N.A. Britto, J.@mdashHeard Shri Lotlikar, the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner and Shri S.S. Kantak, the learned Advocate on
behalf of the Respondent.
2. On account of dwindling in the number of students in Government Primary Schools, the Government decided by order dated 22/12/2000 to
amalgamate the Government Primary School situated at Pomburpa with the Government Primary School situated at Ecoxim alongwith other 52
primary schools located in various Talukas of the State. The Government Primary School (GPS) at Ecoxim is at a distant of 2.6. kms.
3. The Petitioner by letter dated 20/04/2001 approached the Director of Education stating that they were in education for the last 13 years and
that they had learnt about the said order and requested the Director to hand over the management of two schools, one of them being Government
Primary School at Pomburpa and the other being Government Primary School at Khorjuvem. The last school has already been handed over by the
Petitioner to the Government.
4. The Director of education by letter dated 23/05/2001 accepted the request of the Petitioner to run the said GPS at Pomburpa on certain terms
and conditions. One of the conditions was that the premises of the said GPS alongwith building would be made available to the Petitioner to run the
school on an annual rent of Re.1/. Another condition was that after entering into an agreement a formal permission to run the school would be
granted and till that time the permission granted by virtue of letter dated 23/05/2001 would be treated as provisional permission only. Condition 12
reads as follows:
(12) Initially the permission will be for a period of 5 years. Education department reserves the right to withdraw the permission if the same is used
for any other purpose than primary school/preprimary school education. However, any additional schemes involving villagers/local
residents/students for upgrading I.T. Knowledge will be permitted.
5. By letter dated 23/01/2003 recognition was granted for the academic year 20012002. The Petitioner started the said school with 4 students in
the first year, 14 students in the second year, 17 students in the third year, 27 students in the forth year and 44 students in the last year that is to
say 20052006. At the expiry of 5 years, the Director of Education by letter dated 21/02/2006 informed the Petitioner that the Government has
now decided to cancel and withdraw the provisional permission granted to the petitioner with effect from 22/04/2006, being the last working day
of the academic year 20052006 and called upon the Petitioner to hand over the physical possession of the said school alongwith assets taken over
for the purpose of running the school. The Petitioner by order dated 10/04/2006 requested the Director of education to withdraw the said notice,
but by order dated 17/04/2006 the Assistant Director of Education informed the Petitioner to remain present in the school premises on
22/04/2006 during the working hours and hand over the peaceful possession of the school with its assets. The Petitioner has now sought a writ to
direct the Respondents to withdraw/cancel the said notices/orders dated 21/02/2006 and 22/04/2006.
6. At the time of hearing, Shri Kantak, the learned AG has made a statement that the GPS at Pomburpa would be run as GPS from ensuing June,
2006. At the time of arguments, Shri Lotlikar, the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner has placed before us the basic features of
Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, a programme for universal elementary education frame work for implementation issued by the Ministry of Human
Resources Development and has submitted that the GPS was handed over to the Petitioner because by virtue of the said scheme a public-private
partnership in Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan was accepted by the government. We are unable to accept this submission of learned Senior Counsel Shri
Lotlikar. There is no whisper in the petition to Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan in as much as there is also no whisper about the same either in the order
dated 22/12/2000 by which GPS were sought to be amalgamated or the order dated 23/05/2001 by which the Petitioner was granted permission
to run the subject GPS school at Pomburpa. We are therefore unable to accept that the GPS at Pomburpa was handed over to the Petitioner
under any scheme. The Petitioner has referred to the said Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan in affidavit in rejoinder only at the peril of ignoring the same and
therefore any reference to the said Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan deserves to be ignored. The entire challenge in the petition is on the ground that the
notice dated 21/02/2006 as well as the communication dated 17/04/2006 are unjust, unreasonable, arbitrary and illegal and the same have been
issued with malafide intention.
7. We are unable to accept the Petitioners contention that the Respondents would be allowed to take over the premises of the school but not the
school because the school started by the Petitioners did not belong to the Respondents. The school was handed over to the Petitioners to be run
by them and for doing so the Petitioners were granted provisional permission. The said provisional permission was not independently granted to the
Petitioner to run the school. In case the Petitioners wish to run the school in the same village the Petitioner would always be at liberty to apply for
such permission in terms of Section 5 of the Education Act. We are also unable to accept the Petitioners contention that the GPS at Khorjuvem
was handed over by the Petitioner because the experiment there had failed because as already stated there was no experiment to be conducted. It
is quite probable that the Petitioner was unable to get adequate number of students to run the GPS at Khorjuvem. The policy of handing over the
school to private managements and now to take them back has been uniformly followed by the Government and therefore there is no question of
any arbitrariness and this is evident from the fact that the Petitioner itself has chosen to hand over the said GPS at Khorjuvem to the Directorate.
Condition 12 is sought to be misinterpreted by the Petitioner. In terms of the said condition the permission granted was initially for a period of 5
years which always meant that the Directorate at the end of 5 years could put an end to that permission and that is what has been done. The right
which was reserved to withdraw the permission was during the said period of 5 years, in the event the school was used for other purpose than a
primary school and that is what a bare reading of condition 12 conveys. Admittedly no agreement or formal permission as stipulated by condition
11 of letter dated 23/05/2001 was executed between both the parties. In our view the letters dated 21/02/2006 and 17/04/2006 are in conformity
with the said agreement/letter dated 23/05/2001 and there is absolutely nothing arbitrary about the termination of the agreement between the
Petitioner and the Directorate of Education as contemplated by the said letter dated 23/05/2001. At the cost of repetition it may be stated that the
Petitioner has not been singled out and the policy to hand over the management of certain schools to private parties as now been uniformly
revoked by the Directorate of Education and the Petitioner cannot be an exception to the said policy decision.
7. We find no merit in this Petition. Therefore the same is hereby dismissed.