PAWAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a joint petition filed by 106 students under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction to the Education Secretary and the Director of Higher Secondary Education, Haryana Government (for short, the Director) to permit them to appear in the ensuing examination.

(2.) An educational institution named as the Rajiv Gandhi Teachers Training Institute, Panchkula (for short, the institute) sought permission from the Director to run J.B.T. and O.T. (Hindi) courses. Permission to run one unit each in the two courses, namely, D.Ed. and O.T. (Hindi) was granted, vide memo dated 4.10.1994. This permission was granted subject to the fulfilment of certain conditions by the institute. Permission so granted was, however, withdrawn, vide memo dated 9.8.1995 on the ground (as mentioned in the memo) that various irregularities and deficiencies were found in the functioning of the institute. It was noted in the withdrawal memo that there were complaints about the extortion of money by way of tuition fee and there were deficiencies in the provisions of facilities. A Committee consisting of an Additional Director and two Deputy Directors of the Education Department of the Haryana Government had visited the institute and had made enquiries into the various complaints and deficiencies. They had noticed many deficiencies and irregularities like maintenance of duplicate attendance registers, recovery of excess fee in lumpsum, lack of sufficient accommodation for the classes, library and laboratories, lack of proper sanitation and drinking water facilities etc. Permission was withdrawn by the Director with immediate effect and the institute was directed to close its classes immediately. It was made clear in the withdrawal letter that permission had been earlier granted, vide letter dated 2.11.1994 for one academic year only. A note had been recorded in the said letter that the students studying, for the time being, would be adjusted in another corresponding institution in the State. The institute challenged the withdrawal of permission by filing a writ petition (CWP No. 11871 of 1995). The following order was passed by this High Court in the said writ petition on 5.10.1995:

(3.) After the withdrawal of permission was cancelled by this High Court on the ground of absence of due opportunity, a show-cause notice was issued by the Director to the institute on 27.12.1995. The institute was required to send its reply within 15 days. The institute, however, chose to send its replies on 14.2.1996 and 19.3.1996 raising certain objections. The Director, after looking into the reply, again withdrew the permission, vide withdrawal letter dated 21.3.1996.