Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

There was, however, a change in the course of instruction and syllabi in some of the subjects from the academic year 1971-72. The State ,Government by a notification dated 18th May, 1971 prescribed improved courses of instruction and syallabi in certain subjects to be followed from the academic year 1971-72 and directed that so far as courses ,of instruction and syallabi in the other subjects were concerned, they should continue to be the same as in the previous academic year 1970-71. The aforesaid 29 text books printed and published by the State Government, not being in accordance with the new courses of instruction and syallabi so prescribed, were rendered useless and in their place,. new text books had to be brought out which would be in conformity with such new courses of instruction and syallabi. The Text Books Corporation accordingly printed and published 28 text books in accordance with the new courses of instruction and syallabi and these 28 text books were prescribed by the State Government by a notification dated 21st May, 1971 for use in the Primary and Middle school classes for the academic year 1971-72. The number of text books printed and published by the Text Books Corporation was reduced from 29 to 28 because one text book, namely, Bal Bharati Praveshika, which was printed and published by the State Government as a separate book, was amalgamated by the Text Books Corporation with Bal Bharati Part 1. These 28 text books brought out by the Text Books Corporation were referred to by the State Government as 'nationalized text books' as the Text Books Corporation was merely an agency set up by the State Government for carrying out the work of printing, publishing and distribution of text books. The State Government made it clear in the notification dated 21st May, 1971 that so far as the other subjects were concerned for which such nationalised' text books were not available, the schools were free to use according to their convenience such books of private publishers as they liked, provided they were written in accordance with the courses of instruction and syllabi for the academic year 1970-71. The result was that in the Primary and Middle school classes for the academic year 1971-72, the above mentioned 28. text books, printed and published by the Text Books Corporation. were used exclusively as text books for the subjects dealt with by them. while for the other subjects text books printed and published by private publishers were used according to the convenience of the schools. The courses of instruction and syallabi for the next academic year 1972-73 were prescribed by the State Government by a notification dated 10th May' 1972 and by this notification the State Government in- troduced new courses of instruction and syallabi in certain subjects and with regard to the rest, directed that the same courses of instruction and syallabi as also the same text books shall continue to be in use as in the academic year 1971-72. The same 28 text books, printed and published by the Text Books Corporation, revised in accordance with the new courses of instruction and syallabi where necessary continued to be prescribed as text books for the academic year 1972-73. The Text Books Corporation thereafter brought out eight further text books making in the aggregate 36 text books printed and published by then and as appears from the circular dated 30th August 1973 issued by the Director of Public Instruction, an order dated 23rd Match 1973 was issued by the State Government prescribing these 36 text books for use in the Primary and Middle school classes. This order had not been' challenged in the present petition or in the voluminous affidavits filed on behalf of the parties and it need not therefore engage our attention. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner did make an attempt in the course of the argument to challenge the validity of this order but when we pointed out to him that there was no challenge against it in the petition and it was, therefore, not open to him to assail its validity on the petition as it stood he rightly withdrew his attack. This, of-course', does not mean that the petitioner cannot challenge the validity of this order in any other appropriate proceeding which he may take for that purpose, provided he has valid grounds for doing so.

