PATNA, India, Oct. 14 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on Sept. 15:
Heard Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Hansraj, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Vinay Krishna Tripathy, learned Advocate for the Central Board of Secondary Education (for short 'the CBSE'). The Union of India is represented through Mr. Kumar Ganesh Gunjan, learned Advocate.
2. The school, represented through its Principal has invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of the order no.00553 dated 05.04.2025 issued under the signature of Director, (Affiliation) CBSE as also quashing of the report duly prepared upon the surprise inspection conducted on 19.12.2024, by the Inspection Team of the CBSE.
3. The Petitioner-school was duly established in early 2000, affiliated with the CBSE for Senior Secondary Level w.e.f. 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2008 and further renewed time and again and finally affiliated till 31.03.2027, had the impugned orders dated 24.02.2025 and 05.04.2025 not been passed. The school was to abide by the Affiliation Bye-Laws 2018, under which Clause-11 empowers the CBSE to conduct the inspection of the school, including surprise inspection to ascertain and ensure that schools are following the provisions of the Examination Bye-Laws, Affiliation Bye-Laws and other instructions issued by the Board from time to time. Clause 11.4 of the Affiliation Bye-Laws 2018 relates to surprise inspection of the school, provided the Board may any time get an affiliated school inspected by a Committee of one or more Members without giving any notice to the school. Under the aegis of the above referred Bye-Laws, a surprise inspection was carried out through a two Members of the Inspection Committee in the school and the inspecting team filed its inspection report dated 19.12.2024. This led to issuance of a show-cause notice with a copy of the surprise inspection report, directing the Manager of the school to submit a reply, highlighting allegation against defects/infirmities in the school.
4. The show-cause notice was duly responded by the petitioner-school on 07.02.2025 giving point wise explanation; however, the Board did not satisfy with the explanation and came out with the order bearing no.00349 dated 24.02.2025, inflicting punishment, including the affiliation granted to the school was withdrawn with immediate effect.
5. Aggrieved with the order, afore-noted, the petitioner filed a detailed representation to reconsider the imposed punishment and further explained the entire position with a request to revoke the order dated 24.02.2025. This representation of the petitioner was further considered by the CBSE vide its order no.00553 dated 05.04.2025 and analysed the position of the school and modified the order dated 24.02.2025 to the extent that the school's affiliation is downgraded to secondary level, besides other orders and further directed to remove deficiencies and submit compliance within three months of the date of issuance of the order.
6. Mr. Anajani Kumar, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner contended that the punishment of disaffiliation passed under the impugned orders are miscalculated and wrongly imposed as being arbitrary and extreme consequences against the alleged misconduct. The petitioner had filed representation dated 08.03.2025 (Annexure P/8) requesting to consider the valid explanation and reasons against the alleged violations so imposed upon the petitioner-school. He further contended that the order dated 24.02.2025 is failed to reflect any conscious application of mind and the final impugned order dated 05.04.2025 is non-speaking order, only referred to the previous order and taking similar grounds mentioned therein. Referring to the impugned order dated 24.02.2025, it is submitted that the same has been issued under the signature of Director (AFFL) based upon the inspection report; however, it does not reflect that the same has got approval of any competent authority, much less by the CBSE, which is the only competent authority. Unlike the order of punishment dated 24.02.2025, subsequent order dated 05.04.2025, clearly discloses that the order has got the approval of the competent authority of the CBSE as has been expressly mentioned at the fag end of the order. Since the very initiation of the show-cause notice or inflicting punishment was not by the competent authority, which in the case in hand, is the CBSE; hence, the entire action against the petitioner-school and the punishment impugned herein are wholly without jurisdiction.
The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjODYyNCMyMDI1IzEjTg==-9XnBsWnOiwI=
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
