Ranjit Singh, J.@mdashThe Petitioner-School has filed this writ petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to grant permanent recognition to the Petitioner for 11th and 12th classes. As averred in the petition, the Petitioner was granted permanent recognition for running 9th and 10th Classes on 8.1.2008. Affiliation had also been granted on 11.11.2008. Permission was granted for upgrading the Senior Secondary School to Class 12th on 12.12.2008. On 27.3.2009, the Petitioner submitted an application for permanent recognition upto +2 Class alongwith requisite fee. The Education Board issued instructions for enrolment for first semester on 13.2.2009. In the meantime, vires of Haryana School Education Rules, 2007 were put to challenge.
2. The Petitioner accordingly filed this writ petition praying for direction to grant permanent recognition by way of an interim measure. The Respondents were directed to issue admission forms and to conduct the examination, which has been complied with. Reference is made to similar directions issued in number of other writ petitions, which are pending before this Court.
3. In response to notice of motion, short reply has been filed by Deputy Director. As per the reply, Inspection Committee found the following discrepancies in the Petitioner-School:
i. Total land is not according to norms.
ii. The size of rooms is not according to norms.
iii. The number of rooms is not according to the number of students.
iv. There is no ramp in the school.
v. There is no library.
vi. There is no Science room.
vii. There is no computer room.
viii. There is no computer in the school.
ix. Certificate of pledge money is not attached.
x. Building and fire safety certificate is not attached.
xi. Record of school is not prepared according to Rule 28.
xii. The management is not according to Rule 32.
4. Reminders were also issued for removing the abovesaid deficiencies. It is accordingly pleaded that recognition is not being granted to the Petitioner-School. As per counsel for the Petitioner, after filing of the writ petition, another inspection had been carried out. The Petitioner would also claim that some of the deficiencies may not be relevant, as being insisted upon as the Rules are not being strictly followed.
5. Let the Petitioner make a representation in this regard on the basis of material available with it. The same shall be considered in the light of fresh inspection carried out by the Respondents and the case of the Petitioner for grant of permanent recognition be re-considered. Needless to mention here that the Petitioner would be at liberty to challenge any adverse order, if passed against it.
6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
