DEBENDRA NANDA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners in all these seven applications under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India raise a common grievance relating to accord of recognition of their educational institutions. In all the applications, excepting O.J.C. Nos. 773/84, 1320/84 and 2730/84, the Management of the respective institutions are the applicants. In O.J.C Nos. 773/84,1320/84 and 2730/84 some students of different institutions are the petitioners. The State of Orissa represented by the Secretary in the Education and Youth Services Department, Director of State Council of Educational Research and Training, the Inspector of schools having jurisdiction over the area where the institution is situated and the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa are the opposite parties in the writ applications. The institutions concerned are privately managed Secondary Training Schools located in different parts of the State. They prepare students for the certified teachers Examination. (C. T. Examination) held every year under the Board of Secondary Education. In some of the writ applications, the reliefs sought are for issue of a writ of mandamus to the opposite parties commanding them to students recognition to the concerned school and to admit eligible students of the school to appear at the C.T. Examination and to quash the order of the State Government expressed in the letter No. 674 dated 13-2-1984 from the Deputy Director, S.C.E.R.T., Orissa, Bhubaneswar to the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, conveying the Government decision that no permission will be accorded to the non-recognised private Secondary Training School in the State to present their candidates at the Board Examination, 1984. In the other cases the relief sought is confined to issue of a mandamus commanding the opposite parties to admit the petitioners and other eligible students of their schools to appear at the C.T. Examination and to quash the decision of the State Government referred to above.

(2.) As stated earlier, the institutions in question are non-Government Secondary Training Schools established and managed with the initiative taken by the private persons. They have been established in 1980 or 1981 and since then have been imparting education and training to students preparing them for the C.T. Examination. Management of these institutions have submitted applications to the Director of State Council of Educational Research and Training (opposite party No. 2) for according recognition to their respective institution. Admittedly, these applications have not been disposed of by the Director who is the competent authority to deal with the same. It appears that the question of privately owned Secondary Training Institutions has been under consideration of the State Government since about four years. Due to the delay in according recognition to the institutions in question the Managements have been facing serious difficulties in presenting their students at the C.T. Examinations every year. It is asserted by the petitioners and not denied by the opposite parties that under the direction of the State Government students recruited in their institutions during the years 1981 and 1982 were permitted to take the Final Examination held in 1983. When the question of presenting their students in the Examination, 1984 arose the authorities refused to accede to their request in view of the Government decision contained in the letter dated 13-2-1984 referred to above. On these allegations, the petitioners contend that the aforesaid decision of the State Government is incompetent and without jurisdiction. Accordingly, they seek the reliefs noticed earlier.

(3.) The opposite parties have filed their counter affidavit only in O.J.C No. 773/84. At the hearing the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and the Director has submitted that the stand taken in the counter affidavit filed in O.J.C. No. 773/84 is applicable to the other cases and the same may be treated as counter affidavit in all the cases. The gist of the stand taken in the counter affidavit is that the State Government have been following a consistent policy in regard to the opening of the Secondary Training Schools in the State and it has been repeatedly notified in the form of press notes (Annexures 'A' and 'B') that Government do not consider it necessary to open such schools privately and that Government would not give recognition to such schools. As a justification for such policy decision it is stated that the students coming out every year from the sixtynine Secondary Training Schools run by the State Government are sufficient to rest the need for trained teachers throughout the State and hence there is no necessity to run private Secondary Training Schools anywhere in the State. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that one batch of students from these private Training Schools were permitted to appear in the Examination through recognised Secondary Training Schools as per Rules and taking into consideration of the fact that some of the schools were established before the issue of the press notes under Annexures 'A' and 'B'. The opposite parties take the stand that in view of the clear warning the press notes there was no justification for the management of the Schools to accept students and the opposite parties are in no way responsible if the students in these institutions suffer due to their inability to appear in the Board Examination.