STATE OF BIHAR Vs. PROJECT UCHCHA VIDYA SIKSHAK SANGH
LAWS(SC)-2006-1-72
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on January 03,2006

STATE OF BIHAR Appellant
VERSUS
PROJECT UCHCHA VIDYA SIKSHAK SANGH Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

HIMALAYAN SKI VILLAGE PVT LTD AND ORS VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ORS [LAWS(HPH)-2012-6-235] [REFERRED]
ANKIT KUMAR AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-7-219] [REFERRED TO]
DUNCANS INDUSTRIES LIMITED AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2016-3-55] [REFERRED TO]
BAL MOHAN PRASAD VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2018-9-80] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. DEOMANI VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2016-9-1] [REFERRED TO]
GRAM PANCHAYAT VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER [LAWS(P&H)-2013-5-244] [REFERRED TO]
UPL LTD. VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2019-7-181] [REFERRED TO]
ANANTA UNIQUE SERVICES PVT VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2016-9-16] [REFERRED TO]
SOUTHERN PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRIES CO LTD VS. ELECTRICITY INSPECTOR AND E T I O [LAWS(SC)-2007-5-192] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVA PETRO-SYNTH SPECIALITIES LTD VS. GOA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD [LAWS(BOM)-2021-7-41] [REFERRED TO]
TATA MOTORS LIMITED VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2012-6-27] [REFERRED TO]
RAM NARESH SINGH VS. U.P. STATE SOCIAL WELFARE [LAWS(ALL)-2017-7-52] [REFERRED TO]
VIKHE PATIL FOUNDATIONS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(BOM)-2015-8-393] [REFERRED TO]
BOMMADEVARA VENKATA SUBBA RAO VS. STATE OF A.P. [LAWS(APH)-2022-11-38] [REFERRED TO]
MOHESWARI HAZARIKA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2016-8-58] [REFERRED TO]
NEELAM KUMARI MISHRA VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2016-9-34] [REFERRED]
B R MURALIDHAR VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2007-9-71] [REFERRED TO]
JATINDRA PRASAD DAS VS. STATE OF ORISSA & OTHERS [LAWS(ORI)-2011-11-25] [REFERRED TO]
SAURABH JAIN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2010-12-489] [REFERRED TO]
SAVITA RAWAT VS. STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2016-3-86] [REFERRED TO]
PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA VS. RAJEEV COLLEGE OF PHARMACY [LAWS(SC)-2022-9-68] [REFERRED TO]
KESAR SINGH AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF PUNJAB THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATS, PUNJAB AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2012-7-579] [REFERRED TO]
FORUM FOR PROMOTION OF QUALITY EDUCATION FOR ALL AND ORS VS. DDA AND ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2017-2-12] [REFERRED TO]
PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2007-9-18] [REFERRED TO]
PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2007-9-18] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY PRAKASH PRADHAN VS. STATE OF U.P. THR THE PRIN. SECY. P.W.D. LKO & ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2017-2-23] [REFERRED TO]
ERAM GIRLS DEGREE COLLEGE THRU MANAGER & ANR VS. STATE OF U P THRU PRIN SECY BASIC EDU LKO & ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-3-291] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJLAL KALYANJIBHATE VS. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL KHAMGAON [LAWS(BOM)-2006-7-12] [REFERRED TO]
PARENTERAL DRUGS INDIA LIMITED VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2007-8-73] [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR PATEL.R VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-7-352] [REFERRED TO]
LEO LUKOSE VS. COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (CUSAT) [LAWS(KER)-2016-1-1] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH SINGH VS. VIDYADHIRAJ PANDEY [LAWS(ALL)-2006-7-204] [REFFERED TO]
ASHISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA VS. ANKITA SRIVASTAVA [LAWS(ALL)-2016-4-28] [REFERRED TO]
DIAMOND JUBILEE HIGH SCHOOL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2013-7-15] [REFERRED TO]
SHIKSHA PARISHAD VS. STATE GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2020-12-122] [REFERRED TO]
RAJASSHREE SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2011-6-747] [REFERRED]
K K KATHARE VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2009-8-30] [REFERRED TO]
VENUGOPAL T V VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-6-42] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. SHURU MAI MUNDA VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, RANCHI [LAWS(JHAR)-2016-8-130] [REFERRED TO]
DREAM LAND ESTATE, CHOZHIKODE P.O., KULATHUPUZHA VS. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM [LAWS(KER)-2016-12-115] [REFERRED TO]
ST JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL TRUST VS. KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES [LAWS(KER)-2012-8-70] [REFERRED TO]
SHAHEED TEG BHADUR COLLEGE OF PHARMACY VS. PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2022-3-128] [REFERRED TO]