courses of instruction in languages cannot, be prescribed otherwise than by reference to particular text books selected for the purpose. it was urged by the learned Advocate General that it is only through particular selected text books that courses of instruction in languages can be prescribed, and therefore, the Board has, as necessarily in- cidental to its power of prescribing courses of instruction, the power to prescribe text books on languages. This contention is not well founded and cannot be sustained. The Board has undoubtedly the power to prescribe courses of instruction in languages, but it does not include, as necessarily incidental to it, the power to prescribe text books on languages. it is not correct to gay that the course of instruction in language cannot be laid down except by reference to text books prescribed for the purpose. The course of instruction in language would cover topics such as grammar, composition. prose anti poetry. So far as grammar and composition are concerned, there can be no doubt that course of instruction can be laid down without prescribing any text books and in fact we find from the prospectus issued by the Board from time to time that no text books were prescribed by the Board and yet the course of instruction could be laid down with sufficient clarity and precision by reference to various topics such as nouns, verbs, adverbs, adjectives, tenses, complex sentences and so on and so forth. The course of instruction in prose and poetry can be easily prescribed by reference to prose passages, short stories, articles, essays and poems of different authors and for this purpose it is not necessary to prescribe any particular text books containing such prose passages, short stories,articles, essays and poems. In fact, once these prose passages,short stories, articles, essays and poems are prescribed as part of thecourse of instruction, different publishers would come out with different text books compiling these materials and presenting them in intelligible, instructive and useful form. These different text books may vary one from the other, in presentation, style, annotations, comments, elucidations, explanatory notes, quality of printing, price etc. Some may be more intelligible and useful than 'the others. The chief merit of a text book on prose and poetry would really lie not in mechanical reproduction of the prose passages, short stories, articles, essays and poem prescribed by the Board, which can be done by any publisher, but in the annotations, comments, elucidations and explanatory notes given by the author with a view to inculcating in the students greater understanding and keener appreciation of the literary and other qualities of such prose passages, short stories, articles, essays and poems. Any one of these text books may be prescribed by the Board and that would be wholly different from prescribing' the course of instruction. We may illustrate our point by an example. Take a case where a play of Shakespeare is to be prescribed. There are several editions of Shakespearian plays. There is the Cambridge edition; there is the Arden edition; there is the Warwick edition and there 'are a host of other editions. The play of Shakespeare can be prescribed by referring to its title, as for example, Hamlet or King Lear. It is not necessary, in order to prescribe such play as a part of the course of instruction, that a particular edition of such play should also be prescribed as a text book. The two are entirely distinct propositions. The power to prescribe courses of instruction in languages does not require for its effectual exercise prescription of text books and the power to prescribe text books cannot be read by necessary implication in the power to prescribe courses of instruction. It is therefore, clear, and this conclusion can be disputed, that the prescription of text books on languages was outside the power of the Board and hence it was ultra vires and had no binding effect which would oblige the schools to use only these text books and no others. These text books could not in the circumstances be said to be prescribed by the Board, nor could they be said to be in force, immediately before the appointed day so as to attract the applicability of s. 4, sub-s. (2), and they could not claim the status of prescribed text books under S. 4, sub-s. (2). These text books could not also be regarded as text books prescribed under s. 4, sub-s. (1) on the basis of the notification dated 28th March, 1973. It is only the State Government and not the Board, which is given power under s. 4, sub-s. (1) to prescribe text books, and therefore, the notification dated 28th March, 1973, which was issued by the Board and not by the State Government, was futile and ineffectual and did not have the effect of prescribing these text books under s. 4, sub-s. (1). These text books could not, therefore, be regarded as text booksprescribed under sub-s. .(1) or referred to in sub-s. (2) of s. 4 and in the circumstances there was no obligation on the approved and recognised schools to use only these text books and no others under sub-s. (3) of s. 4.

