KASHI PRASAD SINHA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is the proprietor of the "bhartiya Bhandar" whose Hindi publication "naya Sahitya sourabha", parts 1 to 4, had been sanctioned and prescribed as one of the text books in 'hindi' for the middle school classes in Mahakoshal in the syllabus of studies for classes V to VIII of the middle school for the academic year 1958-59 by the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter called the Board ). His main complaint is that the State of Madhya Pradesh (respondent No. 1) and the Director of Public Instruction (respondent No. 2) have --vide notification, dated 1-6-1958, (Annexure E) --changed the said syllabus of the course of studies for the year 1958-59 and onwards for the middle school classes and substituted a new syllabus in contravention of the Madhya Pradesh Secondary education Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act) and the Regulations made thereunder (hereinafter called the Regulations ). It is further complained that they have for that syllabus, without any authority of law, prescribed text books printed and published by the State Government called 'nationalized Test Books' in place of the text books printed and published by the petitioner, which had already been prescribed by the Board in accordance with the syllabus for 1958-59 published in 1956. It is contended that the Director of Public instruction had no authority to change the syllabus or to prescribe the text books, which function could be performed by the Board only after following the procedure laid down in the Regulations. This required the initiation of the proceedings for revision of the syllabus by the board of Studies for the respective subjects, constituted under Chapter XIV of the regulations, in its annual general meeting and forwarding it to the Board through the Academic Council (vide Clause 11 of Chapter XIV of the Regulations ). It is also contended that prescribing of text books printed and published by the State government infringed the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 19 (1) (f) and (g) of the Constitution. He, therefore, prayed for the following reliefs:

(2.) THE respondents in their return averred that the change in the syllabus and the prescribing of the text books had been done by the Board and not by the Director of Public Instruction as contended by the petitioner. They also averred that the action of the Board was in conformity with the Act and the Regulations, and that on a proper construction of the Act and the Regulations the syllabus for the middle school classes did not require to be initiated by the Board of Studies and that the provisions of Clause 11 of Chapter XIV of the Regulations did not apply to the syllabus of the middle school classes. They also denied that there was any infringement of the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 19 (1) (f) and (g) of the Constitution. They, therefore, prayed that the petition be dismissed with costs.

(3.) AFTER the arguments had proceeded for sometime, which, to a certain extent, clarified the respective contentions of the parties, the petitioner prayed for leave to amend the petition. We considered it advisable to adjourn the case for a few days for the purpose, and we have now before us an application for amendment filed by the petitioner an well as its reply by the respondents. The amendment raises no new points, except such as were being canvassed before us when we adjourned the case, and as there is no serious opposition to the amendment being allowed we consider it advisable to allow it in the interest of justice as it only clarifies certain issues which arose for determination in the original petition. The petitioned has no doubt in the application for amendment made certain additional averments supported by additional documentary evidence to show that the Director of Public Instruction has been acting as if he had all the powers of the board. On that basis it is contended that the stand taken by the respondents that the changes had been effected by the Board and not by the Director of Public instruction was not correct. We are, however, not concerned with the irregularities committed by the Director of Public Instruction, if any, as the only question to be decided in this petition is whether the stand taken by the respondents that the change has been effected by the Board in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Regulations is correct or not.