JAI PRAKASH ASSOCIATES LIMITED THRU RAHUL KUMAR VS. STATE OF U.P. THRU INSTITUTIONAL FINANCE AND ANR. [LAWS(ALL)-2010-3-330] [REFERRED TO]
BALAKRISHNAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2021-7-113] [REFERRED TO]
RENJITH J.V. VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2020-8-290] [REFERRED TO]
Susheelamma, W/o Hanumanthrao Deshpande and others VS. State of Karnataka represented by its Chief Secretary and Karnataka State Textiles (in Liquidation) represented by the Official Liquidator [LAWS(KAR)-2009-8-97] [REFERRED TO]
VIVEKANANDA INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL STUDIES TECHNICAL CAMPUS VS. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2023-5-19] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ SINGH TOMAR VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2013-5-55] [REFERRED TO]
THIYAGAVALLI PANCHAYATHAI SERNTHA NOCHIKKADU GRAMA VIVASAYIGAL PATHUKAPPU MATTRUM MAKKAL POTHUNALA SANGAM VS. CHAIRMAN TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD [LAWS(MAD)-2008-3-204] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPESH SINGH BENIWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-2021-5-62] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH KUMAR AND OTHERS VS. DAV COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2008-9-259] [REFERRED]
PUNAM KUMARI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2017-1-111] [REFERRED TO]
BHARTI SINGH VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2016-5-60] [REFERRED TO]
RAJAN YADAV VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2013-3-21] [REFERRED TO]
KULDEEP SAINI VS. UOI [LAWS(DLH)-2011-2-65] [REFERRED TO]
JAIPUR GOLDEN CHARITABLE CLINICAL VS. DDA [LAWS(DLH)-2009-12-427] [REFERRED]
ASSOCIATION OF INTERNATIONAL SCHOOLS AND PRINCIPALS FOUNDATION AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(BOM)-2010-9-236] [REFERRED]
DR. VIKHE PATIL FOUNDATIONS VIKHE PATIL MEMORIAL SCHOOL PUNE AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-8-64] [REFERRED TO]
AMRESH PRASAD JHA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2015-3-126] [REFERRED TO]
HARI KRISHNA MANDIR TRUST VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2020-8-4] [REFERRED TO]
SYMBIOSIS INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY (SIU) VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2014-4-185] [REFERRED TO]
DHANANJAY KUMAR MISHRA VS. AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2020-2-111] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KRISHNA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-166] [REFERRED TO]
CHHADMI LAL SUBHASH CHANDRA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2012-3-32] [REFERRED TO]
FORUM FOR PROMOTION OF QUALITY EDUCATION FOR ALL VS. LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2014-11-154] [REFERRED TO]
FELIX TAMBA VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2008-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARASHTRA HEAVY VEHICLE AND INTERSTATE CONTAINER OPERATORS ASSOCIATION. VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2017-8-53] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS [LAWS(PAT)-2015-5-169] [REFERRED]
REKHA KUMARI VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2014-2-130] [REFERRED TO]
DISTRICT COLLECTOR VS. M R M RAMAIYA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2018-1-253] [REFERRED TO]
THE MANAGER, A.M HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, VENGOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT VS. THE STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2017-10-273] [REFERRED TO]
SAURABH JAIN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2011-4-14] [REFERRED TO]
KANIGALLA VENKATA SUBBA RAO VS. VICE CHAIRMAN VGTM URBAN DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(APH)-2006-8-95] [REFERRED TO]
LITTLE ANGELS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VS. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION [LAWS(APH)-2011-4-89] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN KUMAR SAXENA VS. STATE OF U.P. THROUGH PRIN. SECY. RURAL ENGINEERING DEPTT. L [LAWS(ALL)-2017-4-29] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. THRU PRIN. SECY. HIGHER EDU. CIVIL SECTT.LKO. & ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-4-61] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH CHAND MEMORIAL TRUST VS. STATE OF H P [LAWS(HPH)-2017-12-119] [REFERRED TO]
MATSYA JIVI SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2024-1-37] [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2007-9-299] [REFERRED]
DIPAKBHAI R PATEL VS. D D O [LAWS(GJH)-2008-6-52] [REFERRED TO]
LOK PRAHARI,THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY S.N.SHUKLA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2018-2-93] [REFERRED TO]
M/S SAMRAT LABORATORIES VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2016-9-18] [REFERRED TO]
ARVIND KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2014-7-54] [REFERRED TO]
PARMESHWAR PATHAK S/O LATE YOGENDRA PATHAK VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2015-3-85] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

