CHANDAN MUKHERJEE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is made by the Headmaster and other teachers working voluntarily in the 4th Class Junior High School along with President, Secretary and other non-teaching staffs for the purpose of cancellation of the order of refusal of grant of recognition of the institution and approval of the services of the petitioner Nos. 1 to 6 and 9 and 10 as in the cause title.

(2.) According to me, the question of approval of service has a consequential effect of recognition of the institution. Therefore, since the order impugned is made refusing grant of recognition the question of approval or non- approval of the aforesaid petitioners is premature in nature. Therefore, such question cannot be decided in this writ petition. But in any even, if the school is given recognition the right of such petitioners in respect of approval of their services will give rise for necessary action. The grounds for refusal are as follows:

(3.) According to this court, the Rules being the Rules for Management or recognised non-Governmental institutions (aided and unaided), 1969 is covering the field. Each and every standard school has its own parameters for recognition. A recognition made for XII Class institution may not be fit for grounds of recognition for X class institution. Similarly, the recognition of VIII class institution cannot be fit and proper ground of recognition of IV Class institution . All are distinct and different. That apart, one factual finding may not be same or similar with the factual finding of other institution of giving recognition. Therefore, the authority concerned has to be very careful in considering the same independently in each case. That apart the provisions for recognition are made to enable the parties to get appropriate sanction for imparting education but not to get refusal very often. Of course, imparting education and grant of recognition are not identical state of affairs as per the case of Unnikrishnan Vs. State of A.P. reported in 1993 (1) SCC 645 : [1993(l) SLR 743 (SC)] . but there should be sincere desire of the authority to give basic need and infrastructural facilities are more or less available. Unless the education comes people will not be educated. Therefore, unless people become educated correctness of basic need and infrastructural facilities and improvement, if any, in connection thereto will not be understood. Hence, the authority has to go by the availability of minimum requirement not by any straight-jacket formula otherwise entire scheme of imparting education will be frustrated, thereby such action will be held to be contrary to the constitutional goal. The modus of the Rules of recognition is to enable one getting recognition but no getting refusal of recognition normally which we come across. The ration of refusal will be much lesser than the ratio of giving recognition. We find the same is other way round. Even for a small hyper technical ground sometimes a recognition is refused. In the instant case, on numerous occasions even after the order being passed by the Court for consideration, that authorities refused to give recognition. As I have already held, I repeat that there are two ways of looking into the matter by applying the test of common law either affirmative disposal or dismissal. But since the approach of the writ Court is much wider, a direction can always be given to the authority to consider the matter instead of passing any positive order by it or order of dismissal. Such order is obvious under certain circumstances. But an authority should be sincere in making consideration. In other words, it should be active consideration. Active consideration does not depend upon the volume of the pages of such consideration. Active consideration means the points for consideration are actively made in coming to conclusion. In the present case, I do not find that this writ petition is made for the first time for consideration. It is repeated efforts on the part of the petitioners. Many of the grounds for refusals are mere repetitions of the earlier orders. Therefore, such case cannot be taken up for consideration so lightly. When an order was passed by the court for consideration it is an emergency. Consideration under the order of the court, therefore, the same can be done even by the President in the place and instead of Executive Committee and in the desirable manner. The power of refusal will be sparingly used under those circumstances.