Allahabad High Court Order

Allahabad High Court Order

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice at mail@myadvocates.club
ORDER HEADLINE : ..in Such Areas Of Academic Discretion, Recourse To The Jurisdiction Under Article 226, Would Not Be Permissible To Substitute The View Of The Court..
ORDER TITLE : Madhyamik Vidhyalaya Prabhandhan Samiti Vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. On 11/12/2013 By Allahabad High Court
CASE NO : SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 1929 OF 2013
CORAM : Hon'ble Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud,Chief Justice And Hon'ble Sanjay Misra,J.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Chief Justice's Court AFR

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1929 Of 2013

Appellant :- Madhyamik Vidhyalaya Prabhandhan Samiti
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors.
Counsel For Appellant :- Gopal Misra
Counsel For Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud,Chief Justice
Hon'ble Sanjay Misra,J.
On 31 October 2012, The Secretary (Secondary Education), Government Of Uttar Pradesh Issued A Government Order Defining The Norms For The Allotment Of Examination Centres For The Year 2013. Clause 1(ka) In The Government Order Stipulated That For The Examinations For Academic Year 2013, Those Institutions Which Had Conducted The Board Examinations For 2012 In A Peaceful Manner, Would Mandatorily Be Allotted Examination Centres. On 9 October 2013, A Fresh Government Order Has Been Issued By The Secretary (Secondary Education). Clause 1(ka), As Modified, Specifies That For Academic Year 2014, Those Institutions Which Had Conducted The Board Examinations For 2013 In A Peaceful Manner Would Ordinarily Be Allotted Examination Centres.
In A Challenge To The Modification Which Has Been Brought Out For 2014, The Learned Single Judge By The Impugned Judgement And Order Dated 12 November 2013 Has Found No Reason To Interfere. The Learned Single Judge Held That It Is For The Government To Frame A Policy And The Court Should Not Normally Interfere With A Policy Decision Merely Because It Feels That Another Policy Would Have Been Fairer Or Wiser Or Logical. However, The Court Observed That If, In A Given Case, The Discretion Is Not Exercised For Good And Valid Reasons, The Matter Can Be Examined But Conferment Of Such Power Would Not Be Held To Be Arbitrary As A General Proposition.
Learned Counsel Appearing On Behalf Of The Appellant Submits That As A Result Of The Modification, The District Inspector Of Schools Is Vested With A Substantial Discretion On Whether Or Not To Allot An Examination Centre For The Year 2014 Despite The Fact That The Institution Had Conducted The Examinations For 2013 In A Peaceful Manner. It Has Been Submitted That There Is An Apprehension That These Powers Would Be Misused For Extraneous Reasons.
We Are Unable To Subscribe To The Contention Which Has Been Urged On Behalf Of The Appellant. First And Foremost, A Policy By Itself Does Not Give Rise To Any Enforceable Right. Secondly, The Government Has Justifiable Reasons For Issuing The Modification. The Mere Fact That The Examination Has Been Conducted In A Peaceful Manner At A Particular Centre May Be Outweighed By Other Countervailing Circumstances. For Instance, Where Malpractices Have Been Detected At An Examination Centre In The Previous Examination, That May Be A Reason To Deny The Allotment Of The Examination Centre For The Subsequent Year. All That The Circular Dated 9 October 2013 Does Is To Replace The Mandatory Requirement In Clause 1(ka) With A Requirement That Ordinarily, A Centre Would Be Allotted Where The Institution Has Conducted Examinations In The Previous Year In A Peaceful Manner. The Expression 'ordinarily' Means That The Ordinary Consequence Can Be Disregarded For Cogent And Valid Reasons. This Does Not Amount To The Conferment Of An Arbitrary Or Unguided Power. In A Given Case, If The Power Is Exercised Arbitrarily, It Would Be Open To An Aggrieved Institution To Move The Court. Thirdly, It Is Well Settled That In Such Areas Of Academic Discretion, Recourse To The Jurisdiction Under Article 226, Would Not Be Permissible To Substitute The View Of The Court With A View Which Has Been Taken By A Competent Body.
For All These Reasons, We See No Reason To Interfere With The Order Of The Learned Single Judge. The Special Appeal Is, Accordingly, Dismissed. There Shall Be No Order As To Costs.

Go to Navigation