BANAS EDUCATION TRUST Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first petitioner is a registered public charitable trust and the second petitioner is the managing trustee of the first petitioner- trust. The petitioners submitted an application for recognition of Arts Teachers' Diploma College at Palanpur, to the Director of Higher Education, the respondent no.2 herein on 29.12.1988. The respondent no.2, on 1.5.1989, rejected the said application vide Annexure-B. The petitioners have challenged the said decision in this petition.

(2.) Perusing the impugned order, it appears that the application for recognition has been rejected on the ground that a policy decision has been taken not to grant recognition to open new ATD College. It further appears that the policy decision is taken on the ground that the students coming out of such institutions find it difficult to get employment and, therefore, there would be further addition in the educated unemployed persons possessing Arts Teachers' Diploma. When this petition came up for hearing of admission, this Court, after hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, after issuing Rule, by way of interim order, directed the respondents to consider the application of the petitioners for recognition of college for ATD course on merits as if there is no policy decision not to grant recognition to any ATD College in Banaskantha District and the respondents authorities were also directed to consider the question whether such recognition can be granted if the petitioners waive their claim for grant for a period of two years or any other period. It was further directed that the decision taken by the Government shall be placed on record of this case on or before 15.4.1991. It appears that a communication dated 6.8.1991, under the signature of Section Officer of Education Department, Gandhinagar, was placed on record reiterating the Government decision not to grant recognition to open ATD College. This Court, again on 28.2.1996, directed the respondents to produce the concerned file before this Court for perusal and to keep ready the rules of business, instructions under the Business Rules and the Orders of Delegation to show as to who is the Competent Authority to take decision in the matter. The Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department was directed to file affidavit. Mr.S.D.Sharma, Secretary, Education Department, filed the affidavit-in-reply dated 7.8.1996 to which a rejoinder is also filed by the petitioners. It may be stated that on behalf of the respondent no.1, further affidavit is also filed by the Under Secretary, Education Department, Gandhinagar.

(3.) The petitioners have challenged the decision of the respondents not to grant recognition to ATD course on the ground of discrimination by invoking Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Mr.H.P.Raval, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, after inviting my attention to the relevant averments relating to discrimination, submitted that the respondents have not adopted uniform policy regarding grant of recognition to ATD Colleges and the reason of no need of ATD College is given only as an excuse to refuse the recognition. Mr. Raval further submitted that the respondents refused recognition to the petitioner no.1- Institution in Banaskantha District even though there is no such institution in the entire district of Banaskantha and on the other hand, granted recognition to four ATD Colleges in the same year when the petitioners had applied, in Panchmahals District even though there was already existing ATD College at Lunavada of the said district. In the submission of Mr.Raval, the learned advocate for the petitioners, both the districts are backward areas and, therefore, refusal to grant recognition to the petitioner no.1- Institution is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners, in order to substantiate their submissions, have made following averments in para 18(i) to 18(iv) of the petition.