GOKUL PRASAD Vs. M M SOHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case the petitioners seek a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to admit them to the Basic Training School, Betul.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners they had applied for admission to the School for the session commencing on 1st June 1961 and ending on 30th April 1962, that they possessed the requisite qualifications, and that the respondent No. 1, the District inspector of Schools, Betul, by his order passed in May-June 1961 admitted them into the School and thereafter they had actually joined it and attended classes for about a month. They further say that on 1st July 1961 a notice was displayed on the notice-board of the School by the respondent No. 3, the Superintendent of the school, saying that according to the orders of the respondent No. 2, the Divisional Superintendent of Education, Narbada Division, the admission of the petitioners and other sixtyfour students had been cancelled. The petitioners contend that this cancellation order is wholly illegal and arbitrary, and pray that it be quashed and their admission into the School be restored.

(3.) IN his reply to the petition the respondent No. 1, has not disputed these facts. He has stated that on or about 3rd May 1961 he received a memorandum from the office of the Director of Public Instruction asking him to make the admissions to the Normal School according to two office memoranda issued in 1959 and 1960; that again on 26th May 1961 he was asked to take immediate action in the matter of admissions to the School; that accordingly on the principles laid down in the memorandum regulating the admission of students into the School the petitioners' and other candidates were selected for admission into the Basic Training School, betul, and the Superintendent of the School was informed accordingly; and that on or about 19th June 1961 he received, an intimation from the respondent No. 2 asking him to cancel the selection of the candidates made by him. The answer of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 is that the selection of candidates made by the respondent No. 1 was invalid as under the relevant memorandum issued regulating the admissions he was not the competent authority for making admissions; that the prescribed authority" for admision was the Superintendent of the School and tile first respondent was only required to prepare a seniority list of untrained teachers of schools in the district attached to the Training School and of the candidates applying for admission and to transmit it to the Superintendent of the School; and that consequently the admissions of the petitioners and other candidates were cancelled. The return of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 also contains the statement: