The importance of teacher approval for salary grants and the criteria for granting aid to educational institutions as per the Government Resolutions.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. By this petition, the petitioner Management has put-forth prayer clauses [C] and [D] as under :—

“(C) By writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to release 20% grants in aid to the divisions of 5th and 6th Std., from June, 2010 and to the division of 6th and 7th Std., from June, 2011 of the petitioner No. 2 School. By modifying the communication dated 7th February, 2014 issued by the respondent No. 3.

(D) Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition, the respondents be directed to release 20% grant-in-aid to the 5th to 7th Std., divisions of petitioner school from June, 2010 and June, 2011 respectively and subsequent grants as per the policy i.e. 100% from 5th year after opening of additional divisions of the petitioner school”.

3. We have extensively heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned A.G.P. Though this hearing went on for quite some time, none appeared for respondent No. 4 – Education Officer.

4. The petitioner has primarily approached this Court on the foundation that other similarly situated schools have been granted 20% grant-in-aid from the academic year 2010-2011 after the District Evaluation Committee examined all these schools. The petitioner school scored higher marks and yet is granted 20% grant-in-aid only from the academic year 2012-2013. It is submitted that the three schools namely Kailaswasi Raosaheb Patil Primary School, Paranda, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Primary School, M.I.D.C. Kallamb, District Osmanabad and Saraswati Primary School, Paranda, District Osmanabad have been granted 20% grants for 5th to 7th Standards.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has strenuously canvassed that all factors being equal in comparison to the petitioners vis-a-vis the three schools, the same treatment should have been meted out to the petitioner. Kailaswasi Raosaheb Patil School scored 94 marks and the petitioner Miyasab Shaikshanik Va Sevabhavi Sanstha which runs Priyadarshani Primary School, scored 81 marks. Saraswati Primary School, Paranda scored 94 marks. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Primary School scored 75 marks. He, therefore, makes a grievance that the Government Resolution dated 8-11-2000 and not the Government Resolution dated 15-11-2011, would apply to the case of the petitioner.

6. The learned A.G.P. relies upon the affidavit-in-reply filed by Shri Sunil Ratansing Chauhan, Director of Education (Primary) dated 9th February, 2018, the reply filed by Shri Sanjay Manikrao Yadgire, Deputy Director of Education dated 5th December, 2018, also an additional affidavit filed by Smt. Swati Madhukar Nanal, dated 24th June, 2019 and the additional affidavit filed by Shri Gajanan Sugdeo Susar dated 21st January, 2020. He points out that the Department has followed the Government Resolution dated 15-11-2011, so also the Government Resolution dated 8-11-2000. He refers to the order passed by this Court dated 11-3-2019 and the order dated 20-11-2019, which read as under :

Order dated 11-03-2019

“1. The State contends that 20% grant was released to the petitioner No. 2-Institution from the year 2012-2013, whereas, contention of the petitioner is that the same was released in the year 2016. The State, in its additional affidavit, has stated that Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Prathmik Vidyamandir, Diksal, Kalamb was at serial No. 3 and was considered for grant-in-aid in the year 2010-2011.

2. The State shall clarify the distinguishing factors for giving grant-in-aid to the other institution as referred above, from the year 2010-2011.

3. Stand over to 25-3-2019”.

Order dated 20-11-2019

“1. This Court, by order dated 11-3-2019 directed to clarify the distinguishing factors for giving grant-in-aid to the other institutions, as referred to in the order from the year 2010-2011. On 25-3-2019, it was noticed by this Court that though the time was granted to cl