Case: State of Maharashtra &amp; Others Vs. Lok Shikshan Sansatha &amp; Others

mentioned in Rule 2.1 of the Code. So the said writ petitioner did not comply with Rule 2.1 read along with the press note and the circular letter, referred to above. That clearly shows that the application filed by the writ petitioner was not in the first instance in the prescribed form and that when it was sent in the prescribed form it was beyond time. Further, we have also referred to R. 86.2 which specifically says that the schools which are not registered under the Societies Registration Act, will not be eligible for any kind of grant from the public funds. Even in the application filed by the writ petitioner in the prescribed form on November 3, 1965, it was stated under head No. 4 that the management was not registered and that it intends to get itself registered within a month. So apart from two infirmities pointed out above there was this additional infirmity of non-registration. Even on the date when the appeal was filed to the State Government on April 26, 1966, the society was not registered. As admitted by the said society in its writ petition, it was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, only on April 27, 1966. The order dated April 11, 1966 of the Deputy Director of Education rejecting the application was based on two grounds : (a) that the application was sent after the prescribed date and (b) that the society was not registered. That these two reasons are valid is clear from the facts mentioned above. The appeal taken to the State Government was unsuccessful. From the above circumstances it is clear that the rejection of the application was on valid grounds. The High Court, so far as we could see, has not found that these reasons are not based on the materials on record. No such contention has also been taken before us by the said writ petitioner. If so, it follows that the order of the High Court directing the State Government to issue permission to the two writ petitioners ignoring the above circumstances is clearly erroneous.30. From what is stated above, the judgment of the High Court allowing Special Civil Application Nos. 420 and 421 of 1966 cannot be sustained.31. Coming to Appeal No. 878 of 1968, the facts lie within a very narrow compass. For the year 1965-66, the third respondent in Special Civil Application No. 694 of 1965, out of which the appeal arises, had made an application on October 29, 1964 for starting a new school at Sakharkherda during the year 1965-66. The writ petitioner filed objections to the grant of permission to the third respondent. On the recommendation of the District Committee, the third respondent was allowed to open standards VIII and IX with one division only during the year 1965-66. The writ petitioner was filed to quash the permission granted to the third respondent. The State Government in its counter-affidavit has very elaborately referred to the various matters mentioned by the third respondent in his application and also to the recommendation made by the District Committee. The District Committee had recommended permission being granted to the third respondent on the ground that the management had very good experience in running schools and that it was also financially sound. It was also stated that at the place in question even when the writ petitioner was concucting a school with standards V to X, there was another school run by the Zila Parishad with standards run by the Zila Parishad with standards V to VII. It was pointed out by the State that the population in the area demanded additional school with standard VIII onwards and it was an absolute necessity. They had also given details regarding the long experience that the third respondent had in running schools in several places as also the soundness of its financial position.32. Before the High Court the attack made by the writ petitioner was slightly different from that of the other two writ petitioners in Special Civil Applications Nos. 420 and 421 of 1966. The attack on the grant of permission to the third respondent was made by this writ petitioner really based on clauses (1) and (2) of Rule 3. According to the writ petitioner the locality was not in need of any additional school as it will involve unhealthy competition. The High Court rejected the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner therein cannot make any grievance of the grant made to the third respondent to start a school after a proper consideration of the merits of the claim of the latter.33. Dr. Barlingay, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, who is appellant in this appeal, found considerable difficulty to satisfy us that any legal rights of the appellant herein had been infringed by grant of permission to the third respondent. We have already referred to the fact that the State has pointed out that even when the writ petitioner was running a school with classes V to X, the Zila Parishad was running another school in the same area with classes V to VII. The State had also pointed out that the population of the area demanded an additional school. From the mere fact that by the opening of another school some of the students of the appellant school may seek admission in the new school, it cannot be stated that any of the appellants legal rights have been infringed. Dr. Barlingay has not been able to satisfy us that in granting permission to the third respondent any extraneous or irrelevant matters have been taken into account by the District Committee or the educational authorities. Nor was he able to satisfy us that the reasons given by the District Committee for the grant of permission to the third respondent on the ground that it had a long experience in running schools and that his financial position is also good, are erroneous. If so, it follows that there is no merit in this appeal.