Heard learned counsels for the parties.
By the present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 29-07-2016 as well as the order dated 10-02-2017 passed by respondent no. 1.
By the order dated 10-02-2017, the respondent no. 1 has communicated the petitioner that its institution for bringing in grant-in-aid scheme was rejected by the order dated 29-07-2016. The order dated 29-07-2016 is passed on the ground that Director of Education has submitted a report dated 04-04-2015,which goes against the petitioner's institution and relying upon the said report, the petitioner's institution is not being brought on grant in-aid scheme.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the report dated 04-04-2015, a fresh report was sought and the same was submitted by the District Inspector of Schools by his letter dated 05-08-2016 to the Joint Director of Education, which thereafter, with his comments, was forwarded to the Director of Education, by his letter dated 16-09-2016. The said letters dated 05-08-2016 and 16-09-2016 are annexed as Annexure Nos. 10 & 11 to the writ petition. Thus, the state government ought to have passed the order after going through the fresh report dated 16-9-2016 which was submitted to the Director of Education. He further submits that before passing any order on the basis of report of the Director of Education, it was incumbent upon the state government to call upon the petitioner if it found any adverse against him. Failing to take aforesaid step by the state government would cause irreparable loss to the petitioner without giving any opportunity of hearing to him.
Having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that while passing the impugned orders dated 29-07-2016 and 10-02-2017, the report of the Director of Education dated 04-04-2015 was not taken into consideration. The said report, which was against the petitioner, was never put before him for submitting his reply. Thus, the order, on the face of it, is passed without giving any appropriate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Further when a fresh report was available, the same also ought to have been taken into consideration by the respondent no. 1. Therefore, the order dated 29-07-2016 and 10-02-2017 cannot stand and the same are set aside.
Respondent no. 1 is directed to pass a fresh order against the petitioner after taking into consideration the fresh report submitted to the Director of Education and in case, respondent no. 1 finds anything adverse against the petitioner, it shall be incumbent upon the respondent no. 1 to call upon the petitioner to file his reply and give opportunity of hearing to him.
With the aforesaid, present writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.8.2019 AKS (Vivek Chaudhary,J.)