DHANANJAYA YESHWANT CHANDRACHUD, DILIP GUPTA, JJ. - (1.) THE appellant, being aggrieved by the non -allotment of an examination centre to its institution for the 2014 examination to be conducted by the U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board'), filed a writ petition which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the order dated 22 January 2014. This judgment has been impugned in this special appeal.
(2.) THE State Government has issued a Government Order dated 9 October 2013 relating to allotment of examination centres for the Board examination. The Government Order stipulates that for the academic year 2014, those institutions which had conducted the examination of the Board in a peaceful manner would ordinarily be made examination centres. The effect of the Government Order dated 9 October 2013 was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in a judgment in Madhyamik Vidhyalaya Prabhandhan Samiti Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.1. The Division Bench construing the Government Order, held as follows: "... First and foremost, a policy by itself does not give rise to any enforceable right. Secondly, the Government has justifiable reasons for issuing the modification. The mere fact that the examination has been conducted in a peaceful manner at a particular centre may be outweighed by other countervailing circumstances. For instance, where malpractices have been detected at an examination centre in the previous examination, that may be a reason to deny the allotment of the examination centre for the subsequent year. All that the circular dated 9 October 2013 does is to replace the mandatory requirement in clause 1(ka) with a requirement that ordinarily, a centre would be allotted where the institution has conducted examinations in the previous year in a peaceful manner. The expression 'ordinarily' means that the ordinary consequence can be disregarded for cogent and valid reasons. This does not amount to the conferment of an arbitrary or unguided power. In a given case, if the power is exercised arbitrarily, it would be open to an aggrieved institution to move the Court. Thirdly, it is well settled that in such areas of academic discretion, recourse to the jurisdiction under Article 226, would not be permissible to substitute the view of the Court with a view which has been taken by a competent body." In the present case, the learned Single Judge has observed that the Standing Counsel after taking instructions stated that the institution was an examination centre in 2013 but by virtue of an adverse report which was received in regard to the fairness of the examination held in the institution, it was not allotted a centre for the 2014 examination. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the petition, has followed the view taken by the Division Bench in the aforesaid special appeal.
(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the name of the appellant institution does not figure in the list of institutions which have been debarred for the 2014 examination.;