
college to be nominated by the State
Government."
18. It is evident, thus, that the statutory power of
cancellation of affiliation can be exercised by the Board
constituted under Section 4(a) of the Act only. The Chairman
is part of the Board and he could not have individually
exercised the power vested in the Board.
19. There is another ground which has been taken on
behalf of all the petitioners, while assailing the impugned
decisions of cancellation of affiliation. It is the plea on behalf
of the petitioners that, at no point of time, the matters in
relation to cancellation of affiliation of the concerned
schools/colleges, were placed before the Committee of
Affiliation (hereinafter referred to as the „Committee‟), which,
according to the petitioners, is mandatory. The purpose of the
Committee, as has been prescribed under Regulation 14 (5) of
the Regulations, is „for granting and withdrawing affiliation of
Secondary and Senior Secondary School‟. Regulation 14 of
the Regulations lays down the procedure for submission of
applications for affiliation and follow-up action. On close
reading of Regulation 14 of the Regulations, it can be easily
27
noticed that on receipt of the applications, the Board is
required to examine the documents on various conditions of
requirements and in case the Board observes that the school
fulfills the essential conditions, the Board is supposed to
appoint an Inspection Committee for assessing the suitability
of the school, for affiliation of the school with the Board for
courses applied for.
20. The sub-Regulation (4) of Regulation (14)
contemplates a situation, where, on scrutiny of the
applications, it is found that the school does not fulfill the
minimum conditions and lays down that in such circumstance,
before appointment of an Enquiry Committee, it shall be
placed before the Committee for appropriate decision. Sub-
Regulation (4) of Regulation 14 of the Regulations, thus,
requires that even if, on scrutiny of applications, it is found
that the school does not fulfill the minimum conditions, the
applications cannot be rejected at once; rather, it has to be
placed before the Committee „for appropriate decision‟. Sub-
Regulation (5) of Regulation 14 of the Regulations specifically
provides that a Committee shall be constituted by the Board
for „granting and withdrawing‟ affiliation of Secondary and
Senior Secondary School, established by non-government
organizations.
21. Referring to the language used in sub-Regulation
28
(5) of Regulation 14 of the Regulations, a plea has been taken
on behalf of the petitioners that since constitution of the
Committee is also for withdrawal of affiliation, any move to
cancel affiliation ought to have been essentially placed before
the Committee.
22. In response to this argument made on behalf of
the petitioners, Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Senior Counsel,
appearing on behalf of the Board, has submitted that the
words „and withdrawing‟, occurring in sub-Regulation (5) of
Regulation 14 of the Regulations, are superfluous and no
importance should be attached to these words in the light of
Regulation 15 of the Regulations, which deals with and lays
down procedure for withdrawal of affiliation, having no
requirement, that matter of withdrawal of affiliation should be
placed before the Committee. According to him, only for the
purpose of grant of affiliation, under Regulation 14 of the
Regulations, the matter is required to be placed before the
Committee. He has, accordingly, submitted that the impugned
action cannot be questioned on the ground that the matter
was not placed before the Committee. In support of his plea,
he has relied on Supreme Court‟s decision, in case of Union of
India and Another v. Hansoli Devi and Other., reported in
(2002) 7 SCC 273 (para-9). He has argued that presence
of the said two words, viz. „and withdrawing‟, is a result of
29
„slip‟ by the draftsman, which is inconsequential. He has
referred to the decisions of House of Lords, in the cases of
Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Dowdell O'Mahoney &
Co., Ltd., reported in 1952 (1) All ER 531, and Inco
Europe Ltd. & Ors. v. First Choice Distribution (a firm) &
Ors., reported in (2000) 2 All ER 109 to buttress his
contention.
23. Mr. Abhay Kumar Singh, learned Senior Counsel,
appearing on behalf of the petitioners, in some of the cases,
has urged that it is not a sound principle of construction to
brush aside the words in a Statute as being inapposite
surplusages, if they can have appropriate application in
circumstances conceivably within the contemplation of the
Statute. He has contended that a statutory provision, be it an
act of Legislature or delegated Legislation, the competent
authority is deemed not to waste its words or to say anything
in vain. Emphasizing on the principle of purposive rule of
interpretation, approved and adopted by the Supreme Court,
in the case of Tirath Singh v. Bachittar Singh and Others
(AIR 1955 SC 830), he has submitted that sub-Regulation
(5) of Regulation 14, read with Regulation 15 of the
Regulations, leads to a plausible, logical and reasonable
interpretation that all matters, relating to withdrawal of
affiliation, must be placed before the Committee, more
30
particularly when, the affiliation is granted only after the
matter is placed before the Committee to decide whether the
school is to be granted affiliation. He has argued that since
the decision to affiliate or not vests in the Committee, decision
to cancel or withdraw affiliation cannot be taken without the
Committee.
