Point of Law: when the petitioner-institution had been ousted from the list of selected institutions which was issued on 2.12.2006, then subsequently if the petitioner-institution was eligible, it could not be included in the list.

JUDGMENT :

When a Government Order was issued on 7.9.2006 to include 200 junior girls high schools in the list of grant-in-aid, the petitioner-institution which was granted permanent recognition on 23.4.1999 considering itself to be an eligible institution, applied for the grant-in-aid. Three committees were formed; one at the District Level; second at the State Level and thereafter at the Directorate Level. On 28.11.2006 the Directorate Level Committee upon getting all the names of the institutions which were desirous of getting grant-in-aid, prepared a list of 204 institutions. When the petitioner-institution was, however, not granted the aid, the then Manager Smt. Nand Kumari Tiwari on 9.12.2006 represented to the Secretary, Basic Education that the petitioner-institution be also included in the list of institutions which were to be granted aid. When no heed was paid to the application of the petitioner-institution, a writ petition being Writ Petition No.51152 of 2007 (Committee of Management, Sukhdeo Singh Kanya Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) was filed. This writ petition was disposed of on 28.7.2009 with a direction to the Secretary, Basic Education to decide the representation of the petitioner by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of the order dated 28.7.2009. The Manager of the petitioner-institution represented along with the judgment of the High Court dated 28.7.2009. On 23.4.2010, the Secretary, Basic Education upon considering the representation of the petitioner held that since the petitioner-institution stood at Serial No.201 and only 200 girls institutions were to be granted the aid, the petitioner-institution could not be granted the aid. Upon getting knowledge of the fact that certain institutions which were contained in the list of 200 institutions had been squeezed out on account of their production of forged papers etc., the Manager of the petitioner-institution on 21.4.2011 again applied for being included in the list of grant-in-aid. When no action was taken on the petitioners' application, the petitioners again filed a writ petition being Writ-C No.37211 of 2011 (C/M Sukhdeo Singh Kanya Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.). In this writ petition, categorically in paragraph nos.18 to 20, it was stated that the grant given to four institutions in the list of 200 institutions had been withdrawn as they had placed certain forged documents. On 31.3.2014, Writ-C No.37211 of 2011 was disposed of holding that the institutions which were eligible on 7.9.2006 i.e. the date when the Government Order was issued, alone were to be considered as eligible institutions and thereafter a further direction was also issued that the petitioners' representation be decided in the light of the observations made in the judgment dated 31.3.2014. On 27.3.2015, the petitioners' representation was rejected. Amongst other grounds on the basis of which the rejection order was passed a ground was taken that within three kilometers of the petitioner-institution, there were Parishadiya Schools/private schools which were aided, were running and, therefore, the petitioner-institution could not be granted the aid. It was also stated in the order dated 27.3.2015 that since 1000 schools already had been taken for the grant-in-aid as per the Government Order dated 7.9.2006, no further inclusion could be done. The petitioner again filed a writ petition being Writ-C No.26241 of 2015 (C/M Sukhdeo Singh Kanya Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) and submitted that the order dated 27.3.2015 was not sustainable as the grounds which had been taken in the impugned order were not available to the State when the Government Order dated 7.9.2006 was issued. The Writ Petition No.26241 of 2015 was allowed by the order dated 18.7.2016 and it was observed that the only issue which had to be decided by the responden