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]23. Coming to Art. 14, it is accepted by the High Court that the writ petitioners did not make in their petitions any attack on clauses (1) and (2) of Rule 3 based upon the said Article. It was only during the course of arguments that Art. 14 appears to have been invoked. The High Court struck down the two sub-clauses on the ground that unless a school is started in accordance with the rules contained in the Code, they will not be recognised by the Secondary Schools Boards and the students studying in such schools cannot appear for the examinations held by the Board and the University. The approach made by the High Court in our view in this regard is erroneous. The provisions regarding grant of permission and recognition of schools under the Code are mainly intended for the purpose of receiving grant from the Government. We are not concerned in these proceedings regarding the effect of starting a school without complying with the requirements of the provisions of the Code or in the face of refusal of permission by the educational authorities when such schools so stated do not require or receive any grant from the State. That problem does not arise for consideration before us. Hence we do not think it necessary to refer to the provisions of the Maharashtra Secondary Education Board Regulation, 1966, the effect of which may be that no student having education in a school for the starting of which no permission has been given or such permission has been refused, may not be able to appear for the examinations held by the Boards concerned. So far as the distribution of grant to the schools recognised under the Code is concerned, it is not the case of any of the petitioners that such grants are being made arbitrarily or any discrimination is shown in thatdo not think it necessary to go into the question whether the Courts have got powers to strike down even executive instructions on the ground of their being vague when such executive instructions are admittedly issued by authorities concerned for the guidance and for being acted upon. We express no opinion on that point in these proceedings. We are of the view that the two clauses in question are not vague or ambiguous in any respect. The fallacy committed by the High Court consist in considering clauses (1) and (2) of Rule 3 in isolation. We have already pointed out that Rule 3 of the Code consists of as many as 16 clauses, which are conditions to be fulfilled for recognition being accorded. We have also referred to the circular letter dated October 5, 1965 issued by the State Government enumerating the various matters to be taken into account by the District Committees when considering applications for grant of permission to start a school or for having an additional school in the area or the locality. Rule 3 will have to be read along with these instructions as well as the various particulars which have to be filled up in the prescribed form. If clauses (1) and (2) of Rule 3 are interpreted having due regard to the various others matters, referred to above, the District Committee has got ample guidance to decide the need of a particular locality to have a school or an additional school as also the further question regarding the competency and reliability of the management. There will be sufficient material before the District Committee to consider whether the starting of a school or an additional school in a particular area or locality will involve any unhealthy competition. In view of the clear and detailed guidance furnished not only by Rule 3 but also by the instructions contained in the circular letter dated October 5, 1965, it is clear that there is no ambiguity in either clauses (1) or (2) of Rule 3. In considering the question of vagueness the High Court has not adverted to the various matters referred to by us earlier. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the striking down of clauses (1) and (2) of Rule 3 by the High Court as being, vague, isapplication of the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 420 of 1966 which is the subject-matter of Civil Appeal No. 160 of 1968 was rejected by the Deputy Director of Education on the ground that the need of the place has been fulfilled by permitting another society to open the school at the place. The appeal filed to the State Government was unsuccessful. In the counter-affidavit filed by the State in the writ petition they had categorically referred to the recommendations of the District Committee on the applications filed by the said writ petitioner as also the third respondent therein. Regarding the writ petitioner the report of the District Committee was that it had no funds and that it was recommending another society with good financial position and experience. In this view the District Committee stated that it was not recommending the writ petitioner for the grant of permission. On the other hand the District Committee recommended the application of Ashok Education Society, Ashoknagar (third respondent) on the ground that it was financially sound and it was a very good and experienced society and that it was also a popular society. For these reasons the application of this society was recommended to be granted by the District Committee. It was on the basis of this recommendation of the District Committee that the Deputy Director of Education rejected the application of the writ petitioner and granted permission to the third respondent therein. The applications of both the writ petitioner and the third respondent were before the District Committee. The High Court has not found fault with these recommendations. On the other hand it has held that it is open to the authorities to refuse permission of the school is not in a financially sound position. The writ petitioner also was not able to satisfy us that the conclusions arrived at by the District Committee, which were accepted by the Deputy Director of Education were not based upon particulars furnished in thehave already referred to the fact that the State has pointed out that even when the writ petitioner was running a school with classes V to X, the Zila Parishad was running another school in the same area with classes V to VII. The State had also pointed out that the population of the area demanded an additional school. From the mere fact that by the opening of another school some of the students of the appellant school may seek admission in the new school, it cannot be stated that any of the appellants legal rights have been infringed. Dr. Barlingay has not been able to satisfy us that in granting permission to the third respondent any extraneous or irrelevant matters have been taken into account by the District Committee or the educational authorities. Nor was he able to satisfy us that the reasons given by the District Committee for the grant of permission to the third respondent on the ground that it had a long experience in running schools and that his financial position is also good, are erroneous. If so, it follows that there is no merit in this appeal.