DEV VIDYALAYA INTER COLLEGE Vs. C M BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEV Vidyalaya Inter Col lege, Taruli, district Faizabad, is an educa tional institution recognised under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (herein after referred to as the Act). By a letter dated 18th January, 1971, the petitioner institution was informed that it had been selected as a centre for High School Exa mination, 1971, of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education. Sub sequently, by a letter dated 27-1-71 the petitioner was informed that the examina tion will be held at another institution, the Baldeo Vidyapith Inter College, opposite party No. 4. The petitioner has challeng ed this order on various grounds, viz., that the order is without jurisdiction as it had not been passed by the Board, that if the order be deemed to be passed under Sec tion 11 (3) of the Act it would be bad as it had not been actually passed by the Chairman, that before passing of the order the petitioner was not granted an oppor tunity of showing cause and that the order was passed mala fide and under political pressure. The respondents, on the other hand, have contended that both the earlier and the impugned orders were passed by the Chairman of the Board in exercise of the powers under Section 11 (3) of the Act bona fide and that there was no ques tion of granting any opportunity of hearing prior to the passing of the order withdraw ing the order appointing the petitioner in stitution as centre for High School Exami nation. Objection has also been raised on behalf of the respondents that the peti tioner has no legal right to maintain this petition.

(2.) A person can approach this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution only if by the impugned action of the res-, pondent some legal right of his is infring ed. The right which the petitioner claims to have been violated by the order of oppo site party No. 1 dated 27-1-71 is the alleg ed right which was conferred on it by its being recognised as a centre for the hold-big of the High School examination. But t appears from the various provisions of the Act and the Regulations framed there under that merely by getting selected as a centre for the holding of an examination no legal right is conferred on the selected institution, rather an obligation is cast on it. The power to hold High School exa mination is vested in the Board. Sub-sec tion (3) of Section 7 of the Act provides that subject to the provisions of the Act, the Board shall have the power to conduct examination at the end of High School and Intermediate courses. Regulation 8 (h) of Chapter VIII of the Regulations provides that every recognised institution shall, on demand, by the Board/Department, place its staff, building, furniture, etc., at the disposal of the Board for the purpose of conducting the Board's examination. These provisions in effect place an obligation on every recognised institution to make avail able its building etc., to the Board for the purpose of conducting examinations. There is nothing in the Act or the Regulations to show that by the placing of this obligation on an institution any legal right accrues in favour of that institution the injury of which may be actionable or which may give it the right to demand that the exa mination must be held at the institution. As held in "Calcutta Gas Co. (Prop.) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal", AIR 1962 SC 1044, it is implicit in the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution that the relief asked for must be one to enforce a legal right. It has not been shown that there has been any infringement of a legal right of the petitioner in this case. The petition is, therefore, not maintainable.

(3.) THE opening of an examination centre in an institution as also the with drawal of that order will be nothing but the exercise of the administrative business of the Board. It requires no decision on the rights of any parties. The Examina tions Committee is only a recommendatory body. It acts under the control of the Board. As the order about opening or the closing of an examination centre is ad ministrative in nature, the Chairman or the Board cannot be barred from subsequently reconsidering the matter and changing the decision. Learned counsel for the peti tioner, relying on "The Board of High School and Intermediate Education v. Ghanshyam", AIR 1962 SC 1110, contend ed that the power of the selecting exami nation centres is not an administrative power and therefore, Section 11 (3) will give no authority to the Chairman to pass the order. In the case cited, a penalty was to be imposed on students using unfair means at the examinations and it was held that the power exercised by the Board in such cases was a quasi-judicial power. The principles laid down in that case if applied to the present case will show that the power exercised by the respondent No. 1 was only an administrative power. The Board has only to select a place for hold ing the examination and the institution so selected has by virtue of the provisions of the Regulations and the Act bound to pro vide accommodation and facilities for hold ing the examination. If the Board could order the holding of examination at a parti cular place, it could also rescind that order and change the centre in exercise of its powers. Respondent No. 1 had thus the jurisdiction to pass the impugned order under Section 11 (3) of the Act. As the order was only an administrative order and no right of the petitioner was being affect ed there was no question of affording the petitioner any opportunity of being heard or of showing cause prior to its being passed.