Back
1980 Supreme(AP) 132
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.RAMACHANDRA RAO, P.A.CHOUDHARY
SREE GUJARATHI MANDAL SOCIETY - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 04-22-80
Important Points
Subject
Education Law - Grant-in-Aid
Act Referred
Headnote
EDUCATION - GRANT-IN-AID - COLLECTION OF TUITION FEES - CONDITION PRECEDENT - G.O. MS. NO. 725 DATED 7-7-1977 - G.O. MS. NO. 871 DATED 27-9-1979 - INTERPRETATION - RIGHT TO EQUALITY UNDER ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION - VIOLATION - HELD, NO VIOLATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a minority institution, challenged the communication of the District Educational Officer informing them that the management should continue to collect fees at the prevailing rates pursuant to the orders of the Government in memo. No. 778-Fl/79-Education (F) Department dated 11-7-1979. The petitioners contended that the impugned directions given by the respondents were unconstitutional, arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 30 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner's school was admitted to the benefits of the grant-in-aid scheme under G.O. Ms. No. 725 dated 7-7-1977, but the release of grant-in-aid was subject to certain conditions, including the collection of tuition fees from the pupils. The court found that the petitioner's school failed to collect tuition fees for the academic year 1979-80 and, therefore, it was not entitled to the release of the grant-in-aid for that year.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's school was entitled to the release of grant-in-aid without fulfilling the condition of collecting tuition fees? 2. Whether the petitioner's right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution was violated by the payment of grants to another school without that school fulfilling the condition of collecting tuition fees?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner's school was not entitled to the release of grant-in-aid without fulfilling the condition of collecting tuition fees. The court interpreted G.O. Ms. No. 725 and G.O. Ms. No. 871 and found that the release of grant-in-aid was subject to certain conditions, including the collection of tuition fees. The court also found that the petitioner's school failed to collect tuition fees for the academic year 1979-80 and, therefore, it was not entitled to the release of the grant-in-aid for that year. 2. The court held that the petitioner's right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution was not violated by the payment of grants to another school without that school fulfilling the condition of collecting tuition fees. The court held that the payment of grants to the other school was not authorized by G.O. Ms. No. 725 and, therefore, it did not violate the petitioner's right to equality before the law.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
( 2 ) THE 1st petitioner, a society registered under the Societies Registration act, runs the 2nd petitioner-school called the Gujarati Vidyalaya at vijayawada. The 2nd petitioner-school, which was started in the year 1931 as a Primary school with Gujarati as the medium of instruction, grew from strength to strength and prospered well. In 1966- 67 it has introduced english as the medium of instruction with the approval of the State authorities and today it is a full-fledged secondary school, coaching pupils upto 10th class in English medium,
( 3 ) THE school was first admitted to State financial aid in the year 1962-63. Throughout the following decade it was receiving financial aid from the State. But beginning with the academic year 1972-73, the State government stopped giving all financial aid to the school. The school, however, made no grievance of those acts of stoppage either then or today in this writ petition. Those acts, therefore, do not constitute the subject matter of this litigation. Let the bygones be bygones.
( 4 ) THE petitioners present dispute with the State Government, as presented in the writ petition, has its genesis in G. O. Ms. No. 725 dated 7-7-1977 and particularly centres round the meaning of G. O. Ms. No. 871 dated 27-9-1979. Let us look at those orders more closely. The Government by G. O. Ms. No. 725 had declared and decided "to admit to grant-inaid according to a phased programme spread over 3 years (1977-80) all the unaided institutions existing on 1-4-1977, which have been started with the required approval and in accordance with the rules after they complete the stipulated period of existence and satisfy the conditions prescribed. " The 2nd petitioner-school, admittedly, comes under the purview of the above g. O. Ms. No. 725. In fact, the Government paid grant-in-aid to the petitioner-school under G. O. Ms. No, 357 dated 26-3-1979 for the succeeding academic year 1978-79 and for the next succeeding academic year 1979-80, the Government sanctioned grant-in-aid to the petitioner-school although the amount was never paid to the school. The Government, through G. O. Ms. No. 871 dated 27-9-1979, gave sanction to its subordinate officers subject to certain conditions and stipulations "to the incurrence of an expenditure not exceeding Rs. 1,48,28, 104-70 ps. for payment of grant-in-aid during 1979-80 to certain schools, including the 2nd petitionerschool for a further period of one year from 1-3-1979. The justification offered by the Government for its act of refusal to release the aid sanctioned under the aforesaid G. O, Ms. No. 871 is that the conditions stipulated in that G. O. and other administrative orders relating to collection of tuition fees from the pupils by schools admitted to grant-in-aid were not fulfilled by the petitioner-school. It is not the case of the petitioners that they have collected the tuition fees from the pupils for the academic year 1979-80 and complied with the condition. The s
