Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. The learned Addl. G. P. would strenuously point out that the manner in which the impugned orders are passed is described in para No. 7 of reply. It is submitted that objective scrutiny was made into the allegations and as there was no improvement in the administration the drastic action was resorted to. He would submit that Rule 3.2 of the Code of Conduct of Ashram Schools empowers the competent authority to appoint the administrator. Lastly, it is submitted that impugned action is legal, proper and no interference is called for.

20. It is very surprising that the respondent No. 2/Desk Officer addressed a letter to the respondent No. 4 - Deputy Director on 29.03.2022 informing the appointment of administrator and calling upon him to submit proposal for de-recognition. This conduct is arbitrary and dehors the provisions of the Act of 1976. Thereafter by impugned order dated 18.04.2023 administrator was appointed on the Ashram Schools of the Sangh. It is evident that due to written instructions of the respondent No. 2 - Desk Officer a formality was completed for appointing administrator. We have gone through the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. We do not find any reference to the compliance of the procedure as contemplated under the Act of 1976 for appointment of administrator, S. S. Code or the R. T. E. Act for withdrawing the recognition of the schools. It refers to Rule 3.2 of the Ashram School Code which in turn refers to 14 wp 1263.24 application of Act of 1976.