Board, Kagal Vs. K.T.K.K.S.& S. Mandal & Ors.  INSC 2 (5 January
JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 35 OF 2009 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.12856/2008]
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, MUNICIPAL SCHOOL BOARD, KAGAL .......APPELLANT(S)
Versus KAGAL TALUKA KALA KRIDA SHAIKSHANIK AND
2. The appellant is
the Municipal School Board, Kagal, ('the Board', for short). Sant Rohidas
Vidyamandir, the fourth respondent, is one of the schools run by the Board. The
said school, which was running classes from first to fourth standards, started
fifth standard classes (Standard V Division) from the session 2007-2008. The
first respondent, which runs a secondary school (V Standard to X Standard) in
the Zila Parishad area adjoining the municipal area, filed W.P. No.8261/2007
seeking a direction to the State of Maharashtra, the appellant and the Deputy
Director of Education, Kolhapur Region to close down the V Standard started in
the fourth respondent school and a further direction not to grant any
recognition or permission to the fourth respondent school to start Standard V
Division. They also sought an interim direction restraining the fourth
school from running or continuing the V Standard classes. The first respondent
contended that starting of the V Standard classes by the fourth respondent
school was unauthorised and illegal.
3. In the said writ
petition, the High Court, while issuing rule on 8.4.2008 issued an interim
direction to the fourth respondent to close down the V Standard and transfer
the students of V Standard to other schools as per the desire of the students
and their guardians, and issue school leaving certificates to the students to
enable them to get admissions in other authorised schools. The Deputy Director
of Education and the petitioner were also directed by way of interim order to
ensure that the V Standard classes opened by the fourth respondent was closed
down and the students were transferred to other schools. The said interim order
is challenged by the appellant Board which runs the fourth respondent school.
4. We find that the
High Court has virtually allowed the writ petition by the interim order, that
too by an irreversible peremptory direction that the students be shifted to
other schools. The students were not parties before the High Court and they
have been asked to take school leaving certificates from the fourth respondent
school and shift to other schools. Such a peremptory irreversible step should
not normally have been granted by way of interim relief, unless ......3.
-3- extraordinary or
special circumstances exist. We find that there are no such special
5. Learned counsel
for the first respondent submitted that the fourth respondent was one of the
feeder schools for the first respondent school, and if the fourth respondent
runs classes from V Standard onwards, their admission will be affected. This
contention, we are afraid, is not sound. The question is not whether first
respondent is affected, but whether fourth respondent was doing something which
was illegal and whether the first respondent had any right to complain.
6. Primary education
is defined in Section 2(15) of the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947 as
meaning education in such subjects and upto such standards, as may be
determined by the State Government from time to time. Primary education,
therefore, does not mean education from first to fourth standards only, as
contended by the first respondent.
7. The State
Government has, in its counter filed before the High Court, clearly stated that
as per the provisions of the Mumbai Primary Education Rule 1949 the Primary
Education Boards of Municipal Council are empowered to open standards as
natural growth in the primary schools being run by them, that ........4.
-4- the Primary
Education Board had opened the V Standard classes in the fourth respondent
school in pursuance of such natural growth and that no permission was required
to open V Standard classes as natural growth in schools run by Municipal Board.
It was further categorically stated that the Board was authorised to open V
Standard as natural growth in the fourth respondent school and that was not
unauthorised or illegal. We may also refer to the Government Resolution dated
14.11.1979 of the State Government relied on by the first respondent itself
which says that classes V to VII may either be annexed to secondary schools or
to primary schools run by local bodies. If that is so, primary schools run by
Boards, prima facie, can run classes V to VII. Be that as it may. All that we
are pointing out is there was absolutely no basis for the High Court at the
stage of admission of the writ petition filed by the first respondent to assume
that the starting of V Standard by the fourth respondent school was
unauthorised or illegal and direct closure by way of interim relief.
8. We, therefore,
allow this appeal, set aside the interim order. The fourth respondent school
run by the appellant can, therefore, have V, VI and VII Standards, subject to
the final decision in the writ petition. We are told that the issue as to
whether Standards V to VII can be part of primary ......5.
-5- schools, is
causing considerable confusion in the State. In view of it, we request the High
Court to dispose of the Writ Petition expeditiously.
( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )