Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.
By means of order dated 15.12.2016, Sri Satish Kumar was permitted to intervene in the matter and he was allowed to address the Court through his counsel. Ms. Aneeta Singh Nagaur, holding brief of Sri D.P.Singh, has thus been heard on behalf of Sri Satish Kumar.
This petition by the Committee of Management of Sri Hori Lal Inter College, Bilgram, Hardoi challenges the order dated 12.08.2015, passed by the State Government whereby the institution has been de-recognized for admitting its students to the examinations conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad (herein after referred to as "the Board"). The petitioners have also challenged the consequential order dated 21.08.2015, passed by the Additional Secretary of the Board pursuant to the order of the State Government dated 12.08.2015.
The petitioner-institution was recognized for High School examinations in the year 2002 and thereafter for Intermediate examinations in the year 2006 by the Board. In the year 2008 recognition to certain other subjects in Intermediate classes was also granted to the petitioner-institution by the Board.
It appears that on account of some complaint, District Inspector of Schools, Hardoi wrote a letter on 12.01.2012 to the State Government pursuant to which the State Government by means of its letter dated 02.03.2012 directed the authorities concerned to enquire into the alleged irregularities committed by the petitioner-institution, in compliance of which, the Joint Director of Education, Lucknow was required by the Board to submit a report, vide its letter dated 03.05.2012. Thereafter District Inspector of Schools, Hardoi wrote a letter to the Board on 09.08.2012 for cancellation of the recognition of the institution. In compliance of the letter of the Board dated 03.05.2012, the Joint Director of Education, Lucknow submitted his report, vide his letter dated 08.01.2013 along with which the letter dated 12.01.2012 earlier written by the District Inspector of Schools was also attached.
The matter was presented before the Recognition Committee of the Board on 21.02.2013 wherein Recognition Committee decided to accept the recommendation made by the Joint Director of Education, Lucknow. Pursuant to the said decision taken by the Recognition Committee on 21.02.2013, the Director of Secondary Education and Chairman of the Board made recommendation for de-recognizing the institution under Regulation 13(Ka) of Chapter VII of the Regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
In compliance of the recommendation made by the Chairman of the Board, the State Government issued show cause notice dated 27.12.2013 to the Committee of Management of the institution and also required the District Inspector of Schools to submit report, who submitted his report, vide his letter dated 11.11.2013 and pursuant to the letter of the Board dated 10.01.2014, the Joint Director of Education, Lucknow submitted a report again on 23.07.2014. Since the said report dated 23.07.2014 was not found to be clear, the Board required the District Inspector of Schools, Hardoi to submit another report, vide its letters dated 28.05.2015 and 25.06.2015. The District Inspector of Schools thereafter sent a fresh report, vide his letter dated 25.06.2015. The Joint Director of Education, Lucknow, vide his letter dated 14.07.2015 also submitted his report stating therein inter-alia that the students studying in Class IX and XI in the institution have been registered on-line and further that the teaching in the institution is going on appropriately. The Joint Director of Education, vide his letter /report dated 14.07.2015 recommended not to de-recognize the institution. The said reports submitted by the District Inspector of Schools, Hardoi and Joint Director of Education, Lucknow were considered by the Recognition Committee of the Board which held in its meeting dated 16.07.2015 and the Recognition Committee in terms of the letter/report of the Joint Director of Education, Lucknow dated 14.07.2015 agreed with the recommendation made therein and took the decision to continue with the recognition of the petitioner-institution. This fact is clear from perusal of the averments made in paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit filed by Jagdish Prasad Shukla, Deputy Secretary of the Board, which is on record. The contents of said paragraph are quoted below :-
"14. That the matter was put before the Recognition Committee held on 16.07.2015 with the report of District Inspector of Schools as well as report of Regional Joint Director of Education, Lucknow for reconsideration. The Recognition Committee took decision after duly considering the facts of the case which is as under:-
lfefr us fu'p; fd;k fd fo|ky; Jh gksjh yky bUVj dkyst fcyxzke] gjnksbZ ds lEcU/k esa e.Myh; la;qDr f'k{kk funs'kd] y[kuÅ ds i= la[;k%f'[email protected]&[email protected]&16 fnukad 14 tqykbZ 2015 }kjk nh x;h uohure tkWp vk[;k ,oa laLrqfr ds vuqlkj lh/ks gkbZLdwy ,oa b.VjehfM,V ekufodh] oSKkfud] okf.kT; ,oa d`f"k oxZ dh ekU;rk fLFkj j[kh tk;A"
Thus, once the Recognition Committee took a decision not to recommend de-recognition of the petitioner-institution, the matter ought to have been closed, however, after the said decision by the Recognition Committee, it appears that one Sri Satish Kumar made some complaint on the basis of some letter of Hon'ble Lokayukta, U.P. dated 21.07.2015. On reopening of the entire issue after the decision by the Recognition Committee dated 16.07.2015, it appears that Joint Director of Education, Lucknow was directed to submit another report on the ground that the report submitted by him vide his letter dated 14.07.2015 was not clear. In pursuance of the said direction issued to the Joint Director of Education, Lucknow in the proceedings which appear to have initiated on the letter written and complaint made by Sri Satish Kumar on the basis of letter of Hon'ble Lokayukta dated 21.07.2015, the Joint Director of Education, Lucknow submitted another report, within 15 days from the date of his earlier report, i.e. on 30.07.2015 pointing out three discrepancies in the functioning of the institution and recommending therein to de-recognize the institution. The discrepancies allegedly mentioned by the Joint Director of Education, Lucknow in his report dated 30.07.2015 have been mentioned in the impugned order. On the basis of said report dated 30.07.2015, the Recognition Committee met again on 07.08.2015 and recommended that the petitioner-institution be de-recognized. That the report submitted by the Joint Director of Education, Lucknow dated 30.07.2015 was considered by the Recognition Committee in its meeting held on 07.08.2015, is clear from perusal of what has been stated in paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit filed by Sri Jagdish Prasad Shukla. Paragraph 17 of the said counter affidavit is extracted herein below:-
"17. That the spot inspection report and recommendation made by the Regional Joint Director of Education were put up before the Recognition Committee on 07.08.2015 for consideration. The Recognition Committee having accepted the recommendation for withdrawal of recognition of college in same way, sent their recommendation to the State Government."
