J AND K PRIVATE SCHOOL UNITED FRONT THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. (SCHOOL EDUCATION)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
Case No. LPA 241/2023 in
WP(C) 702/2023



Reserved on : 06.10.2025

Pronounced on :06.06.2026

Uploaded on : 06.06.2026
Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced

1.J&K Private Schools United Front
Having its Registered Office at:
2-A Sutrashahi, Shaheed Gunj, Srinagar.
Through its Chairman:
Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Wani @ Mushtaq Canny
S/o Late Mohammad Sadeeq Wani,
R/o 3O-Abu-Bakar Lane Umerabad, HMT, Srinagar



…..Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)


Through:- Mr. Shakeel Sarwar Wani, Advocate with
Mr. Imbisaat Liyaqat, Advocate



V/s


1.Union Territory of J&K, through Chief Secretary to Govt.,
Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/Jammu
2. Principal Secretary to Govt,
Education Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/Jammu.
3. The Jammu & Kashmir Board of School Education,
Rehari Colony, Jammu-Tawi, Jammu & Kashmir.
Also at:
New Campus, Bemina, Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir.
4.Joint Secretary, Publication & Procurement,
The Jammu & Kashmir Board of School Education
Publication Division, Rehari Colony, Jammu-Tawi,
Jammu &Kashmir.
Also at:
New Campus, Bemina, Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir.
5. Director School Education,
Kashmir, Srinagar.
6. Assistant Secretary, General KD, The J&K Board of School
Education, Srinagar, Kashmir.
7. Deputy Secretary, The J&K Board of School Education,
Sub-Office, Kupwara.


…..Respondent(s)



Through: Mr. M. I. Dar, Advocate with
Ms. Sana Imam & Laila Khan, Advocates


\
LPA No. 241 of 2023 Page 1 of 12

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

PER: SINDHU SHARMA-J



1. The instant Letters Patent Appeal is directed against
the judgment and order dated 08.09.2023 passed by the
learned Single Judge in WP (C) No. 702/2023, whereby the
writ petition filed by the Appellant–Trust came to be
dismissed.
2. The Appellant is a registered Trust in the Union
Territory of Jammu and Kashmir under the name and style
of “J&K Private Schools United Front” , claiming to work for
the welfare, protection, and promotion of private educational
institutions. The Appellant claims to represents the interests
of approximately some of the private schools functioning
across the Union Territory.
3. The Appellant is aggrieved by Notification No. F (PP-
Publication) B/22 dated 26.08.2022 issued by the Jammu
and Kashmir Board of School Education, whereby all private
schools across the Union Territory were directed to adopt
and teach only those textbooks published by the Board for
Classes VI to VIII. Subsequently, another Notification dated
04.01.2023 was issued, reiterating that only textbooks
published by the Board for Classes VI to VIII shall be
implemented and prescribed from the ensuing academic
session.
LPA No. 241 of 2023 Page 2 of 12

4. Thereafter , a communication dated 27.03.2023 was
issued by Respondent No. 6, seeking information regarding
the implementation status of the aforesaid circular issued by
Respondent No. 4, and to ascertain whether any academic
institutions were allegedly compelling students to purchase
or use unapproved curricula or textbooks from private
publishers.
5. On 28.03.2023 , Respondent No. 5 issued another
communication addressed to all Chief Education Officers,
directing them to conduct a detailed enquiry along with the
Zonal Education Officers and to submit an Action Taken
Report in respect of several complaints received from
parents alleging that certain private schools were compelling
them to purchase books from private publishers, either in
substitution of, or in addition to, the textbooks published by
the Board.
6. On the same date, i.e., 28.03.2023 , Respondent No. 7
issued another circular directing all private schools in
District Kupwara to furnish information regarding the
adoption and implementation of the Board’s curriculum and
textbooks for Classes VI and above for the current academic
session. The said circular further mandated that no private
school shall prescribe or use any unapproved curriculum or
textbooks from private publishers.
LPA No. 241 of 2023 Page 3 of 12

7. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid notifications,
communications, and circulars, the Appellant challenged the
same in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 702/2023 before this Court,
on the ground that the same are arbitrary, illegal, and
without jurisdiction. It was specifically contended that
although the Board possesses the power to prescribe syllabi
and textbooks, it does not have the authority to compel
private schools to exclusively purchase and use textbooks
published by the Board itself. It was further urged that the
official who issued the impugned notifications lacked the
requisite legal authority and jurisdiction to do so.
8. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned
Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 08.09.2023 .
The learned Single Judge held that the board is vested with
the powers to prescribe text books published by it and that
all schools are required to follow the curriculum and
textbooks prescribed by the Jammu and Kashmir Board of
School Education, and that such requirement is supported
by the statutory framework under Section 29 of the Jammu
and Kashmir School Education Act, 2002 . It was further held
that notifications were validly issued by the respondents and
the relevant resolution adopted by the Board’s Affiliation
Committee mandates compliance with such prescriptions.
9. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid
judgment and order dated 08.09.2023 , the Appellant–Trust
LPA No. 241 of 2023 Page 4 of 12