24. In order to appreciate the rival submissions made
on behalf of the parties in this regard, it would be apposite to
reproduce Regulations 14 and 15 of the Regulations, which
read as follows:-
"14. Submission of Applications
for Affiliation and Follow-up Action.-
(1) The school fulfilling the norms of
Affiliation given in Chapter-II may apply
to the Board for approval of Affiliation/Up-
gradation and Composite Affiliation of
Senior Secondary Classes on the
prescribed form along with prescribed fee
given in Appendix II before 30 June of the
year, preceding the year in which Class
IX/XI as the case may be in proposed to
be started.
(2) Before applying, the school
should ensure that it fulfils the essential
requirements will be considered in case
the essential requirements of affiliation as
given in clause 3 of Chapter II. No
application will be considered in case the
essential requirements are not fulfilled by
31
the School.
(3) On receipt of applications, the
Board will examine the documents on
various conditions and in case it observes
that the school fulfils the essential
conditions an inspection committee will be
appointed in order to assess the
suitability of the school for affiliation of
the school with Board for classes applied
for.
[(4) After scrutiny of the application,
it is found that the school does not fulfill
the minimum conditions. Then before
appointment of Enquiry Committee, it
shall be place before the Affiliation
Committee for appropriate decision.]
(5) Committee of Affiliation.-A
committee of affiliation shall be
constituted by the Board for granting and
withdrawing affiliation of Secondary and
Senior Secondary School established by
Non-government Organizations. The
committee of affiliation shall consist of
following :
(i) Chairman of the Board.
(ii) Secretary, Bihar School
Examination Board or his nominee.
(iii) A person to be nominated
by Board.
The Chairman of the Board shall
function as the Chairman of the
committee and the Secretary of the Board
shall function as Secretary of the
32
Affiliation Committee. When the Board is
superseded under section 10 A of the
Bihar School Examination Board Act,
1952; the Administrator appointed by
notification for carrying out the functions
of the board shall function as Chairman of
the Committee.
(6) If any dispute arises out of the
functioning of the committee or any
person dissatisfied with the decision of
the board may within 30 days of the
communication of such decision prefer
appeal before the authority as mentioned
in sub section (4) of section-10 (b) of
Bihar School Examination Board Act-
1952 as amended from time to time and
its decision shall be final and binding
upon the parties.
[(7) The newly affiliated institution
by the Board neither may claim any grant
from the government nor claim for take
over by the Government.]
(8) The inspection report along with
observations of the office will be placed
before The Affiliation Committee of the
Board at its next meeting to decide
whether the school be granted affiliation,
as the case may be. The decision about
grant of affiliation etc. will be
communicated to the school immediately
after the approval of Affiliation
Committee.
Provided that in appropriate cases
33
the said conditions can be relaxed by the
Chairman of the Board. Subject to the
conditions that the school will make fresh
applications for affiliation for the
Secondary classes or Senior Secondary
Classes on the prescribed form in
accordance with the [Regulation, 2011]
and conditions for Affiliation/Up-gradation
even when session has been started.
(9) The school should not start
classes of IX/XI without written approval
of the Board. The Board shall not be
responsible for any consequence in case
class IX/XI is started without written
approval of the Board.
(10) Those schools which satisfy all
the conditions of the affiliation
[Regulation, 2011] including that of the
land will be given affiliation for a period of
three years and renewable thereafter
subject to compliance of the conditions of
such affiliations and provisions of the Act
and [Regulation, 2011].
(11) Not with standing anything
contained hereinabove, any Branch(es) or
Units(s) of a School/ Group of School(s)
affiliated/ seeking affiliation to the Board
shall not be deemed to be affiliated to the
Board even if such main school seeking
Affiliation stands affiliated to the Board
unless such Branches/ Units apply afresh
and are granted affiliation by the Board as
provided heretofore.
