IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.10 of 2011 THE SECRETARY BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD . Versus BHIM RAO AMBEDKAR COLLEGE, & O . with C. REV. No.11 of 2011 THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD & ORS . Versus BHIM RAO AMBEDKAR COLLEGE, & O . ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Adv. Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Adv. For the Respondent :- Mr. Subodh Prasad, Adv. Mr. Deepak Sahay Jamuar, Adv. ----------------- 2. 19.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the Bihar School Examination Board (hereinafter called the ‘Board’) and for respondent no. 1. The Board seeks review of the orders passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 13130 of 2009 and C.W.J.C. No. 17389 of 2010. Learned counsel for the Board submitted that under the Bihar Intermediate Education Council Act, 1992, Section 41 permitted establishment of educational institutions exclusively for imparting education at the +2 stage only in addition to an institution which may impart education from the primary stage to the secondary stage or up to the higher secondary stage. The aforesaid act was repealed by the Bihar Intermediate Education Council (Repeal) Act, 2007 published in the Bihar Gazette on 19.4.2007. Thereafter the Bihar School Examination 2 Board (Amendment) Act, 2007 has been promulgated which contains no provision for establishment of schools exclusively at the higher secondary stage. These facts could not be adequately brought to the attention of the Court when the writ applications were disposed with directions to consider the claims for recognition at the +2 stage. Thus, the prayer for review of the orders. Counsel for the respondent institution in both the review applications submitted that the application for recognition was pending for long years and ultimately issues have been raised only after the writ applications were filed. He submits that the claim for recognition therefore has to be considered in accordance with the Bihar Intermediate Education Council Act, 1992 as the institution was established during its subsistence and has claimed for recognition from that period. Alternatively, it is submitted that the repeal Act of 2007 contains a saving clause at Section-7. If the claim for recognition is required to be decided in accordance with the 1992 Act in terms of the direction of the writ Court, it gets saved under the saving clause of the repeal Act and the Board has full competence to decide the issue of recognition. It is next submitted that the institution has continued all these years, has a large number of students on its rolls who shall be severely prejudiced now. The last 3 submission is that no ground for exercise of review jurisdiction has been made out. With the consent for the parties, the Court has taken a review application and the writ application for consideration together. As may be noticed from C.W.J.C. No. 13130 of 2009, the institution claims establishment from 1990- 1991. It does not appear to have taken any steps by approaching a competent Court of law for grant of recognition at the +2 stage under Section 41 of the Bihar Intermediate Education Council Act, 1992 as it existed. The application has been filed as late as on 14.11.2003. The writ application was however filed in the year 2009. The position appears to be similar in Civil Review No. 11 of 2011 from the order with regard to a delayed claimed for recognition. The writ Court itself noticed that issues of recognition of an educational institution could not be decided retrospectively based on past event but it requires factual re-determination of issues specially with regard to the requirements, mode, method and manner of education, inspection etc. reformulated in the meantime. An application for recognition therefore has to be tested on its fulfillment of the statutory requirements on the date that the claim for recognition was being not 4 considered and not on the basis of any past application without a factual present determination. Section 41 of the Bihar Intermediate Education Council Act specifically permitted an establishment of an educational institution exclusively at the +2 stage only. Nothing has been demonstrated before this Court that under the Bihar School Examination Board (Amendment) Act, 2007, an educational institution can be established exclusively at the +2 stage. The Bihar Intermediate Education Council Repeal Act, 2007 having taking Section 41 off the statute book, no claims today can arise thereunder. The reliance on the saving clause of repeal Act by the petitioner is misconceived inasmuch as if the decision had been taken in their favour under Section 41, that would stand saved. Conversely, if the writ Court had passed an order for consideration prior to the promulgation of the repeal Act in 2007, again the matter may have been very different and question at variance with that arising presently may have fallen for consideration. On the aforesaid discussion the Court is satisfied that on 12.10.2009 and 23.11.2010 when the Court directed consideration of the claims for recognition, obviously it was to be done in accordance with law. No Court can pass an order contrary to statutory provisions 5 and no authority is required to comply with an order which a Court of law may have passed at variance with the statutory provisions because the correct legal position was not placed before the Court. If the correct legal position could not have been placed before the Court and it results in an order of a Court of law at variance with the law, the review jurisdiction certainly could be invoked to correct the wrong done. The two review applications are allowed. The writ applications are dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)