IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13 of 2009 VINOD TARA SANSKRIT UCHCHA VIDAYALAYA, Mangrauni, Madhubani, through its Head Master Suraj Yadav, son of Sri Chaudhary Yadav, resident of village + P.O. Mangrauri, P.S. Rajnagar, District Madhubani. … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through its Commissioner cum Secretary, Human Resources Department, Bihar, Patna 2. The Commissioner cum Secretary, Human Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Chairman, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna 4. The Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna 5. The District Magistrate, Madhubani … Respondents ----------- 13. 6.4.2011 In this writ application the petitioner Vinod Tara Sanskrit Uchcha Vidayalaya has made a prayer for quashing the order dated 15.6.2002, whereby and whereunder the recognition of the said school was cancelled on the solitary ground that on the date of inspection the number of students present were less than 70% and the number of students were also below prescribed limit. The petitioner school has assailed the said order to be based on non- est and non-existent facts. 2. Admittedly the impugned order of cancellation of recognition was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing. This Court in order to satisfy itself as 2 with regard to the school being viable and functional had directed for inspection of this school alongwith other 85 de-recognized school. 3. The inspecting team in course of inspection on 18.2.2011 had found that the number of admitted students in Class 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 were 23, 40, 44, 15 and 110 respectively out of whom on the date of inspection i.e. 18.2.2011 the inspecting team had found the presence of 23, 40, 26, 23 students in Class 6, 7, 8 and 9 respectively, whereas the students of Class 10 had already appeared in Madhyama Examination conducted by the Board. 4. There is nothing on record to show that the State Government had prescribed the attendance of 70% as a condition precedent for continuing recognition of a Sanskrit school. Additionally, this Court would find that when an inspection was later on carried out on 18.2.2011 the number of students present were much more than 70%. The inspecting team in fact has also on the basis of its own analysis found that the school fulfils the requisite standard of infrastructure and the 3 school in fact was found functional from all angles. The inspecting team had also looked into the routine and holding of classes and had come to the conclusion that the students were imparted education for a minimum period of five hours every day. From the facts analyzed by the inspecting team it would become clear that the school in question which was established in the month of May, 1957, being more than 50 years old school, fulfils all the prescribed condition as was then prevalent at the time of school being given recognition. 5. It thus becomes clear that the solitary reason given in the impugned order for cancelling the recognition of the petitioner school was wholly unjustified. There being in fact no such requirement in law of minimum attendance of 70% of students on a particular day in the school, this Court even otherwise would not find any merit in the submission of the counsel for the State and the Board that the recognition of a school already granted some 90 years back could be questioned on the basis of attendance on a particular day in the school. This aspect of the matter in fact 4 has already been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 12.5.2010 in L.P.A. No. 366/2009 in respect of Ananda Sanskrit Uchcha Vidyalaya, Mirzapur, wherein after considering the relevant provisions it was held as follows: “17. Coming to the next aspect as with regard to number of students this Court would hold that in absence of any particular details that again could not have been made the ground for cancelling/ withdrawing of recognition of the school. In this context reference may also be made to an order dated 24.3.2006 in C.W.J.C.No. 5133/2003, Tejdhari Nandan Sanskrit vs. State & ors., wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court noticing the ground of cancellation/ withdrawal of recognition on the basis of presence of number of students in the school had recorded as follows: “By the impugned order, Annexure 7, recognition of the many schools including that of the petitioner’s school was cancelled on the ground that on the date of inspection students as were present were less than 70 per cent. There is no dispute that 124 students were registered with the petitioner’s school on the date of inspection and 72 of them attended the school. 5 Accordingly, it may be possible that 70 per cent of the students attended the school on the date of the inspection but that cannot be reason for cancellation of the recognition of the petitioner’s school. In the matter of absence of the students on a particular date the school cannot be blamed. For non-attendance of 30 per cent students on the particular date the school cannot be blamed. Therefore, it cannot be a ground for cancellation of recognition of the petitioner’s school. In those circumstances in so far as impugned decision, being Annexure 7 to the writ petition, deals with cancellation of the recognition of the petitioner’s school, the same is quashed.” 18. Counsel for the appellant- writ petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court that the order dated 24.3.2006 in C.W.J.C.No. 5133/2003 has been given effect to by the Board by issuing the consequential order No. 6268 dated 18.9.2007 after the matter was placed in the meeting of the Board on 24.4.2007.” 6. Now when three men Committee of the Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, the District Education Officer, Madhubani and the Deputy Director of the Secondary 6 Education, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, had unanimously recommended for restoration of recognition of the school and the State Government by its order dated 5.3.2012 has restored the recognition, this court will have no hesitation in quashing the earlier order of derecognition of the petitioner school and direct the respondents to restore all the facilities to which this school was enjoying prior to passing of the impugned orders. 7. It goes without saying that since teaching employees and non-teaching employees of the school were also receiving grant of salary from the funds of the State Government, they would be also given their salary both arrears and current within a period of four months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 8. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is allowed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/