34
(12) Request for extension of
Affiliation for Secondary/Senior
Secondary classes shall be made by the
School Authority by 30 June of the
preceding year in which the affiliation
expires.
[(13) On any dispute regarding
recognition to society/trust of any
institution, the decision passed by
competent Court/Authority shall be
valid.]"
"15. Withdrawal of Affiliation
Affiliated School.-(1) Affiliation may be
withdrawn by the Board either in a
particular subject or in all subjects.
Institution imparting secondary education
may be disaffiliated if the Board is
satisfied that such institutions are not fit
to enjoy continuing affiliation to the
Board.
(2) (i) The non Government
recognized secondary schools were taken
over on 2nd October 1980 vide Bihar non
Government Secondary School (taking
over of management and control) Act
1981. Such schools shall be deemed to
have seen affiliated to the Board for the
purposes of secondary examination
(ii) The proposed secondary schools
which were recognized and taken over
after 2nd October 1980 shall be deemed to
have been affiliated to the Board for the
35
purposes of secondary examinations.
(iii) The proposed schools which
were recognized under section 18 and 19
of Bihar non Government Secondary
School (taking over of management and
control) Act, 1981 as proprietary schools
shall also be deemed to have been
affiliated to the Board for the purposes of
secondary examinations.
(iv) The non Government
recognized secondary schools which were
recognized prior to 2nd October 1980 or
after 2nd October 1980 and later on
declared minority aided secondary school,
shall be deemed to have been affiliated to
the Board for the purposes of secondary
examinations.
(v) All the Boys and Girls
Government Secondary Schools shall be
deemed to have been affiliated to the
Board for the purposes of secondary
examinations.
(3) Proceedings for withdrawal of
affiliation may be initiated by the Board
after reasonable notice to the school
Management Committee of non
observance of the following conditions by
the schools:-
(i) Financial irregularities including
diverting of funds for purpose other than
those provided for in these [Regulation,
2011].
(ii) Engagement in activities
36
prejudicial to the interest of the State,
inculcating or promoting feelings of
disloyalty or dis-affection against the
Government established by law.
(iii) Encouraging or tolerating
disharmony/hatred between different
sections of the Society.
(iv) Non-fulfillment of conditions
laid down regarding deficiencies to be
removed even after due notice.
(v) Disregard of rules and
conditions of affiliation even after
receiving warning letters.
(vi) Hindrance in the smooth
functioning of the school on account of
dispute between rivalries within the
school management.
(vii) Poor academic performance of
the school for three consecutive years in
not being able to kept at least 50 percent
of passes of the general pass percentage.
(viii) Non-availability of proper
equipment/space/staff for teaching a
particular subject.
(ix) Any other misconduct in
connection with the admissions/
examinations/any other area which in the
opinion of the Board warrants immediate
disaffiliation of the school.
(x) In case of transfer of property/
sale of school by one Society/
Management/Trust to another Society/
Management/Trust through agreement/
37
Sale deed.
(xi) Any violation of the norms that
have been prescribed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the writ
petition (Criminal) nos. 666-70 of 1992
Vishaka and others V/s State of Rajasthan
and others delivered on 13-08-1997 for
protection of women from sexual
harassment at the work place if
established would attract strict action
against the institution which may even
lead to disaffiliation.
(xii) Violation of the provisions of
sub-clause 3 of chapter II.
(4) The Board shall provide
adequate time and opportunity to the
Management of the school served with a
"Show Cause Notice" up to a maximum of
one year for adequate
compliance/removal of defects failing
which the Board may declare the
institution disaffiliated. Such decision by
the Board shall be final and binding. The
maximum period of reply to "Show Cause
Notice" may not exceed one month.
(5) Mere submission of application
form for affiliation or its pendency with
the Board shall not entitle any school a
right "to be affiliated to the Board" nor
will it resort to do anything in any manner
which may create any wrong impression
in the public mind to this effect.
(6) Within the general framework of
38
Clause 15 of Chapter-IV, the Board
reserves the right to withdraw affiliation
in the event of a school failing to observe
affiliation norms and rules and/or the
pass percentage in most of the subjects
goes lower than the pass percentage of
each subject at the examinations of the
Board, continuously for three years. The
Board will ask such a school to rectify the
deficiencies in the given adequate time (6
months to one year). If the school fails to
show improvement, it will lose the status
of an affiliation school and will revert to a
disaffiliated school status.