Thus, it is clear that after the issue relating to de-recognition of the petitioner-institution was closed by the Recognition Committee, vide its decision taken in its meeting held on 16.07.2015, the matter was re-opened again on the letter of Hon'ble Lokayukta dated 21.07.2015, whereupon report was submitted by the Joint Director of Education, Lucknow on 30.07.2015, which was considered by the Recognition Committee on 07.08.2015 i.e. within 7 days from the date of submission of report by the Joint Director of Education on 30.07.2015 The question in this case which has arisen for consideration of the Court is as to whether the proceedings drawn by the Board, Recognition Committee and the State Government while taking the impugned decision whereby the petitioner-institution has been de-recognized are in accordance with the statutory prescriptions available in Regulation 13 Ka and 13 Kha of Chapter VII of the Regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 read with provisions contained under Section 16-D(3) of the said Act.
Section 16-D of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 empowers the Director of Education to cause inspection of a recognized institution. It further empowers the Director of Education to instruct the Committee of Management of the Institution to remove any defect or deficiency found on inspection or otherwise. Section 16-D (3) prescribes that if the Director of Education is satisfied that the Committee of Management of the institution has committed the faults and deficiencies as are mentioned in Clause (i), (ii) and (vii) given in Section 16-D(3) of the Act, he may refer the case to the Board for withdrawal of recognition of such institution or he can take further proceedings either for appointment of Authorized Controller or for supersession or suspension of the Committee of Management of the institution concerned. Thus, Section 16-D(3) of the Act makes two courses available to the Director to take action against the Management of the institution on being satisfied that discrepancies mentioned therein are found to have been committed by the institution concerned. The first course is to recommend withdrawal of recognition to the Board and, the second course available to the Director of Education is to take further steps for appointment of Authorized Controller or supersession or suspension of the Committee of Management. In the event Director of Education takes recourse to the first option available to him, he has to refer the case to the Board for withdrawal of recognition. Once the recommendation by the Director of Education is made available for withdrawal of the recognition to the Board, the provisions contained in Regulations 13(Ka) and 13(kha) of Chapter VII of the Regulations framed under the Act are to be complied with. It is needless to say at this juncture that Regulations have been framed under the statutory prescriptions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and hence, they also have statutory force. Regulations 13 (Ka) and 13(Kha) are quoted herein below:-
"13 ¼d½ tc funs'kd vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 16&?k ds [k.k ds mi/kkjk ¼3½ ds vUrxrZ fdlh laLFkk dk ekeyk ifj"kn dks mldh ekU;rk ds izR;kgj.k ds fy, fopkjkFkZ Hkstrk gS] rks ifj"kn izcU/kd dks dkj.k crkus dks dgsxh fd mlds fo:) ,slh dk;Zokgh D;ksa u dh tk,A ¼[k½ fofu;e 12 ¼d½ ds vuqlkj ifj"kn }kjk izcU/kd dks fuxZr dkj.k crkvksa uksfVl dk mRrj izcU/kd ls izkIr Li"Vhdj.k rFkk ml ij la;qDr f'k{kk funs'kd dh vk[;k ;FkkfLFkfr viuh lqLrqfr 'kklu dks izsf"kr djsxhA laLFkk dh ekU;rk izR;kgfjr gksus dh n'kk esa ifj"kn ml laLFkk dk uke ekU;rkizkIr lwph ls dkV nsxh vFkok laLFkk ds izcU/kd dks psrkouh nsrs gq, ;g vkns'k nsxh fd ifj"kn }kjk fu;r vof/k ds Hkhrj laLFkk nks"k vFkok nks"kksa dks ;fn nwj ugha djrh gS] rks mldh ekU;rk izR;kgfjr djrs gq, mldk uke ekU;rk izkIr laLFkkvksa dh lwph ls dkV fn;k tk;sxkA vFkok ,d vFkok vf/kd oSdfYid fo"k;ksa esa ekU;rk izR;kgfjr dj yh tk;sxhA ftldh lEiw.kZ mRrjnkf;Ro laLFkk ds izcU/kd dk gksxkA "
Perusal of the Regulation 13 (Ka) reveals that once the Director refers the matter to the Board for de-recognition of the institution under Section 16-D (3) of the Act, then the Board has to issue a show cause notice to the Management of the institution concerned requiring it to furnish its reply and state as to why action leading to de-recognition of the institution may not be taken.