Re: C. This contention is self-evident and does not need any elaborate argument. It may be noted that there is a basic distinction between recommendation and prescription of a text book. When a text book is prescribed by an appropriate authority having legal power to do so, it has to be followed by the schools. Prescription of a text book carries with it a binding obligation to follow the text book. There is no such obligation when a text book is merely recommended. Recommendation has merely a persuasive effect it being open to the schools to accept the recommendation or to reject it as they think fit. The schools may use the recommended text book or they may not according as the principals choose. That is why no conferment of statutory power is needed to enable the Board to recommend text books and no question of ultra vires can arise in such a case. Now the text books which formed the subject matter of the notifications dated 5th April, 1972, 25th April, 1972, 26th April, 1972 and 17th May, 1972 were merely recommended and not prescribed by the Board and being only recommended text books as distinguished from prescribed text books, they obviously could not be said to be ,in force' immediately before the appointed day. Section, 4, sub-s. (2) did not, therefore, apply in respect of these text books and they could not be regarded as text books prescribed under s. 4, sub-s. (2). The respondents placed strong reliance on the notification dated 28th March, 1973 but it is difficult to see how this notification can be of any help to the respondents. This notification was admittedly issued by the Board and not by the State Government and moreover it did not even purport to prescribe these text books but merely directed that these text books shall be recommended text books for the period commencing from the academic year 1973-74. It is, therefore, not possible to read this notification as representing exercise of power under s. 4, sub-s. (1) and the status of prescribed text books could not be accorded to these text books on the strength of this notification. These text books could not accordingly be regarded as prescribed text books either under sub-s. (1) or under sub-s. (2) of s. 4, and section 4, sub-s. (3) could not be invoked for contending that these text books alone should be used in the approved and recognised schools to the exclusion of text books of other publishers.

Now it is clear from paragraph 134 of the affidavit filed by Chaturvedi, Deputy Secretary to the Government of Madhya Pradesh, (1) [1962] 1 S.C.R. 422.

Education Department in reply to the petition' that text books on Botany, Zoology, English, Elements of Commerce, History. 'and Geography were invited by the Board from the registered publishers and various registered publishers submitted their text books on one or more of these subjects for selection and approval by the Board. The petitioner also availed of this opportunity and submitted text books on History and Geography. The text books received from the various registered publishers were then sent to the reviewers for evaluation, there being a different set of expert reviewers for each subject, and on receipt of the report of the reviewers, these text books, at any rate most of them chosen in the order of merit given by the reviewers, were placed before the appropriate Committee of Courses along with the report of the reviewers. The appropriate Committee of Courses after scrutinising the text books placed before it and considering the evaluation made by the reviewers, submitted its recommendations to the Board and the Chairman of the Board, agreeing with the recommendations made by the appropriate Committee of Courses, forwarded them to the State Government as recommendations of the Board. It appears that no recommendations in regard to text books on Geography were forwarded by the Chairman of the Board to the State Government as all the text books on Geography submitted for selection and approval were found to be below the requisite standard. The State Government then issued the notification dated 24th May, 1973 prescribing text books on Botany, 'Zoology, English, Elements of Commerce and History in accordance with the recommendations forwarded by the Chairman of the Board. It will be seen from these facts that the question as to what text books should be recommended, to the State Government for prescription was not placed before the general meeting of the Board, nor was any resolution passed by general meeting of the Board recommending any particular text books. The recommendations in regard to the text books were made by the Chairman of the Board. This was indeed not disputed by the learned Advocate General but his contention was that the Chairman was entitled to act on behalf of the Board in making recommendations and the recommendations made by him in regard to text books were in the eye of the Jaw recommendations of the Board. Now, there can be no doubt that if the recommendations made by the Chairman could be regarded as recommendations of the Board, the requirement of the proviso to s. 4, sub-s. (1) would be satisfied. But we do not think it is possible to take this view. (What the proviso to s. 4, sub-s. (1) requires is that there should be prior consultation with the Board, and therefore, it is the Board which must give its opinion and advice to the State Government in regard to the prescription of text books. Now the Board may act by resolution passed at general meeting but as pointed out above, there. was no resolution passed at general meeting of the Board recommending any text books. It was the Chairman