(7) In the event of a school failing
to maintain the prescribed norms for
affiliated schools and/or rules of the
Board and/or the school deteriorates in
standards of performance, the Board will
ask such a school to rectify the
deficiencies and come upto standard
prescribed for maintaining affiliation
within a period not exceeding one year. If
the school fails to meet the requirement it
may lose the status of an affiliated school
and may be dis-affiliated, if considered
necessary by the Board.
(8) In case a school is subjected to
disaffiliation and if files application for
revival of the affiliation within five years
of such disaffiliation, its case shall be
considered on merits by the Affiliation
Committee without charging fresh fee for
39
affiliation. However, repeated violation of
the [Regulation, 2011] will lead to
permanent disaffiliation of the school."
25. I need to revert back, now, to Sections 10B and
10C of the Act, which have been quoted in paragraph 5 of this
judgment, where lies the direct answer to the submissions
advanced on this point, on behalf of learned Counsel for the
parties. Sub-Section (1) of Section 10B of the Act mandates
constitution of „Committee of Affiliation‟ by the Board for
"granting and withdrawing" affiliation to Secondary and Senior
Secondary Schools, established by non-governmental
organizations. Section 10C of the Act, without any ambiguity
in the language, states that the Board shall have power to
grant and withdraw affiliation of Secondary and Senior
Secondary Schools, on the basis of „recommendation of the
Committee of Affiliation‟. The Board, as is evident from the
language of Section 10C of the Act can grant or withdraw the
affiliation on the basis of recommendation of the Committee of
Affiliation only and not otherwise. Regulation 14 (5) of the
Regulations is ostensibly in accordance with and in compliance
of Sections 10B and 10C of the Act. Submission made by Mr.
Lalit Kishore, learned Senior Counsel, that the words "and
withdrawing", occurring in sub-Regulation (5) of Regulation 14
of the Regulation are superfluous and result of „slip‟ by
40
draftsman is not at all tenable. Regulation 15 of the
Regulations will have to be read with Section 10C of the Act
which is the parent Act which mandatorily prescribes that the
decision of the Board to grant of withdraw affiliation shall be
„on the basis of recommendation made by the Committee of
Affiliation‟. Submissions advanced by Mr. Lalit Kishore, as
noticed above, on this point being contrary to the provisions of
main Act, deserve to be rejected and are hereby rejected.
26. For the same reason, the principles enunciated,
in case of Dowdell O'Mahoney & Co., Ltd. (supra), can have
no application in the facts of the present case.
27. I, accordingly, hold that the matters, relating to
withdrawal of affiliations, are to be mandatorily placed before
the Committee, constituted under Section 10B of the Act, read
with sub-Regulation (5) of Regulation 14 of the Regulations,
for „granting and withdrawing affiliations‟ of Secondary and
Senior Secondary Schools, established by non-governmental
organizations.
28. There being no dispute that the matter was not
placed before the Committee, the impugned decisions of the
Board of withdrawing/cancelling the affiliations of the
schools/colleges, which have approached this Court in the
present proceedings, are, accordingly, illegal and
unsustainable and deserve to be set aside.
41
29. I, now, intend to address another ground of
challenge to the impugned action taken by the petitioners in
the present proceedings. To address the said challenge and
the questions of law raised in this regard, I need to take note
of certain basic facts as pleaded on behalf of the petitioners
and the contesting Board. With some variance of minor
nature, broadly speaking, the affiliations have been withdrawn
on the ground of insufficient infrastructure, having been
maintained by these schools and furnishing incorrect
information to the Board at the time of seeking affiliation.
Since CWJC No. 1366 of 2017 (Ucchatar Madhyamik School
v. The State of Bihar & Ors.) has been argued as the lead
case in the present batch of cases and learned Counsel,
appearing in other cases, have advanced their submissions on
legal issues, with reference to the facts involved in their cases,
I am taking the facts pleaded in CWJC No. 1366 of 2017, for
the purpose of present, judgment.