S.B.Sinha, J. - (1.)THESE Appeals involving common questions of law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Introduction:
(2.)IMPARTING of education is a sovereign function of the State. Article 21A of the Constitution of India envisages that children of age group 6 to 14 have a fundamental right of education. Clause 3 of Article 15 of the Constitution envisages special protection and affirmative action for women and children. Policy Decision :
Presumably, keeping in view the aforementioned constitutional scheme, a policy decision was adopted by the State to establish Project Schools. The State of Bihar is comparatively considered to be educationally backward. With a view to combat the said problem the State issued a Circular bearing No. 1115 dated 27.5.1981 laying down a policy decision therein that in the remaining four years of sixth Five Year Plan period, i.e., from 1981- 1982 to 1984-1985 the State should achieve the target of establishment of at least four High Schools, out of which one may be Girls High School in every block.

The Circular letter states that according to the information received there are many blocks where less than four schools are functioning. Out of 587 blocks of the State 435 blocks were identified where even a single Girls High School was not recognized. The proposed numbers of schools which were to be opened are as under: JUDGEMENT_91_SUPREME1_2006Html1.htm

(3.)THE districts of Santhal Pargana and Chhotanagpur which were thence part of the State of Bihar and now part of the State of Jharkhand were to be given priority as the said areas in educational spheres were found to be comparatively more backward. In seven districts of the said areas, the Government proposed to establish 299 new High Schools in 1981- 82 in each block of the said area. As it was found difficult to attain the target of establishment of minimum four High Schools, it was observed that even if four High Schools are established, the students for so many schools may not be found. In the said areas, therefore two High Schools were proposed to be definitely established in the following terms: JUDGEMENT_91_SUPREME1_2006Html2.htm It was further laid down therein that:
"4. It is expected from the District Education Officer posted in Chhotanagpur and Santhal Pargana area that they will prepare the list of such blocks of their District immediately where there are less than 2 (Two) High Schools and will make such arrangement that in the present financial year i.e. 1981-92 in their district at least two High Schools may be established. At the time of preparing proposal for establishment of new High Schools priority will be given to those High Schools which are granted permission for establishment proposed High Schools and efforts will be made that getting all the conditions regarding recognition completed from those High Schools, which are accorded permission for establishment proposed High Schools only they should be granted recognition. By doing so at least establishment of two High Schools could be obtained without delay. On one hand where the High Schools are accorded permission for establishment proposed High Schools will get recognition on the other hand the local resources like land, building etc. could also properly be used and the Government would get a big amount as subscription. If in any block then may not be schools which fine granted permission for establishment proposed High School, then it is expected from the District Education Officer that looking to the population distance etc. he will propose for establishment of High School at such places where the Government land is easily available so that the expenses to be incurred on purchase of land could be saved. Efforts will be made to obtain the land and building through local efforts. 5. THE State Government has also taken a decision that in the year 1981-82 in 7 Districts of Chhotanagpur and Santhal Pargana area in those blocks one Girls High School may be established where already at least 3 boys High Schools are functioning. By doing so target of establishing of at least 4 High Schools in these blocks will be achieved in which there would be at least one Girls High Schools. For obtaining this target in the area District-wise Girls High Schools will have to be established in following numbers:-
JUDGEMENT_91_SUPREME1_2006Html3.htm
The District Education Officers were directed to take action for establishment of Girls High Schools. Further decision has been taken by the State that in Santhal Pargana and Chhotanagpur areas, 14 other High Schools may also be established. In such blocks where at least two High Schools are already functioning and where the local officer thinks it necessary to establish new schools on the basis of population, area of the block such High Schools were to be Boys High Schools in the following terms: JUDGEMENT_91_SUPREME1_2006Html4.htm



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.