Ran Vijai Singh, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed, challenging the order dated 2.9.2009 by which the recognition of the petitioner's institution has been withdrawn by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Etha. It appears that the petitioner's Society is running a Junior Basic School known as Sri Krishna Public School which is recognised under the Basic Education Act 1972 (hereinafter referred as Act) The services of the Teachers are governed under the Act and U. P. Recognized Basic Schools (Recruitment and conditions of service of determination and other conditions) Rules, 1975. It appears that a temporary recognition was granted to the petitioner's Institution to impart Education up to Vth Standard by the District level committee through its resolution dated 7.8.2008. The decision of the committee was communicated to the petitioner by the District Basic Education Officer. This recognition was w.e.f. Educational Session 2008-09.
(2.) Sri A.T. Kulshrestha, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 2.2.2009 on the following grounds: (a) Because The District Basic Education Officer has no power to withdraw the recognition given to the petitioner's Institution in view of Section 12 of the U.P.Basic Education Act 1972. In his submissions he ought to have referred the matter to the Basic Education Board for withdrawal/cancellation of the recognition of the petitioner's Institution. (b) Because the impugned order has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. (c) Because the impugned order has been passed on the basis of an ex- parte enquiry conducted against the petitioner on the instance of District Magistrate.
(3.) Refusing the submissions of Sri A.T. Kulshrestha, Sri D.S.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing as intervener (counsels for complainant) has submitted that the recognition was given to the petitioner's Institution only for one academic session and it has come to an end on 30th June, 2009. He has also submitted that in the inquiry the petitioner's institution was found to be bogus. He has further submitted that Section 12 of the Basic Education Act is not attracted in the petitioner's case as no permanent recognition was granted to the petitioner's institution. In his submissions the provisions contained under Section 12 are attracted in those cases where the recognition has been granted by the Basic Education Board.;