CW 12046/08 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.12046/2008 Balhans Sr. Hr. Secondary School, Biwai (Dausa) Versus State & Ors. Date of Order ::: 30/03/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Kamlesh Pareek, for petitioner Mr. Prahlad Singh, for respondent No.2 Mr. Chetan Bairwa, Addl. Govt. Counsel, for respondents At joint request, matter is finally disposed of at admission stage. Instant petition has been filed by Institution assailing order dt.17/10/08 (Ann.5) whereby its application seeking recognition by Board of Secondary Education (“Board”) stands rejected. Bal Hans Vidya Madir Institution Biwai (Tehsil Baswa district Dausa), petitioner is registered under Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958 on 19th June, 1996 (Ann.1). Institution was upgraded by State Government after permission was granted to run the school upto 10th & 12th Classes from academic session 2006-07 & 2008-09 vide orders dt.21/06/07 & 16/08/07 (Ann.3 & 4 respectively). However, application was submitted by petitioner-Institution seeking recognition of institution by the Board (respondent No.2). It appears that on permission being granted/ CW 12046/08 //2// sanctioned by State Government, and on depositing requisite fees, temporary recognition stands granted and the Board after examining infra structures & other consideration required, takes decision of recognition of such institution. Indisputably, application of institution for recognition is pending consideration before the Board. However, on news-clipping appeared in Dainik Bhaskar published of 30/08/08 that students of petitioner-Institution appeared in supplementary examination of Secondary School at the Centre BN Joshi Sr. Secondary School – bundle of their answer books was collected and kept at RamKaran Joshi Sr Secondary School (collection Centre of the Board) which was taken out from collection Centre at 9 P.M. and taken to a building near Tiwari Dharmkanta where answers were written in their answer books and bundle was again sent to aforesaid collection centre of the Board at 12 O' clock in the night. On aforesaid news-clipping, the Board, as alleged, conducted preliminary inquiry on its own and after recording statements of students referred to in news clipping, rejected application seeking recognition of petitioner's institution vide order dt.17/10/08 (Ann.5). Counsel for petitioner submits that before passing order impugned, no opportunity of CW 12046/08 //3// hearing was afforded and that apart, even in course of preliminary inquiry, as alleged & referred to in order impugned, on the basis whereof, the Board took decision for rejection of petitioner's application while declining to its recognition, petitioner was never heard and all decisions were taken behind back of the Institution; in such circumstances, action of the Board in rejecting application seeking recognition under order impugned is not legally sustainable. Respondents in their reply inter-alia averred that preliminary inquiry was conducted for satisfaction of the authority so as to take decision on pending application for recognition of petitioner-Institution. However, interest of students of petitioner-Institution for academic session 2008-09 was protected and petitioner institution was called upon to submit reply within one month as is evident from order impugned, itself and final decision has yet to be taken, in such circumstances, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner as a result of order impugned. I have considered contentions of Counsel for parties and with their assistance, examined material on record. Petitioner institution is registered since 1996 and was upgraded by State CW 12046/08 //4// Government granting permission to run school from academic session 2006-07 and 2008-09 upto 10th & 12th Class as is evident from documents (Ann.2 & 3). However, on depositing requisite fee prescribed for seeking nonrecognition by the Board, institutions are permitted alongwith students to join and take admission for study in 10th & 12th Classes as per approval granted and permitted by State Government but that would not rule out to draw inference of permission for purposes of recognition being granted unless considered by the Board in accordance with guidelines framed for the purpose. Petitioner Institution submitted application to the Board seeking recognition. However, while passing of order impugned, respondent-Board has proceeded on the basis of news-clipping published in Dainik Bhaskar dt.30/08/08 and rejected its application on the premise of some alleged unfair means being committed upon having found in course of alleged preliminary inquiry conducted at its own where statements of students were recorded. But this fact remains un-controverted that in course of preliminary inquiry (supra) and before rejecting its application, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to petitioner institution, certainly in the opinion of this Court, rejecting application seeking recognition to petitioner CW 12046/08 //5// institution has caused prejudice and the order impugned could not have been passed without affording opportunity of hearing which is cardinal principle of administrative law and respondents were expected to pass order after due compliance of principles of natural justice. Submission made by Counsel for the Board that vide order impugned, petitioner-institution has been called upon to submit representation within one month, on which final decision has yet to be taken for recognition on application of petitioner-institution, in the opinion of this Court is of no substance for the reason that once application has been rejected declining recognition, there is no occasion to examine representation, afresh which would be of no legal significance. Consequently, writ petition stands allowed. Order dt.17/10/08 (Ann.5) is hereby quashed & set aside. Respondent-Board is directed to consider application of petitioner seeking its recognition, afresh and pass a speaking order within two months after compliance of principles of natural justice and communicate its decision to the petitioner. No order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p5/12046CW08Mar30Al.doc