STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. versus PROJECT UCHCHA VIDYA, SIKSHAK SANGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] 1 S.C.R. 14 · Decided: 03-01-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. 
v. 
PROJECT UCHCHA VIDY A, SIKSHAK SANGH AND ORS. 
JANUARY 3, 2006 
l 
[S. B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Articles 14, 15(3), 16, l9(1}(g), 19(6) and 309-- 'Project Schools' in State 
C of Bihar-Establishment, identification and recognition of-State intending to 
establish at least one Girls High School in each block of educationally backward 
areas--Some schools established, identified and recogni:::ed--These schools 
were not lo be treated as nationalized schools~'laim by teachers of such 
schools for payment of salaries and regularization of their services-Number 
D of Schools and number of teachers in such schools disputed-Held, education 
as a part of human development is a human right-Woman and children 
require special treatment and, therefore, protective discrimination and 
affirmative action were contemplated in terms of Article 15(3)-State 
Government would corzs.titute a Committee to consider the claims regarding 
recognition. actual number of such schools, educational qualification of the 
E teachers as also recruitment of teachers where ad hoc teachers were appointed 
Articles 162, 166 and 300-A: 
Educational institutions- '"Takeover" of by State Governme111-
ldentificalion of High Schools as 'Project Schools' in State of Bmar-
F Recognition of-Such Schools not to be treated as nationalized schools-No 
statute enact~d nor Rules framed laying down the modalities for taking over 
the properties and management together with teaching and non-teachiltg staff 
of such schools--Held, in the instant case word "mkeover" has been used 
loosely-A circular letter issued by an officer of the State Government without 
G fi1/jilling the mandatory provisions of Articles 162 and 166 cannot he 
categori:::ed as a decision by the State-Doctrine of 'eminent domain'. 
H 
Education/Educational Institutions: 
'Recognition' of Schools and 'regularisation' of services of teaching 
14 
STATE OF BIHAR ,,_ PROJECT UCHCHA VIDYA, SIKSHAK SANGH 
IS 
and non-teaching staff-Directions given to consider the claims regarding A 
recognition to the institutions. 
Administrative Law: 
Equitable estoppel-Held, rule of estoppel has no application if by reason 
of a constitutional provision State's action cannot be supported or State intends B 
to withdraw or modifY a policy decision-legitimate expectation. 
Words and Phrases: 
Words 'regularization' and 'take over '-Connotation of in the context 
of regularization of services of educational institutions. 
With a view to combat illiteracy. in comparatively educationally 
backward areas of State of Bihar, the State Government issued circular 
No. 1115 dated 27.5.1981 laying down a policy decision that in the 
remaining years of the sixth Five Year Plan period, i.e. 1981-82 to 1984-
c 
85, the State would achieve a target of establishing four High Schools out D 
of which one would be Girls High Sc~ool in every block. Such schools were 
to be known as Project Schools. During the years 1981-82, some schools 
were established. In order to achieve the target a three-man Committee 
was constituted for identification of the existing schools as Project Schools. 
Certain schools were recognized in the year 1985. These schools were not E 
to be treated in the category of nationalized schools for management 
purposes and a formal notification was to be issued declaring control of 
management of such schools by the Government. 
During the P.eriod between 1992 and 1997 a number of writ petitions 
were filed in the High Court seeking directions, inter alia, for payment of F 
salaries of teaching and non-teaching staff of 300 schools purported to be 
selected as Project Schools. Ultimately the matter was heard by a Full 
Bench of the High Court which held that there remained no controversy 
as regards establishment/selection of 300 project schools, and the nuiTiber 
of teach"-rs in each schools would constitute 9. The High Court also made 
observations regarding age and educational qualification of teaching and G 
, 
non-teaching staff. Present appeals were filed both by the State as also on . 
behalf of the teachers, questioning the judgment of the Full Bench of the 
High Court. 
The stand of the State before the High Court as also before the H 
16 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006] I S.C.R. 
A Supreme Court was that the three-man Committee was appointed for the 
purposes of identification of the Schools, which were situated in various 
blocks, as Pr

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.