NAZRUL ISLAM Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Court : This writ petition is made basically for the purposes of recognition of a Junior High Madrasah and regularisation of services of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the Institution. The whole contention of the writ petitioner is that the order impugned as passed by the appropriate authority of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education in refusing the grant of recognition is perverse which is apparent from the face of it. Such order impugned is apparent from the face of it. Such order impugned is under memorandum No. 1725 dated 4th November, 1999.

(2.) This is not the first writ. The writ jurisdiction was invoked but this is the third time when the writ jurisdiction was invoked in the similarly placed situation. In the last order the earlier writ petition was disposed of. A Bench of this Court squarely held that refusal of recognition is outcome of discrimination giving details of comparable charts. But inspite of the same recognition of the institution has been refused. According to the petitioner, one cannot sit over the order of the Court as an appellate authority unless and until a formal appeal is preferred. When neither any appeal preferred nor any review application made the order has so to bind one. Thus, the action on the part of the authority concerned is contrary of law. Without going into such controversy I have to say that imparting education is in the hands of the people who have made the institution but giving recognition to such institution is in the hands of State machinery made for the same. This is basic parameter of Unnikrishnan's case reported in 1993(1) SCC 645. Unnikrishnan's case was considerably followed by a Division Bench of this Court in 1998(1) CLJ 141 (Nabadwip Chandra Das & Ors. v. West Bengal Board of Secondary Education & Ors.). But according to me, in the Unnikrishnan's case the Supreme Court never held that right of imparting education is also a right of recognition of such institution by which education is imparted. However, recognition of Institution sometimes interfered with by the Court of law when it has been delayed or refused which ultimately affect imparting education. In such case, recognition will directed to be made or will directed to consider specially for fulfilment of any deficiency whatsoever. Law of giving recognition cannot be said to be a law of refusal of giving recognition but giving recognition with due care. I find in most of the cases recognitions are being refused only for monetary consideration of the State or for many insignificant causes which could have regularised as a matter of course giving a clear guidelines that unless and until such conditions are not fulfilled it will be possible for such authority to give recognition. But in most of the cases the authorities are following straight jacket formula which is not the intention of the legislature.

(3.) In the instant case, it has categorically held by a Court of Law that the discrimination in granting recognition has been caused. Therefore, there is hardly any scope for the Board in not giving recognition excepting completions certain formalities for giving recognition. A legitimate expectation will be a futile attempt even after making attempt to give shape of the same by the Supreme Court and High Courts when the authorities fail to take a bona fide stand or proceed indiscriminately. It is an accepted scenario that inspite of passing repeated orders by the Court of law State machineries are taking an indifferent stand. If the same has been caused it will definitely be a good stand of passing mandatory order as against such state machinery. As per guideline giving recognition to the Madrasah, Government of West Bengal, School Education Department, Secondary Branch under memorandum No. 24-SE(S)/35-34/97 dated 12th January, 1998 requirements are as follows: (1) Site and accommodation; (2) Teaching and non-teaching staff; (3) Furniture; (4) Sanitary arrangement; (5) Drinking water (6) Laboratory for elementary seience; (7) Library, (8) Management of the Madrasah; (9) Reserve fund; (10) Roll strength; (11) Maintenance of the records; (12) Distance of separate Madrasahs/ other institutions; (13) Mode of application; (14) Inspection following an application; (15) Recommendation of the State Government.