iK-^^ ' '^^^•^^> ^.^'"^y^'^-^'' ^"^3'^-^ ..^*-""" -..***' c^' \sr^__. IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARHAT BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. S~?v'1 /2011 Petitioner Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi, an autonomous body, at present managed by the Welfare and Health Organization ( a society registered under the Society Registration Act, 1860), having Registration No. S-49245 through Dr. Gopal Singh .Veermani, aged about . 51 years, S/o Shri K. L. Virmani, Director, Board of Higher Secondaiy Education, Delhi, R/o RZ - 60 Santosh Park Uttam Nagar, New Delhi - 59 Versus ^" Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. ^ Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal (Board of Secondary Education) through its Chairman, Pension Bada, Raipur (C.G.) WMT PETITION UNDER_ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A SUITABLE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO DO JUSTICE IN_THE MATTER. ^^s'^ L < PETITIONER RESPONDENTS HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (0 N0. 2272 OF 2011 Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi. Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Another (Writ Petition under Ari:icle 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Ashish Beck, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Government Advocate for the State/ respondent No.1. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent No.2. ORDER (Passed on this 08th day of December, 2011) Challenge in this petition is to the legality and validity of the order dated 04.09.2010 (Annexure P-1), whereby, the application of the petitioner for equivalence (recognition) of 10+2 examination certificates to the Chhattisgarh Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Raipur, was rejected. The brief facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, is that the petitioner institute is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, in the name of Welfare & Health Organization, Delhi. The Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi, is being manged and looked after by the said society. It has its head office is at RZ-60 Santosh Park Uttam Nagar, New Delhi - 59, and its regional office at Himalayan Colony, Haripurkala vai Raiwala, Dehradun. The petitioner manages and runs various schools for imparting education in 10+2 pattern. At present, there are about 39 schools run by the petitioner in the State of Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. The case of the petitioner is that another institute in the name and style of "Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi, Rajputana Lal Bhawan, Gopalpur Gaon (Timarpur) Dakghar, Azadpur, New Delhi - 9" and other by name of "Board of Higher Secondary Education, Karkardooma village, New Delhi", which are akin to the petitioner institute. However, the said institutions were not recognized by various States and Union Territories and they started issuing fake mark sheets on payment of price by the name and style of 'Delhi Board of Secondary Education'. ,:^c::..^^'—" '.,-t. '"^ '•i!f-^y fciasES-l^' 4. On the basis of serious complaints, the respondent No.2 by order date(l 11.08.2009 (Annexure P-6) initiated an enquiry in respect ofcredential of the petitioner institute as well as other institute using similar names. The said Fact Finding Committee submitted his report (Annexure P-7), holding that the certificates issued by the petitioner institute and other institute, do not have proper management for conducting its schools/classes. If, the equivalence is to be granted, Board of Secondary Education/ State Government of Chhattisgarh, have to make special arrangement for conduct of the schools/classes. After considering the said report, the respondent No.2 decided to decline equivalence certificate. 5. The petitioner was also afforded an opportunity of hearing, wherein, the claim of the petitioner institute that it has been granted equivalence from the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, was not found proved. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is evident that bona fide of the petitioner institute has been found by the respondent No.2, as doubtful. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim equivalence of Class-10 & 12 certificates from the respondent No.2/ Board. As submitted in the report, the control and management of the petitioner institute was not proper and it was found that the respondent Board, if decides to grant equivalence, should undertake control and management of the schpols run by the petitioner. 7. The grant of equivalence or recognition by the Board is the responsibility of the Board to maintain the educational standard of the certificates recognized by the Board. The petitioner has no right to claim equivalence on the aforesaid basis. It appears that the petitioner has failed to establish that the educational standard as required is being maintained by it. Thus, there is no infirmity, perversity or jllegality in the impugned order, warranting interference by this Court. •< 8. As a result, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge Ashok