The petitioner-association claiming itself to have been formed for the interest of the management of secondary schools recognized under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the '1921 Act') has filed this writ petition challenging the Government Order dated 10th September, 2010 and the amended order dated 12.11.2010 relating to the formation of centres for holding examinations of the Board of U.P. High School and Intermediate Examinations. The claim in essence is that the State Government has taken arbitrary decisions on the basis of the impugned provisions of the Government Orders which violates the right and equal treatment to the institutions for operating as centres.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on certain decisions to advanced his submissions and he contends that a judicial review is permissible.
The dispute in essence is that the petitioner-association has stood up for the cause of self finance institutions and also such institutions, who want their institutions to function as self centres, for the students of Class-X and Class-XII, and conduct the examinations on behalf of the Board. This submission is based on the Government Orders to contend that the respondents themselves have formulated a policy to provide self centres particularly to such institutions which are catering to the need of female students. The respondents have violated and discriminated the provisions as against the members of the petitioner-association by either not allotting centres or refusing to allot centres on arbitrary grounds.
Other submissions have been raised that centres have been sent far away at a considerable distance, which is also causing inconvenience to the students and hence the Government Orders deserve to be struck down to the extent as prayed for.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, the Board of High School and Intermediate Examinations is an autonomous body created under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Section 7 of the 1921 Act empowers the Board to conduct examinations for which it is empowered to do all such other acts and things as may be requisite in order to further the objects of the Board for regulating and supervising the examinations as the act empowers the Board to do everything essential for the purpose by necessary implication. It also empowers the Board to fix examination centres. A centre has been defined under Section 2(aa) of 1921 Act as follows:
2 (aa). " "Centre" means an institution or a place fixed by the Board for the purposes of holding its examinations and includes the entire premises attached thereto;
This definition was introduced be way of an amendment in the year 1959 itself as it was necessary to empower the Board to hold examinations at a particular centre by fixing the same and appointing a superintendent for conducting the said examinations. The power to regulate is, therefore, implicit with regard to the location of centres.
This Court in the case of Jamiluddin, Manager, Managing Committee, Saghir Fatima Mohammadia Girls Inter College Agra Vs. Secretary Board of High School and Intermediate Allahabad and others reported in 2003 (1) ESC 347 has held as follows:
"While parting with the case, I would like to note that no Manager has any right to challenge the selection of centres. The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that self centres are places of well manipulation and designed centres for permitting candidates to use unfair means by charging money and that is sole interest of the Managers of such Institutions. U.P. Board and District Level Committees should be given free hand for selecting centres and this Court should not, particularly in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, Constitution of India, interfere with the same as it is an administrative decision. It goes without saying that this Court has always jurisdiction to interfere with the Administrative orders in the rarest of rare cases, provided petitioner furnishes sufficient material to show that such decision has been taken arbitrarily or with some ulterior motives."
The petitioner-association, therefore, cannot contend on behalf of the Managers of the institutions that they have an absolute right to maintain this writ petition for the said cause.
The impugned provisions are all regulatory in nature, inasmuch as, they advance the cause of holding examinations and merely because the said provisions have either been misused or not put to use or not having been strictly complied with, the same cannot be declared to be ultra vires the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The independent cases relating to such allotments can be challenged by aggrieved persons and not by the association. The Government Orders, which have been issued, are in consonance with the provisions of 1921 Act and they do not travel beyond the scope of the powers conferred on the Board under the aforesaid Act. The Government Orders do not offend any public policy. The institutions have no right to claim that they should function as centres. The issue relating to discrimination of not making some of the institutions as centres cannot lead to the conclusion that the action of the Board is arbitrary.
Apart from this, the petition has been filed at the verge of the moment when the examinations are about to commence. Any alteration as prayed for by the petitioners would even otherwise jeopardise the entire examinations. The operation of self centres and the menace of centres claiming such rights were also noticed by the Division Bench in the case of Krishna Kumar Upadhyay Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2002 (3) AWC 2271.
Even otherwise, a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 118 of 2011 decided on 27.1.2011 has held as follows:
"According to us, there is a difference between right and expectation. Definitely an institution has a right to impart education but right to be an examination centre can not be an available right to the institution."
The challenge raised therefore is unfounded and there is no merit in the petition.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Dt. 03.03.2011 Akv