30. It is the case of the petitioner that Ucchatar
Madhyamik School (+2), Gaya, was established by Trimurti
Educational Trust, Gaya, for imparting education to the
students up to Intermediate level in an area, which is affected
by the naxallite extremism. The school had applied for grant
of affiliation. An Inspection Committee was constituted, which
had conducted on the spot inspection and physical verification
42
of the school. On the basis of the Inspection Report, the
Committee of the Board, while considering the matter of
affiliation, granted composite affiliation for +2 level study in
Arts, Science and Commerce streams, comprising of 3
Sections of 40 students each, for Academic Session 2015-17,
subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. The decision of the
Committee was informed to the school by the Secretary of the
Board and after fulfillment of all the requisite conditions
imposed upon the school; Code No. 21188 was allotted to the
school.
31. On 02.07.2016, the Secretary of the Board asked
the District Magistrates of all the districts, in the State of
Bihar, to make on the spot inspection and physical verification
of certain schools including the school of the petitioner. A re-
inspection of petitioner‟s school was carried out by the
Inspection Team, headed by the Additional Collector, Gaya,
and a report, dated 26.08.2016, was submitted. On the basis
of findings in the said report, affiliation of the school was
suspended and a show cause notice was issued to the
petitioner school, under Clause 15 of the Regulations, calling
upon the school to explain as to why the affiliation granted to
it be not withdrawn. A copy of the said re-inspection report
was made available to the petitioner school. The school
submitted its reply to the said show cause notice, stating that
43
the school was located in extremely backward area and it gave
an undertaking to the Board that it would fulfill the conditions,
laid down in the Regulations, within the time frame, as
provided in the Regulations. It is the case of the petitioner
that though respondent No. 8 received the show cause reply,
submitted on behalf of the school, the Board cancelled the
affiliation of the school by impugned decision, dated
22.11.2016, without considering the same.
32. On perusal of the impugned order, dated
22.11.2016, it appears that the cancellation is mainly on the
ground that the school did not have infrastructure as per the
condition of requirements of affiliation laid down in the
Regulations.
33. One I. A. No. 1592 of 2017 has been filed on
behalf of the petitioner-school for deleting some part
mentioned in paragraph 31 of the writ application, i.e., "and
on the basis of the wrong statement that it has not received
the reply to show cause" and to read paragraph 31 of the writ
application thus:-
"31. That the respondent no. 8
received the reply to show cause but
without considering the reply to the show
cause, Respondent no. 8 has terminated
the affiliation of the petitioner-school vide
letter no. Stha. 3648/2016 dated
22.11.2016".
44
34. For the reasons mentioned in the interlocutory application, I. A. No. 1592 of 2017 is, hereby, allowed. Let, what has been quoted above be treated to have been substituted in place of statement made in paragraph 31 of the writ application.
35. The facts, which have been averred in the writ application, have not been disputed in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Board.
36. It has broadly been argued on behalf of the petitioner that Regulation 3 (3) of the Regulations lays down the minimum essential conditions for affiliation in terms of infrastructure (building, furniture etc.). Proviso to sub- Regulation (3) of Regulation 3 of the Regulations empowers the Board to relax the aforesaid conditions in case of non- availability of schools in particular area or place. The Committee has the powers to relax the said condition of affiliation in case of women‟s institutions also. Further, proviso to sub-Regulation (4) of Regulation 3 of the Regulations states that those Secondary/Higher Secondary (+2 College) affiliated with the Board in case of not fulfilling the standards, specified in Regulation 3 of these Regulations, shall have to fulfill the specified standards within 3 years, essentially. It is also the case of the petitioner that the Board, while granting affiliation to the school had relaxed conditions because of non- 45 availability of school in the area. It has further been argued that, as per Clause (a) of sub-Regulation 4 of Regulation 3 of the Regulations, a Senior Secondary School should be provided within 5 kilometers of every habitation. The State has failed to provide school in the said area to implement Clause (a) of sub-Regulation (4) of Regulation 3 of the Regulations. It has been stated in paragraph 24 of the writ application that the schools, located in the vicinity of the petitioner‟s school, which are aided government schools, have inferior infrastructure than the petitioner‟s school, even with less teachers. Examples have been given, referring to the schools, namely, (i) Shahid Senior Secondary School, which is operating in only 2 rooms, (ii) Haranchand Uchch Madhyamik Vidyalaya, having around 1000 students, is operating out of poor infrastructure and (iii) Gautam Budh Mahila Senior Secondary School has similar infrastructure and teacher issues.
