MANAGING COMMITTEE OF BHAGWAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application was originally filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents Bihar School Examination Board to allow the candidates of the petitioner to appear at the ensuing examination for the academic session 1989-91 and 1990-92 pertaining to teachers training and to publish the result. But subsequently an amendment petition was filed whereby the petitioner has sought to challenge the order dated 7-4-1993 (Annexure 8) passed by the State Government in Human Resources Development Department by which the application of the petitioner for grant of recognition/permission contemplated under the provisions of the Bihar Non-Government Physical Training Colleges and Non-Government Teacher's Training Colleges and Non-Government Primary Teacher's Education Colleges (Control and Regulation) Act, 1982 (hereinafter the Act only) read with Bihar Non-Government Teachers Training Colleges and Non-Government Primary Teachers Education College (Control and Regulation) Rules, 1987, has been rejected.

(2.) IT appears that after the enforcement of the Act, the petitioner had filed, an application for grant of permission/recognition for admitting and running a teachers training college for training of primary school teachers. The application was filed sometime in May, 1983, Though this institution was not granted any permission/recognition either for admitting students to the courses or for conducting the courses of studies in question still under some interim orders obtained from this Court, the candidates claiming to be the students/trainees of the petitioner-institution were made to appear at the respective examinations held by the Bihar School Examination Board (hereinafter the "Examination Board" only) for four academic sessions 1983-85, 1984-86, 1985-87 and 1986-88. IT also appears that the Deputy Director of Education and the District Education Officer, after some enquiry and inspection of the institution, submitted a report dated 15-6-87 recommending for grant of recognition to the institution. Possibly keeping in view this report, the State Government under its memo No. 1107 dated 27-11-87 granted recognition to the petitioner, institution for the periods 1987-89 and 1988-90, subject to the fulfilling of the following conditions:

(3.) IN the present case on a reading of the conditions laid down in the statutory rules for grant of recognition and the infirmities noticed by the Government in the impugned order, most of which remained unrebutted by the petitioner. IN my opinion, no relief can be granted to them in writ jurisdiction. The plea that in view of the directions of the Supreme Court as contained in Annexure-3, it was incumbent upon the State Government to grant recognition to the institution even in respect of the periods in question, has also to be rejected because the Supreme Court has merely directed the State Government to consider the grant of recognition to the petitioner for four academic sessions i.e. 1983-85, 1984-86, 1985-87 and 1986-88 without seeking strict compliance with the provisions of the Rules which had come into force only in 1987. IN my opinion, the question of grant of recognition for the period during which the statutory rules had come into force, the grievance of the petitioner has to be judged keeping in view the law so laid down by the apex Court in St. John's Teachers Training INstitute case (supra) and also keeping in view the infirmities pointed out by the State Government. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered view that no relief can be granted to the petitioner in writ jurisdiction by this Court.