IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.349 of 2009 1. SURESH PANDEY, S/o Late Bhudeo Pandey, R/o Village – Rampur, P.S. & Distt. – Nawadah at present Head Master, Krishna Dayalu Sanskrit Ucha Vidyalaya, Bhatura, P.S.-Fatehpur, Distt. – Gaya, 2. Brajesh Kumar, son of Late Mukta Mani Mishra, at present Head Master, Sidheshwar Mishra Sanskrit Uchh Vidyalaya, Binowa Nagar, Chandauti, P.S. Chandauti, Distt. – Gaya, 3. Shankar Jha, son of late Babuni Jha, Head Master, Sanjoy Gandhi Prarthmic Madhya Sanskrit Vidyalaya, Bahera, P.S. Wagirganj, Dist. – Gaya, 4. Amresh Pandey, son of Suresh Pandey, Head Master, Sheo Shankar Prarthmic Sah Madhya Vidyalaya Golbagicha, P.S. Kotwali, Dist. – Gaya, 5. Subodh Kumar Pandey, son of Mahendra Pd. Pandey, Incharge Head Master, Prarthmic Sah Madhya Sanskrit Vidyalaya, P.S. Piparpanti, P.S. Kotwali, Dist. – Gaya, 6. Dr. Rajiv Nayan, son of Raman Nand Mishra , Head Master, Sidheshwar Mishra Prarthmic Sah Madhya Sanskrit Vidyalaya, Binowa Nagar, Chandauti, P.S. Chandauti, Dist. – Gaya, and 7. Priti Pathak, son of Radhey Shayam Pathak, Head Master Harijan Balika Prarthmic Sah Madhya Sanskrit Vidyalaya, Sohan Bigha, P.S. Magadh Medical College & Hospital, Gaya, Dist. – Gaya ………………….. Petitoners / Appellants Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through the Commissioner, Human Resources & Development, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna, 2. The Jt. Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Human Resources & Development, New Secretariat, Patna, 3. The Spl. Director, Secondary School (Sanskrit) , Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna, 4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Human Resources Development Department, New Secretariat, Patna, 5. The Chairman, Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board, Patna, 6. Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board, Patna, 7. The District Magistrate, Gaya, 8. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Gaya and 9. The District Education Officer, Gaya ……………. Respondents / Respondents. ----------- 4. 30.04.2009. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Seven schools approached this Court stating that they were established between 1965 and 1981. They are recognized by Sanskrit Siksha Board after the approval granted by the State of Bihar, but it can be seen 2 that there was an order of recognition in favour of the schools by the Secretary of the Board on 20.04.1990 giving the school a right to admit the students and also allowed them to appear in the examination from the schools, but within 12 days thereafter the approval was stayed. So far, that stay was not vacated. Contention of the writ petitioners – appellants is that thereafter several inspections were conducted but no final orders could be passed. Now, it is submitted that in the interest of the students, the students should be allowed to write the examinations. Without recognition these schools should not have admitted students. When the students approached this Court, on sympathetic ground an interim relief was granted in view of the interest of the students even though the schools had no recognition cannot be justified by the management of the schools, which admitted students knowing well that it had no recognition. In our opinion we have no such power to grant recognition to an institution. It is to be considered by the respondent authorities. Recognition of an institution comes within the domain of the executive 3 authority, which can after proper verification of the requirements may grant recognition. Even though there is no prayer, we direct the Sanskrit Siksha Board to consider the inspection reports and pass appropriate orders regarding recognition of the petitioners’ institutions in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible but in any event within six months from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order. The writ appeal accordingly stands disposed of. dk ( J.B. Koshy, CJ ) ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. )