who recommended the text books and the question, therefore, is whether the Chairman could exercise the power of the Board to make recommendations to the State Government so that the recommendations made by the Chairman could in law be said to be recommendations of the Board. The powers and duties of the Chairman are to be found in s. 15 of the Act of 1965. Sub-s. (1) of s. 15 does not help, for it merely says that it shall be the duty of the Chairman to see that the Act and the Regulations are faithfully observed and he shall have all powers necessary for that purpose. Sub-s. (2) of s. 15 has also no relevance in this connection. Then there is sub-s. (3) of s. 15 which provides that in any emergency arising out of the business of the Board, which in the opinion of the Chairman requires that immediate action should be taken, the Chairman shall take such action as he deems necessary and shall thereafter report his action to the Board at its next meeting. This sub-section is clearly inapplicable as it is not the case of the respondents that there was any emergency arising out of the business of the Board which necessitated the taking of immediate action by the Chairman. The recommendation of the text books was not made by the Chairman as an emergency measure-at any rate, that was not the plea taken by the respondents. Sub-s. (4) of s. 15 is a sort of residuary provision which confers power on the Chairman to "exercise such other powers as may be vested in him by Regulations". But there is nothing in the Regulations which, vests in the Chairman the power of the Board to recommend or give advice in relation to text books to be prescribed by the State Government. In fact, no power of the Board is vested in the Chairman by the Regulations. Thus, we do not find anything in the Act or in the Regulations which provides that the power of the Board to recommend' or give advice in relation to text books to the State Government which power is necessarily by implication conferred on the Board under s. 4, sub-s. (1) proviso-shall be exercisable by the Chairman so that consultations with the Chairman would be tantamount to consultation with the Board. Realising this difficulty, the learned' Advocate General relied on a decision of the Board dated 12th October, 1971, Ex. 9 to the affidavit in reply filed by Chaturvedi on behalf of the respondents, and contended that by this decision 'the Board authorised the Chairman to take all necessary steps for the purpose of proceeding further with the work of the text books im- provement scheme which consisted of selection and approval of text books for the purpose of prescription or recommendation by-the Board, and the Chairman was, therefore, entitled to act on behalf' of the Board in recommending or giving advice in relation to text books to the State Government. Now we do not dispute the general proposition that when a power or function is given by the statute to. a corporate body and no provision is made in the statute as to how such power or function shall be exercised, the corporate body can by a resolution passed at a general meeting devise its own mode of exercising such power or function, such 'as authorising one or more of the members to exercise it on behalf of the Board. But here this broad proposition would have no application. There are several provisions in the Act of 1965 which provide for delegation of the powers and functions of the Board to the Chairman and other Committees by means of Regulations. If, therefore, any power or function of the Board is intended to be made exercisable by the Chairman, that can only be a done through the mechanism of the Regulations. The Board cannot, by a resolution passed at a, general meeting, authorise the Chairman to exercise a particular power or function entrusted to the Board. The decision of the Board dated 12th October, 1971 cannot, therefore, help the respondents even if it were construed as authorising the Chairman to exercise the power of the Board to recommend or give advice in relation to text books to be prescribed by the State Government. But in fact we do not think it can be so construed. This decision merely authorises the Chairman to take all necessary steps for the purpose of proceeding further with the implementation of the text books improvement scheme and it does not confer any authority on him to exercise a power of the Board which he other-wise did not possess. In any event the authority conferred by this ,decision cannot include the exercise of a statutory function which came to be vested in the Board for the first time on 23rd Match, 1973 when s. 4, sub-s. (1) was enacted. We are, therefore, compelled to reach the conclusion that the only consultation which the State Government had before issuing the notification dated 24th May, 1973 was consultation with the Chairman and not with the Board. The recommendation of text books by the appropriate Committee of Courses also could not be regarded as consultation with the Board, because the power or function to give opinion or advice in relation to text books to be prescribed by the State Government came to be conferred on the Board for the first time on the enactment of s. 4. sub-s. (1) and there is no Regulation which dele- gates this power or function to the appropriate Committee of Courses. It is, therefore, clear beyond doubt that there was no prior consultation with the Boara before the State Government issued the notification, dated 24th May, 1973 and this notification must accordingly be held to be invalid as being in breach of the mandatory requirement of the proviso to s. 4, sub-s. (1).