Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.
C/M Harijan Parimary Pathshala and Another – Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 11943 of 2022
Decided On : 16-08-2022
grant-in-aid - Education Institution - 1994 Act, Section 3 - The court discussed the provisions of the 1994 Act, Section 3, which governs the grant and release of grant-in-aid to basic institutions governed by the Social Welfare Department. The court highlighted the administrative approval granted to the petitioners' institution and the discriminatory refusal of financial approval by the State Government, citing violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the State Government's refusal to accord financial approval for their school to be included in the recurrent grant-in-aid list, despite administrative approval granted in 2017. The State Government had taken similar institutions in grant-in-aid but refused financial approval to the petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the rejection of the petitioners' claim to be unwarranted and discriminatory, especially considering the administrative approval already granted and the State Government's actions in taking similar institutions in grant-in-aid.
Issues: The issues involved the refusal of financial approval for the petitioners' school despite administrative approval and the discriminatory actions of the State Government in granting grant-in-aid to similar institutions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rejection of the petitioners' claim was unjustified, as the administrative approval was in place and similar institutions had been granted grant-in-aid. The discriminatory refusal of financial approval was found to be in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The writ petition succeeded, and the court set aside the State Government's order, issuing a writ of mandamus to accord financial approval and release the grant for payment of salary to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the petitioners' institution within 45 days.
JUDGMENT :
ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. The writ petition has been filed questioning the order dated 17.12.2020 (Annexure-26) to the writ petition passed by the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Government of U.P. whereby refusing to accord financial approval for the petitioners' school to be included in the recurrent grant-in-aid list in the absence of any policy/arrangement existing for taking new schools run by the private management in the recurrent grant list. However, the petitioners have been given liberty to apply as per prescribed procedure under scheme floated by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India under which grants are being made to residential/ non-residential schools through voluntary organizations.
2. Shri Adarsh Bhushan, leaned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner Committee of Management is running an Institution providing primary education from 1st to 5th classes. The permanent recognition to the petitioners' Institution was granted on 5.2.1990. The Institution is governed by Department of Social Welfare, Government of U.P. The Social Welfare Department has issued a Government Order dated 31.3.1994 regarding grant and release of grant-in-aid to basic institutions governed by the Social Welfare Department. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by means of Writ Petition (C) No. 50838 of 2010. The said writ petition was disposed of by directing the authority concerned to take an appropriate decision regarding bringing the petitioners' Institution under the grant-in-aid. The claim came to be rejected by the State Government vide order dated 22.2.2011 on the ground that the scheme of the State itself had been discontinued w.e.f. 5.10.2006. The rejection order dated 22.12.2011 was challenged by means of Writ Petition (C) No. 31825 of 2015. This Court vide order dated 3.10.2016 allowed the writ petition, set aside the order rejecting the claim dated 22.12.2011 and directed the State Government to examine the petitioners' claim for being taken on the list of aid keeping in view the observations made by the Apex Court in State of U.P. and Others vs. Pawan Kumar Dwivedi and Others, 2014 (9) SCC 692 as well as the Division Bench decision of this Court in Paripurna Nand Tripathi and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others, Special Appeal Defective No. 994 of 2014.
3. The State Government in compliance of the order of this Court dated 3.10.2016 passed an order dated 18.5.2017 taking the petitioners' Institution in grant-in-aid. However, in spite of the order dated 18.5.2017 passed in favour of the petitioners the grants were not released in favour of the petitioners in spite of the fact that the petitioners complied with all the formalities required from it. The petitioners were compelled to approach this Court yet again by means of Writ Petition (A) No. 14997 of 2019 which too was disposed of vide order dated 21.10.2019 requiring the authority concerned to pass final order for payment of salary of teachers taking into consideration the letters dated 3.5.2019 and 10.5.2019. It was further directed that in case there is any legal impediment, the authority concerned shall pass a reasoned order.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the order dated 3.10.2016 passed in Writ (C) No. 31825 of 2015, the State Government had filed SLP (Civil) Diary No. 1252 of 2021 before the Apex Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 27.8.2021 and as such, the order dated 3.10.2016 setting aside the rejection of the claim of the petitioners to be brought under the grant-in-aid having been upheld, it was incumbent upon the State Government to accord financial approval. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that the State Government is adopting a pick and choose policy in taking the institutions under grant-in-aid and the action is clearly violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel has invited attention of the C
The central legal point established in the judgment is the discriminatory refusal of financial approval by the State Government, in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, despite admin....
The court established that an institution's right to grant-in-aid crystallizes under earlier government orders, and arbitrary denial based on newer policies violates constitutional rights.
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 inc....
The Right to free education does not confer entitlement to recurring aid for all private primary schools; compliance with legal requirements is essential for salary claims against the State.
The obligation of the State to provide free education under Article 21A does not create an automatic right for private institutions to receive recurring grants from the government.
The importance of following committee recommendations, principles of natural justice, and equal treatment of institutions in grant-in-aid decisions.
The main legal point established is that decisions with financial implications require prior approval from the Finance Department, and premature petitions should be dismissed.
The court emphasized the importance of compliance with grant-in-aid conditions and the violation of principles of natural justice in administrative decisions.
The State's action violated Article 14 of the Constitution, as it involved negation of equality and was discriminatory and arbitrary.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
