LexSTATE OF M.P. & ANR. ETC. versus RAM RAGHUBIR PRASAD AGARWAL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
t I " • f •• STATE OF M.P. & ANR. ETC. v. RAM RAGHUBIR PRASAD AGARWAL I< ORS. February 7, 1979 [V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.] 41 Madhya Pradesh Prathmik Middle School Tatha Madhyamik Shikshal (Pathya Pusthakon Sambandhi Vyavrutha) Adhinlyam, 1973. (MP. Act No. 13 of 1973). Ss. 2(d), 3, 4 and 5-Whether '1ate has power to compile and distribute its own text books. Mention of topics in bare outline whether constitutes 'syllabi'' in S. 2(d) . Mere communtcation to concerned officialJ or Departments lvhether sufficient for 'publication' in s. (3). The M. P. Prathmik Middle School Tatha Madhyamik Shiksha (Pla!hya Pus!hakon Sambandhi Vyavas!ha) Adhiniyam 1973 empowered the State Government to prescribe text books aceording to !!yllabus laid down- and to undertake the preJ*l1'ation, printing and distribution of text books. Section 2(d) of the Act defines "syllabi" M a document containing courses of instructions for each standard of primary, middle school and secondary r-.ducation. Section 3 empowers the Stnte Government, in the case of primary and middle school education, and the Board in the dlse of secondary educa- tion, to lay down the syllabi and publish the same. Section 4 makes the State Government the competent authority to prescribe the text-books in accordance with the syllabus laid down under s. 3. Section 5 empowers the State Govern- ment to undertake the preparation, printing and distribution of text-books itself or cause them to be done through such agency as it deems fit and on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed. The appellant (State Government) exercised i~ po,ver under s. 5 of the Act and produced the necessary text-book for "Rapid Reading" an item in the syllabus for secondary schools and distributed it among the students in many schools. Until then, the books of the respondent, a private publisher were in use. A B c D E The respondent challenged the action of the State Government in the High F Court on the ground that the State Government had not given consideration to the availability of text-books in terms of the "syllabi'' with- private publishers as required by s. 5 of the Act, before it produced and distributed the text-books compiled by itself among the students of the secondary schools. The High Court upheld the challenge and held that the statutory exercise envisaged under the Act had not been carried out before preparing and distributing the Govern- ment text books. G In the State Gove1nment's appeal to this Court it was contended that (1) as s. 2(d) envisages syllabus as a document containing courses of instruc- tion, a broad outline, a demarcation if the topic would be sufficient compliance and that there n€ed not be particularisation of details, and (2) 'publication' of the syllabus, essential under s. 3 means communication by the Board to the Government or the concerned authorities. On behalf of the respondent it was submitted that the mere mention of topics in bare outline, as in the instant case did not constitute 'syllabi' as defined in s. 2(d) and that to fclfil, 4-J96SCil79 H 42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979] 3 s.c.R. A the statutory requisites a syllabus. for a subject must concretise and constellate courses of instruction, short of which it is no syllabus in the eye of law. B c D E F G Allowing the appeal in part, HELD : 1. The syllabus for 'Rapid Reading', suffers invalidation under s. 3 because it has not been published. The publication must precede the prescription of text-books under s. 4 or their preparation under s. 5. [56C] In the instant case the syllabus was published only on June 30, 1978 while the text-books were prescribed in October, 1977. So ss. 3 and 4 have been breached and a fresh decision by Government prescribing text books for 'Rapid Reading' must be taken. [56D] 2. The State Government shall take a fresh decision under ss. 4 and 5 read together. If publishers of text-books or pro bona publico representationists communicate relevant matters bearing on the selection of text-books, their merits will be examined departmentally. If, thereafter, Governn1ent conside:rs it proper to take over the text-books business under s. 5 it is free to do so. The private sector has no 'right' and Government's jurisdiction is wide, al- though the State need not be allergic to private publishers if books of excel- lence, inexpensive a-nd well-designed, are readi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.