37. Though counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the Board and the State of Bihar, these specific averments have not been controverted. Such statements, thus, stand admitted, applying the doctrine of non-traverse.
38. It has also been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the Board does not have any power of suspension of affiliation granted to the school. In the event, it 46 is found that the school does not fulfill essential conditions for affiliation, as specified in sub-Regulation (3) of Regulation 3 of the Regulations, such school ought to have been granted 3 years time to fulfill the conditions as contemplated under the proviso to sub-Regulation (4) of Regulation 3 of the Regulations. The school ought to have been given adequate opportunity for removal of the deficiencies, as pointed out in the inspection report, instead of proceeding to cancel the affiliation itself, the petitioners contend.
39. Mr. Abhay Kumar Singh, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of a group of writ-petitioners, has further argued that there is a significant shift in the provisions, in relation to the consideration of applications for affiliation of schools from, as they existed in Bihar School Examination Board (Senior Secondary) Affiliation Bye-Laws, 2011 (in short „Bye-laws of 2011‟), to those available in the Regulations framed in 2013, which have replaced the Bye-Laws. As per the earlier procedure, Clause (4) of Article 14 of the Bye-laws of 2011 required that in case, on scrutiny of application it was found that the school did not fulfill the minimum conditions, the School would be informed accordingly, and no further action would be required to be taken by the Board till the essential conditions were fulfilled, to the satisfaction of the Board. The said Bye-laws of 2011 have been replaced by 47 statutory Regulations, i.e., Bihar School Examination Board (Senior Secondary) Affiliation Regulations, 2013. Sub- Regulation (4) of Regulation 14 of the Regulations prescribes that after scrutiny of the application, if it is found that the school does not fulfill the minimum conditions, then, before appointment of Enquiry Committee, it shall be placed before the Committee for appropriate decision. He, accordingly, contends that the shift is meaningful and significant and it has definite purpose to achieve by considering even applications of even such schools, which do not fulfill the essential conditions of affiliation as strictly prescribed under Regulation 3 of the Regulations. There is corresponding change, according to him, in sub-Regulation (4) of Regulation 3 of the Regulations by incorporating a proviso, which reads, "provided that those Secondary/High Secondary (+2 College) affiliated with Bihar School Examination Board in case of „not fulfilling the standards specified in Regulation 3 of these Regulations, 2011 shall have to fulfill the specified standards within 3 years essentially". He has submitted that slight change in Regulation 14, as noted above, read with proviso to sub-Regulation (4) of Regulation 3 of the Regulations, suggests that the State Government of Bihar and the Board intended that affiliation can be granted affiliation even to such schools which failed to strictly fulfill the conditions of requirement, laid down in sub- 48 Regulation (3) of Regulation 3 of the Regulations. He has submitted that since the State of Bihar, on the basis of its own resources, was failing to implement Right to Education Act accomplish the statutory goal by providing educational institutions, as per the requirements of the Right to Education Act, in remote areas, the State Government and the Board appear to have taken this conscious decision to relax the essential requirements, so that private educational institutions can be granted recognition and affiliation, even if they failed to satisfy strictly the essential requirements of affiliation. He has argued that in the present scenario, the relationship between the State and the private schools, in the matter of imparting education up-to Secondary and Senior Secondary level, should be symbiotic in nature. He has submitted that approach of the regulator of education, which the Board is, must be of facilitator, enabler and not of an obstructionist. The Regulation 3 (3) (c) and Regulation 15 (3) (iv) of the Regulations, if conjointly read, are in tune with the said constitutional approach of role of regulator of education, he contends.
40. Mr. Singh, learned Senior Counsel, has also invoked the Rule in Hydon's case (Mischief Rule) to contend that new provisions, i.e., proviso to sub-Regulation (4) of Regulation 3 of the Regulations and change in sub-Regulation 49 (4) of Regulation 14 of the Regulations had definite purpose, which is to suppress the mischief and to advance the remedy by allowing relaxation.
41. Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Board, on the other hand, has submitted that the erstwhile Chairman of the Board had acted in brazen disregard to mandatory statutory provisions and had granted or was instrumental in granting affiliations to various schools, which were not fulfilling the basic essential requirements. According to him, the grant of affiliation to the schools, in question, by the Board itself was a result of fraud played by the previous team, with the help of the officers of the Board, who worked in tandem, which has been detected by an efficient Chairman of the Board, who is presently functioning. He has submitted that grant of affiliation to such schools were void ab initio and, therefore, the action does not require interference by this court under equitable writ jurisdiction. He has relied on Supreme Court‟s decision in case of Rohilkhand Medical College & Hospital Vs. Medical Council of India and Another, reported in 2013 (15) SCC 516, to submit that fraud vitiates all acts and since it is apparent from the report that these schools had misrepresented by furnishing incorrect facts, on the basis of which they had been granted affiliation, the Court should 50 refuse to interfere with the impugned action of the Board.
42. To appreciate the submission made on behalf of the petitioner invoking mischief rule (Heyden‟s Rule), it would be apposite to take note of the relevant provisions under Clause 14 of the Bye-Laws of 2011 and corresponding provision under Regulation 14 of the Regulations of 2013 which replaced the Bye-Laws. Clause 14 of the Bye-Laws dealt with submission of application for affiliation and follow up action. Sub-Clause (3) and (4) of Clause 14 read thus:-
"14. (3) On receipt of applications, the Board will examine the documents on various conditions and in case it observes that the school fulfils the essential conditions an inspection committee will be appointed in order to assess the suitability of the school for affiliation of the school with Board for classes applied for.
(4) In case on scrutiny of application, it is found that the school does not fulfill the minimum conditions, it will be informed accordingly and no further action will be taken by the Board till the essential conditions are fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Board."
43. Regulation (14) of the Regulations of 2013 also deals with submission of application for affiliation and follow up action. Sub-clause (3) and (4) of Regulation 14, which has 51 already been quoted above is being reproduced herein below for immediate comparison between earlier provision and the present one:-
"(3) On receipt of applications, the Board will examine the documents on various conditions and in case it observes that the school fulfils the essential conditions an inspection committee will be appointed in order to assess the suitability of the school for affiliation of the school with Board for classes applied for.
[(4) After scrutiny of the
application, it is found that the school
does not fulfill the minimum conditions.
Then before appointment of Enquiry
Committee, it shall be place before the
Affiliation Committee for appropriate
decision.]"
44. Further, a proviso has been added below sub-
Regulation (3) of Regulation 3 of the Regulations, which reads thus:-
"Provided that the aforesaid
condition may be relaxed by the Board in
case of non-availability of school in
particular area or place. The affiliation committee shall have powers to relax the condition of affiliation in case of women‟s institutions."
52
45. This provision was not there in the Bye-Laws of 2011. The proviso, thus, enables the Board to relax conditions of affiliation in case of non-availability of schools in the area. The Committee has, thus, now, been given power to relax the condition of affiliation in case of women‟s institution. The shift is apparent and significant, which cannot be overlooked.
46. The change in approach, while dealing with matters of grant of affiliation, is also manifested with incorporation of another proviso to Regulation (4) of Regulation 3 of the Regulations, which reads as follows:-
"Provided that those Secondary/ High Secondary (+2 College) affiliated with Bihar School Examination Board in case of not fulfilling the standards specified in Regulation 3 of these Regulations, 2011 shall have to fulfill the specified standards within 3 years essentially."
This provision was also not there in the Bye-Laws.
47. In reply to a query made by this court, as to under which provision of the Act or Regulations, the Board could suspend the affiliations granted to these schools, Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Board, has submitted that such power is inherent with the Board. It is his contention that since the Board has power to grant affiliation, it has inherent power to suspend affiliation. 53
48. Upon comparing the provisions in the Bye-Laws and the provisions incorporated in the Regulations subsequently, as noticed above, it is manifest that the State Government and the Board intended to allow relaxation to such institutions, which were not fulfilling strictly the conditions laid down for affiliation under Regulation 3 of the Regulations. Merely on the basis, therefore, that institutions did not fulfill the conditions, the respondents ought not to have cancelled the affiliation without allowing the institutions to fulfill the specified standards within a reasonable time.
