IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3691 of 2010 1. RAJA SINGH,SANSKRIT UCHCHA VIDHAYALAYA, GOAI, P.S.- NAUKATPUR, DISTT.- PATNA, THROUGH ITS HEADMASTER NAMELY KAMLESH SHARMA S/O LATE MAHESHWAR SHARMA R/O VILL.- KANHAIYA CHAK, P.S.- KINJAR, DISTT.- JAHANABAD Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPTT. NEW SECRETARIATE, BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE SPECIAL DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION NEW SECRETARIATE, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER PATNA 5. THE DIRECTOR, SANSKRIT SHIKSHA BOARD BIHAR, PATNA ----------- 2/ 17/09/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner institution came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No.11143/09 requesting for recognition recommended by the Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board, Patna. The Court on 1.9.2009 directed the Special Director, Secondary Education, Bihar to consider the issue in light of the Board’s letter No.4797 dated 10.10.2006. That has been rejected on 5.1.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his submission that if an inspection was required by the District Magistrate, it should have been done rather than to reject the request on that ground. The second submission is that ground-2 is absolutely vague and does not even state the nature of deficiencies to enable the petitioner to question the same much less rectify, if necessary. - 2 - Learned counsel for the Board submits that recognition has to be in accordance with prevalent laws. Learned counsel for the State submits that the matter may be remanded. Recognition of an educational institution under the law regulating is vital to ensure standards of education. Upgraded standards of education will have to be enforced and it may cannot be a defence to urge that recognition may be considered in accordance with the laws as may be existing on the date that the application was made and the upgraded skills required on the date of inspection may not be relevant. This Court is of the firm opinion that any issue of recognition of an educational institution has to be on upgraded standards to maintain the quality and excellence of the education as existing on the date that the inspection is to be made. If the District Magistrate is required to hold inspection, this Court is at a complete loss to understand how and why the Special Director rejected the request for recognition on that ground. Rather he should have issued instructions to the District Magistrate to carry out the inspection. A little vigilance on part of the Special Director with application of mind may have prevented avoidable - 3 - further litigation from coming to this Court and burdening it unnecessarily. The second ground mentioned by the Special Director being absolutely vague hinders judicial review, prejudices the petitioner without telling him why he is being prejudiced. It is therefore arbitrary. No further submissions have been made from the necessary laws and circulars, much less have they been cited by the parties. Let the Special Director pass a fresh order on the issue of recognition after compliance of all the formalities to be done by the respondents themselves subject to deposit of any statutory fee by the petitioner. Let such fresh inspection be carried out and the Special Director shall pass fresh reasoned and speaking order on the issue of recognition within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The order dated 5.1.2010 is set aside. The application is allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)