has preferred the present appeal, inter alia, on the grounds
that the learned Single Judge has erred in law and on facts;
failed to appreciate the constitutional and statutory issues
involved. The respondent were neither competent nor had
the jurisdiction to issue the impugned notification. It is also
submitted that the power and right of the board to prescribe
and publish books is not under challenge but only the power
and prerogative of the books published by the board. The
school, parents and students can be deprived of choice to
teach and adopt best qualitative books available.
10. We have considered the rival submissions and perused
the record.
11. The Jammu and Kashmir State Board of School Education Act,
1975 was enacted on to reform and re-organize school education in the
State and to regulate control and develop education in the State of J&K.
the board was vested with the power to reform/re-organize and reconstruct
the existing system of education. The powers and functions of the Board
were delineation of Section 10, which reads as under:-
―10. Powers and functions of the Board:-
Subject to the provisions of this Act and also subject
to the broad educational policies and such directions and
instructions as the Government may adopt and issue,
from time to time, the Board shall have the following
powers and functions: -
i) to prescribe the courses of instructions,
prepare curricula and detailed syllabi and also prescribe
text books for the Pre-primary, elementary, secondary
school and Higher Secondary (School graduation) school
examinations and Elementary Teachers Training Course.‖

LPA No. 241 of 2023 Page 5 of 12

12. Section 29 of the Jammu and Kashmir School
Education Act, 2002, contains the power to make rules and
power to regulate the content of education in all schools
affiliated with it. Section 29 reads as under:-
―29.Power to make rules — (1)The Government may
make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the
provisions of the Act.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality
of the foregoing provision, such rules may provide for all
or any of the following matters, namely:-
(a) the provision of compulsory education;
(b) the establishment and maintenance of schools;
(c) the grant of permission to set up private schools;
(d) the recognition of private schools;
(e) the giving of grant-in-aid to schools;
(f) the levy and collection of fees in private schools;
(g) the manner in which accounts, registers and records
shall be maintained and the auditing of the accounts of
private schools;
(h) the returns, statements and reports to be submitted
by schools;
(i) the inspection of schools;
(j) the constitution and functioning of the Local Area
Education Committees;
(k) the standards of education and courses of study;
l) the procedure for admission of students in schools;
and
(m) any other matter, which is or may be required to be
prescribed under this Act.

13. Once an educational institution voluntarily seeks and
obtains affiliation from the Board, it is bound by the terms
and conditions of such affiliation, including compliance with
the curricula, syllabi, and textbooks prescribed by the
Board.
14. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that
the Board cannot compel the use of its own published
textbooks overlooks the statutory scheme. The power to
prescribe textbooks necessarily includes the authority to

determine which books are to be used in affiliated schools.
LPA No. 241 of 2023 Page 6 of 12

The mere fact that the Board publishes such textbooks itself
does not, by itself, render the action arbitrary or ultra vires,
so long as the prescription is supported by the statute and
guided by educational policy considerations.

15. The prescription of textbooks by the Board falls
squarely within its statutory competence under Sections
10 and 29 of the aforesaid Acts. The power to ―prescribe
the course of instruction and prepare curricula and
syllabi‖ necessarily encompasses the authority to
designate the specific textbooks to be taught in affiliated
schools. The issuance of the impugned notifications and
circulars, therefore, cannot be said to be without
jurisdiction or ultra vires.
16.
It is well settled that the right to establish and
administer educational institutions, and the right to carry
on any occupation under Article 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution, is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed
by law in the interest of the general public. Regulation of
education, including the prescription of curricula and
textbooks, constitutes a valid and reasonable restriction
aimed at maintaining academic standards and ensuring
uniformity in educational content across the Union
Territory.
17. In case titled Indian Medical Association vs. Union
of India , 2011 (7) SCC 179, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
LPA No. 241 of 2023 Page 7 of 12

held that the state had the power to regulate medical
education and practice, and that the right to practice
medicine was subject to reasonable restrictions imposed in
the interest of public health and safety. In Para 109 the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
“109………..What the State had done was to allow private
sector to function in the field of higher education, to
supplement the role of the State in the field which has been
recognized even in TMA Pai. The power of the State to allow
such participation of the private sector could only have existed
if the State had the power to devise policies based on
circumstances to promote general welfare of the country, and
the larger public interest…….”

18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.A.Inamdar and
Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra , 2005(6) SCC 537, held
that the right to establish and run educational institutions
was an aspect of the right to practice any profession,
occupation or trade and that the State could regulate such
institutions in the interest of the general public.
19. Learned Single Judge in the impugned order while
relying upon Section 2(I) and Section 10 of the Jammu and
Kashmir Board of School Education Act, 1975 has rightly
observed that the Board has the power to prescribe the
courses of instructions, prepare curricula and detailed
syllabi and also prescribe text books for the Pre-primary,
elementary, secondary school and High Secondary (School
graduation) and school examinations and Elementary
Teachers Training Course. Furthermore, the learned Single
LPA No. 241 of 2023 Page 8 of 12