49. Mr. Singh, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has rightly submitted, invoking the mischief rule that subsequent changes were made by way of Regulations in order to suppress the mischief since there existed mischief in the form of absence of any provision for grant of relaxation in the conditions of affiliation. There is no denial on behalf of the State of Bihar that it has failed to achieve so far, its goal to provide senior secondary schools, as contemplated in sub-Regulation (4) of Regulation 3 of the Regulations.
50. In my view, the statutory function of withdrawal or cancellation of affiliation can be exercised by statutory authority in accordance with the provisions of a Statute, keeping in mind the entire scheme of statutory provisions. A 54 plea that previous incumbent to the post of Chairman indulged in irregularities etc., per se, cannot be the basis for taking any such action of cancellation of affiliations granted by the Board during previous regime, which too had exercised statutory functions.
51. The decision of the Supreme Court, in the case of Rohilkhand Medical College & Hospital (supra), does not apply in the present case as in that case, there were allegations of use of fake and forged materials to get sanction for intake of students. In that background, the Supreme Court had allowed the Medical Council of India to take action under Regulation 8(3)(1) (d) of the Regulations for establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999, without waiting for the charge sheet to be filed by the C.B.I. The said provision, under Regulation 8(3)(1) (d) of the Regulations of 1999, requires the Medical Council of India not to consider renewal of permission/recommendation for award of M.B.B.S. degree/processing the application for post-graduate courses for two academic years, if the institute is found to have employed teachers on the basis of fake/forged documents. The said decision of the Supreme Court, in my view, cannot be made the basis to allow the Board, cancel affiliation in the manner it has been done.
52. On the basis of what has been noted above, it is 55 apparent that the Board overlooked the proviso to sub- Regulation (3) and sub-Regulation (4) of Regulation 3 of the Regulations while taking impugned decision. The impugned actions of the Board in cancelling/withdrawing affiliations of the petitioner schools stand vitiated for the said reason also.
53. On the basis of discussion, as above, I conclude as follows:-
(i) The decision to withdraw affiliations cannot be said to have been taken by the Board, as discussed hereinabove and for that reason, the impugned orders of cancellation of affiliation cannot be sustained.
(ii) In breach of mandatory requirement under Section 10C of the Act, orders of withdrawal of affiliation have been issued, without recommendation of the Committee of Affiliation, constituted under Section 10B of the Act. As a matter of fact, the matters relating to cancellation of affiliation were never placed before the Committee. This is another reason why impugned orders of cancellation of affiliation have become vulnerable.
(iii) In any view of the matter, the Board has apparently overlooked the proviso to sub-Regulation (3) and sub-Regulation (4) of Regulation 3 of the Regulations and on this count also, the impugned action of the Board deserves interference.56
54. Consequently, the orders impugned in the present batch of writ applications withdrawing affiliations of the respective schools/colleges are hereby set aside.
55. In the present batch of cases, the affidavits have been filed on behalf of the petitioners giving an undertaking that they shall remove all the deficiencies and fulfill the conditions of affiliations within different periods of time mentioned therein. The Court expects the Board to consider individual cases of the schools and if it is found permissible, allow them time to remove such deficiencies in terms of proviso to sub-Regulation (4) of Regulation 3 of the Regulations. The Board, for the said purpose, will be required to undertake the exercise afresh to ascertain whether these schools fulfill conditions of affiliation or are in a position to overcome the deficiencies. A positive and constructive approach, if taken by the Board, may have good results in larger public interest. The Board, while taking any decision, must keep in mind whether Government schools and Government aided schools do have the infrastructure and teaching facilities to meet the standards of conditions for affiliation.
56. Before I part with, I must take note of the third proviso to Section 10C of the Act, which states, inter alia, that before withdrawing affiliation, the students admitted in such 57 schools or institutions shall be allowed to complete their academic sessions and appear at the next examination conducted by the Board. I direct the Board not to overlook the said provisions in any case. The language of third proviso to Section 10C of the Act is enough indication that the Board does not have power to suspend, with immediate effect, affiliation of a school and the said power cannot be said to be inherent in the Board.
57. These applications are allowed accordingly with the observations as above.
58. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
59. Let the original records produced by the Board be returned to Mr. Satyabir Bharti, learned Counsel for the Board.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.)
ArunKumar/
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 18-05-2017
Uploading Date 25-08-2017
Transmission Date N/A