This document is a legal judgment from a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner challenged an order passed by the Hon'ble Minister, which set aside an earlier order by the Secretary that allowed the petitioner to continue managing an Ashram School. The court reviewed the jurisdiction and powers of the Minister and Secretary in deciding the transfer of management of the school and considered the procedural correctness of the orders passed. The court concluded that the Secretary did not have the authority to decide on the transfer and that the Minister’s order, while justified in review, was ultimately illegal. The petition was allowed, and the order by the Minister was set aside.

1. Rule

• Rule made returnable forthwith.
• Matter taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission with the consent of the parties.

2. Petitioner’s Approach

• Petitioner challenged the order dated 03.05.2018 by the Hon'ble Minister.
• Order set aside the previous decision by the Secretary to continue management of the Ashram School with the petitioner.

3. Facts of the Case

• Initial Permission and Shift: Permission granted to run Ashram School in 1980; shifted in 1993.
• Resolution for Transfer: Petitioner resolved to transfer school management in 2005.
• Counter Resolution: Petitioner rescinded transfer resolution in 2006.
• Government Decision: Transfer permitted in 2009 despite the petitioner’s rescindment.
• Legal Challenge: Petitioner and employees filed writ petitions challenging the 2009 decision.
• Court’s Decision: Previous court quashed the 2009 decision and directed fresh consideration.
• Secretary’s Order: Secretary reaffirmed petitioner’s management in 2017.
• Minister’s Review: Minister quashed Secretary’s 2017 order and reinstated 2009 transfer decision in 2018.

4. Arguments by Petitioner

• Power of Review: Minister lacks the power to review the Secretary’s orders.
• Policy and Justice: Secretary’s decision followed policy and principles of natural justice.
• Resolution Validity: Transfer decision based on rescinded resolution is invalid.

5. Arguments by Respondent No.6

• Jurisdiction: Secretary had no jurisdiction to decide on the transfer.
• Minister’s Authority: Minister’s competence to decide under Government Rules of Business.

6. State’s Position

• Affidavit in Reply: Secretary’s decision quashed by the Minister as per procedural grounds.

7. Court’s Consideration

• Jurisdiction Issue: Who holds the authority - Minister vs. Secretary.
• Regulation by Rules: Absence of specific regulations for transfer of school management.

8. Legal Provisions and Precedents

• Government Rules of Business: Details on the allocation and disposal of departmental business.
• Supreme Court Observations: Clarification on the roles and powers of Ministers and Secretaries.

9. Court’s Findings

• Secretary’s Authority: Secretary lacked authorization from the Minister.
• Minister’s Review: Minister’s action in reviewing the Secretary’s decision justified.

10. Disputed Resolution

• Resolution Communication: Dispute over whether the rescindment resolution was communicated.
• No Specific Guidelines: Absence of state guidelines for transfer of management in 2005.

11. Transfer Justification

• Mutual Agreement Basis: Transfer based on mutual agreement without specific reasons.
• Unhealthy Practice: Such transfers are detrimental to government policy and financial interests.

12. Current Status of the School

• Continued Management: School has been managed by the petitioner and is functional.

13. Court’s Conclusion

• Minister’s Order Invalid: Minister’s order quashing Secretary’s decision is illegal.
• Petition Allowed: Writ Petition is allowed, and the Minister’s order is set aside.

14. Final Order

• Writ Petition allowed in terms of prayer Clause (B).
• Rule is made absolute.