Judge has rightly observed that the relevant resolution of
the Board’s Affiliation Committee mandates that all affiliated
schools must adhere to the textbooks and curricula
approved by the Board. The Appellant has failed to establish
that such a resolution or the consequent notifications suffer
from lack of jurisdiction or procedural infirmity.
20. The impugned notifications and circulars cannot,
therefore, be termed as arbitrary or violative of Article 14
of the Constitution. They are general directions issued to
all affiliated institutions, uniformly applicable across the
Union Territory, and are clearly intended to maintain
educational uniformity. Courts have repeatedly observed
that matters of educational policy lie primarily within the
domain of the expert and regulatory bodies, and judicial
interference is warranted only where the policy is
manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, or contrary to statute.
21. In Union of India vs. International Trading Co.
Union of India (2003) 5 SCC 437, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in para 16 held as under:-
―16. While the discretion to change the policy in
exercise of the executive power, when not
trammelled by any statute or rule is wide enough,
what is imperative and implicit in terms of article 14
is that a change in policy must be made fairly and
should not give the impression that it was so done
arbitrarily or by any ulterior criteria. The wide sweep
of article 14 and the requirement of every state
action qualifying for its validity on this touch stone
irrespective of the field of activity of the state is an
accepted tenet. The basic requirement of article 14
is fairness in action by the state, and non-
arbitrariness in essence and substance is the
LPA No. 241 of 2023 Page 9 of 12

heartbeat of fair play. Actions are amenable, in the
panorama of judicial review only to the extent that
the state must act validly for a discernible reason,
not whimsically for any ulterior purpose. The
meaning and true import and concept of
arbitrariness is more easily visualized than precisely
defined. A question whether the impugned action is
arbitrary or not is to be ultimately answered on the
facts and circumstances of a given case. A basic and
obvious test to apply in such cases is to see whether
there is any discernible principle emerging from the
impugned action and if so, does it really satisfy the
test of reasonableness.‖

22. The action of the respondents in prescribing text
books to the exclusion of other text books infringes any
right of the appellants. The respondents have acted in
exercise of the powers under the J&K Board of School
Education Act. The Board has the power to prescribe
course and prescribe text books. The prescription of the
text books by the respondents does not infringe upon any
rights of the appellant. The only objective is gone --- higher
degree of merit and objection from the academic point of
view.
23. In State of Bombay Vs. Bombay Education Society
reported as AIR 1954 SC 561, the Hon’ble Apex Court has
observed that undoubtedly the powers of the State to make
reasonable regulations for all schools cannot be legally
questioned insofar as their exercise is not inconsistent
with or contrary to fundamental rights guaranteed to the
citizen. In Para 21 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
observed as under:-
LPA No. 241 of 2023 Page 10 of 12

―21.Re. 2:-Coming to the second question as to
whether the impugned order infringes any
constitutional right of Barnes High School, the
learned AttorneyGeneral contends that although any
section of the citizens having distinct language, script
or culture of its own,has under article 29(1) the right
to conserve the same and although all minorities,
whether based on religion or language, have,
under article 30(1), the right to establish and
administer educational institutions of their choice,
nevertheless such sections. or minorities cannot
question the power of the State to make reasonable
regulations for all Schools including a requirement
that they should give instruction in a particular
language which is regarded as the national language
or to prescribe a curriculum for institutions which it
supports.
Undoubtedly the powers of the State in this behalf
cannot be lightly questioned and certainly not in so
far as their exercise is not inconsistent with or
contrary to the fundamental rights guaranteed to the
citizens. Indeed in the cases of Robert T. Meyer v.
State of Nebraska (1) and August Bartels V. State of
Iowa (2) the Supreme Court of the United States
definitely held that the State's police power in regard
to education could not be permitted to override the
liberty protected by the 14th amendment to the
Federal Constitution. That is how those cases have
been understood by writers on American
Constitutional Law. [See Cooley's Constitutional
Limitations, Volume 11, page 1345, and Willis, page
64.] The statutes impugned in these cases provided:
(1)That no person -should teach any subject to any person in
any language other than the English language, and
(2)That languages other than English may be taught
only after the pupil had passed the 8th grade.‖
24.
This court has clearly laid down that the State can
carve down the syllabus and also prescribe the text books.
The action is being social justice and quality education.
25. For the foregoing reasons, and upon a comprehensive
consideration of the statutory framework, the scheme of the
Jammu and Kashmir Board of School Education Act, 1975,
read with the Jammu and Kashmir School Education Act,
2002, and the resolutions adopted by the Board’s Affiliation
LPA No. 241 of 2023 Page 11 of 12

Committee, we find no infirmity in the view taken by the
learned Single Judge. Once an institution voluntarily seeks
affiliation with the Board, it is bound by the terms and
conditions governing such affiliation, including adherence to
the curriculum, syllabus, and textbooks prescribed by the
Board.
26. Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal stands
dismissed , and the judgment and order dated 08.09.2023
passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) No. 702/2023
is hereby affirmed.

( Shahzad Azeem) (Sindhu Sharma)
Judge Judge

JAMMU
06.06.2026
Bir




Whether the judgment is reportable: Yes

BIR BAHADUR SINGH
2026.06.06 17:43
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
LPA No. 241 of 2023 Page 12 of 12