The Board also cannot, in the absence of power expressly or by necessary implication conferred on it by the Statute, make it a condition of recognition of the schools

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Naraindas Indurkhya v. State of M.P.: 1974 (4) SCC 788, considered the rival claims of the Board of Secondary Education and the State Government, under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyamik Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1965, to the power to prescribe text books. The said Board was constituted under section 3 of the said Act and section 8 defined its powers which, inter alia, included the power to prescribe courses of instruction in such branches of Secondary Education as it may think fit. In this backdrop, the Supreme Court held that the Board did not have the power to prescribe text books and, therefore, the Notification issued by the Board ‗prescribing' text books was held to be ineffectual. The Supreme Court's observations were, inter alia, as follows:-

―13. It is elementary that the Board is a creature of the statute and unless the statute creating it invests it with power to prescribe text books so as to make it obligatory on the schools to adopt such text books and no others for study and teaching, it cannot claim to exercise such power. The Board also cannot, in the absence of power expressly or by necessary implication conferred on it by the Statute, make it a condition of recognition of the schools that they shall follow only the text books prescribed by it and no other text books shall be used by them for study and teaching. The Act of 1965 under which the Board is created does not in express terms give power to the Board to prescribe text books, nor does it provide anywhere that the Board shall be entitled to make it a condition of recognition that the schools shall use the text books prescribed by it and no others.‖ xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ―It is only the State Government and not the Board, which is given power under Section 4, Sub-section (1) to prescribe text books, and therefore, the notification dated 28th March, 1973, which was issued by the Board and not by the State Government, was futile and ineffectual and did not have the effect of prescribing these text books under Section 4, Sub- section (1). These text books could not, therefore, be regarded as text books prescribed under Sub-section (1) or referred to in Sub-section (2) of Section 4 and in the circumstances there was no obligation on the approved and recognised schools to use only these text books and no others undo Sub-section (3) of Section 4.‖ (underlining added)