Surinder Kumar Goel v. State Of Haryana & ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of decision: 10.09.2025 Surinder Kumar Goel ......Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana and Ors.

.....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR

Present:

Mr. Abhinav Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA , J (ORAL) This letters patent appeal arises out of judgment dated 17.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge.

The issue before the learned Single Judge was as to whether the 6th respondent in the writ petition had any valid authority/recognition to run the Educational Institution or not. The petitioner's claim is that his grand-daughters were studying in the said Institution.

Learned Single Judge has dealt with the issue after obtaining stand from the State in following words:

"6. From the pleadings, it transpires that the provisional recognition has already been given to respondent No. 6School. The question whether, the said recognition/NOC is to be turned into permanent recognition/NOC, is a matter which is to be decided by the State. Further, once No Objection Certificate (NOC) has been given by the State to respondent No. 6-School to continue with the operation, the petitioner cannot raise any grievance regarding the fact that only those Schools which have the permanent recognition, can approach the authorities for enhancement of the fees.

7. As regard to the issue of the recognition of respondent No. 6- School, as no clear reply has come on record, the State is directed to pass appropriate order on the recognition of respondent No. 6-School and whether the same enjoys the permanent recognition as of now or not. The said order be passed after hearing the School as well as the petitioner who appears in person."

By filing the present appeal, the appellant contended before us that even in the earlier name of the Institution, there was no permanent or temporary recognition ever granted by the State Authorities. Consequently, we passed the following order on 12.08.2025:

"Learned State counsel prays for an adjournment to obtain instructions as to whether the institution even in its earlier name had temporary or permanent recognition to function. Adjourned to 10.09.2025."

Mr. Mohunta, learned State counsel appearing for the respondentState has passed on to us the written instruction of the Assistant Director Private School Branch on behalf of Director Secondary Education, Haryana clearly stating that the Institution in its earlier name was granted recognition on 10.04.1989. After the name of the Institution has been changed, the recognition has been granted by way of NOC on 31.07.2015. These orders have been annexed along with the written instructions, which are taken on record.

Once that be so, we find that the grievance raised in the writ petition as also in this appeal are without any merit. Dismissed.

( ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA ) JUDGE 10.09.2025 ( ROHIT KAPOOR ) manoj JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No