Regulation 13(Kha) requires that in case show cause notice is issued in terms of the provisions contained in Regulation 13(Ka), the Management shall furnish reply to the said show cause notice within a month's period to the Joint Director of Education and also to the Board. It further provides that Board shall make recommendation to the State Government on the basis of explanation submitted by the Management and the report thereon to be submitted by the Joint Director of Education. It further provides that in case the State Government ultimately accepts the recommendation for de-recognizing the institution, the Board shall score off such institution from the list of recognizing institutions.
The provision contained in Regulations 13(Ka) and 13 (Kha) of the Regulations are available in the statute book to ensure that before taking decision for recognizing the institution, principles of natural justice are observed an opportunity of submitting explanation is given to the Management of the institution which is faced with impending action leading to de-recognition.
As to whether the procedure adopted in this case by the Board or its Recognition Committee has been in conformity with Regulations 13(Ka) and 13(Kha), is not difficult to find out from the pleadings and documents available on record.
As already observed above, the matter was closed by the Recognition Committee in its meeting held on 16.07.2015 and thereafter on the letter of Hon'ble Lokayukta dated 21.07.2015, another report was called for which was submitted by the Joint Director of Education on 30.07.2015 i.e. 15 days from the date the matter was closed earlier on 16.07.2015 by the Recognition Committee. On the said report, the matter was considered by the Recognition Committee within a week i.e. on 07.08.2015 itself.
Learned Standing Counsel has perused the records which have been made available to him by the District Inspector of Schools, Hardoi. The record has been perused by the Court as well. The said record also does not disclose that any notice as required under Regulation 13 (Ka) was ever issued to the petitioner-institution for showing cause against the impending action of de-recognition of the institution. The impugned order passed by the State Government dated 12.08.2015 also does not make any recital that any show cause notice was given to the petitioner-institution by the Board or by its Recognition Committee before considering the matter in its meeting held on 07.08.2015.
To ensure fair play in the matters relating to de-recognition of an institution, Regulations 13(Ka) and 13(Kha) have been framed and any violation thereof, in my considered opinion, would render the entire exercise to be vitiated and unlawful.
In the instant case, the entire action appears to have been taken in a hurried manner which is clear from the events which started after receipt of the letter from Hon'ble Lokayukta. It has already been found above that the matter was closed by the Recognition Committee only on 16.07.2015 and within three weeks thereafter i.e. on 07.08.2015 decision of the Recognition Committee was upset, that too, without giving any opportunity of hearing in the matter to the petitioner-institution or without confronting the petitioner with the fresh report submitted by the Joint Director of Education dated 30.07.2015. In the case at hand, providing copy of the report dated 30.07.2015 along with show cause notice as contemplated in Regulation 13 (Ka) was necessary not only for the reason that Regulation 13(Ka) has statutory force and it requires so but also for the reason that this report allegedly runs contrary to the earlier report dated 14.07.2015 submitted by the Joint Director of Education itself on the basis of which the matter was closed by the Recognition Committee in its meeting held on 16.07.2015 wherein it was decided that recognition of the petitioner-institution need not be disturbed.
Impugned action on the part of respondents is thus clearly not in conformity with Regulation 13(Ka) and 13 (Kha) of the Regulations and hence has precipitated in derogation of the principles of fair play and natural justice embodied in the said Regulations.
For the discussions made and reasons given above, in the result, the writ petition is hereby allowed.
The impugned order dated 12.08.2015, passed by the State Government, as is contained in Annexure No.1 to the petition and the consequential order dated 21.08.2015, passed by the Additional Secretary, Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Regional Office, U.P., Allahabad as is contained in Annexure No.2 to the petition are hereby quashed.
It will, however, be open to the authorities to consider the entire matter afresh and in case any such decision is taken by the authorities to reconsider the matter, the provisions contained in Section 16-D(3) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and Regulations 13(Ka) and 13(Kha) of Chapter VII of the Regulations framed thereunder shall be strictly followed.
There will be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 16.12.2016 Sanjay