Ranjit Kumar Haider & Ors. v. State Of West Bengal & Ors.

Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.:— The four petitioners claim that they are guardians of students reading in the respondent school, and as such they have locus standi to move this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to take action in terms of an order of the district inspector of schools dated October 23, 2002.

2. Counsel for the respondents dispute the claim saying that all the petitioners are not guardians of students reading in the school. They also allege that the petitioners interpolated the decision of the district inspector. They also point out that regarding the affairs of the school this is the fifth writ petition in succession. They comment that the several litigations initiated by outsiders have created an unhealthy atmosphere in the school and the academic career of the students is at stake.

3. I think, I need not take up all these disputed questions for deciding the fate of the case, since it is going to turn on the question whether the petitioners, even assuming that their claim that they are guardians of students reading in the school is correct have locus standi to invoke the writ jurisdiction for enforcing the decision of the district inspector of schools. By referring me to the decisions in West Bengal Board of Secondary Education v. Basana Rani Ghosh [AIR 1982 Cal. 467 (DB)], the Association of Teachers in Anglo Indian School v. The Association of Aids of Anglo Indian School in India [AIR 1995 Cal. 194 (DB)] : [1995 (8) SLR 657 (SC)].; and Action Group Res. in Envm & Education Development Society v. Sakky Bai [(1998) 9 SCC 685], counsel for the petitioners argues that since his clients are interested in the affairs of the school, they are entitled to maintain the writ petition.

4. In my view, the petitioners cannot be treated as persons aggrieved by the decision of the district inspector of schools. They are not entitled to seek its enforcement for the simple reason that while it cast an obligation on the managing committee or the administrator of the school to take steps in terms thereof, it did not create a corresponding enforceable right in favour of any of the petitioners for compelling discharge of the obligation by the managing committee or the administrator of the school. We know that a writ of mandamus can be sought only by a person aggrieved for enforcing a legal right or for ensuring discharge of a legal duty or obligation by the authority concerned. The present case is not one for any of those purposes; it is somewhat like a public interest litigation.

5. I regret that I am unable to agree with counsel for the petitioners that the authorities cited by him would support his contention. The decision in Basana Rani case was given by a division bench of this court in a writ petition in which the headmaster's association as one of the writ petitioners questioned the history syllabus which was likely to affect the student class at large.

6. The division bench decision in the Association of Teachers in Anglo Indian School case was also given in a writ petition in which the association challenged the validity of the regulation whereby control was sought to be thrust upon the schools. It was held that since the control was bound to affect the public in general, the association had the locus standi to maintain the writ petition. The same is not the case here. Here the decision of the district inspector of schools is not likely to affect the student class in general.

7. The decision given by the apex court in Sakky Bai case, in my view, is also of no assistance in this case. It was not decided in that case by the apex court that guardians claiming to be interested in the affairs of the school would be entitled to seek enforcement of a decision by an authority directing the school authority to take disciplinary action against any member of the teaching staff.

8. I am of the view that the petitioners have no right of any nature to maintain the writ petition. Their attempt is, it seems to me, directed towards creating an unhealthy atmosphere in the school. I venture to say that this kind of outside interference in the affairs of a school should not only be stopped, but any attempt for the purpose should also be nipped in the bud.

9. For these reasons I dismiss the writ petition. There will be no order for costs in it. I put it on record that I have not gone into the question of delay in moving the writ petition, since I dismissed it on the ground that the petitioners have no locus standi to move it.

10. Urgent certified xerox copy of this judgment and order shall be supplied to the parties, if applied for.

11. Petition dismissed.