ANOOP MHALHA Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for relief to comply with the order P-2 dated 20.11.2002 issued by Director Public Instruction to treat the students as regular students. .

(2.) THE petitioner submits that he is the President of Khetiya Jan Kalyan Samiti which is a registered society under Society Act which runs school i. e. Vidhya Bihar Convent High School Devendra Nagar, Distt. Panna. Recognition for the academic session 2002-2003 was applied which was not granted by the Board of Secondary Education, then petitioner approached to the State Government to give the recognition on 20.11.2002. P-2 dated 20.11.2002 is passed by the State Government. Thereafter petitioner approached the Board and the Board has denied to give examination forms because of the order passed in MCC No. 1205/2002, in which it has been laid down that the State Government has no power to exercise its power under section 9(4) of Madhyamik Shiksha Act, 1955 after 30.9.2002. The petitioner has given admission to the students and they are entitled to appear as regular students. The State Government has found the school to be fit for grant of recognition for academic session 2002-2003.

(3.) HENCE , the petitioner failed to fulfill the standard, laid down by the Board. It is surprising that the petitioner has not assailed the order passed by the Board by which the application of the petitioner has been rejected for grant of recognition for the academic session 2002-2003 and has based the case only on the recommendation made by the Director Public Instruction on 20.11.2002. The recommendation for recognition as per letter P-2 made by the Director Public Instruction is entirely misconceived. Director Public Instruction has no power to exercise the power conferred under section 9(4) of the Act. Thus, the prayer made by the petitioner that the recommendation for recognition (P-2) is final is not correct. In my opinion, the recommendation made by the Director Public Instruction is entirely without applying the mind. Director Public Instruction is directed to be cautious in furture in making such recommendation for recognition. Action is prima facie in violation to the direction made in MCC No. 203/2001. In St. John's Teacher, Training Institute (for women), Madurai etc. v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others etc. JT 1993(4) SC 78, wherein the Apex Court observed as under :