The court emphasized the importance of compliance with grant-in-aid conditions and the violation of principles of natural justice in administrative decisions.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The present petition has been filed alleging that the State Government had issued a Government order dated 07.09.2006 in which a decision was taken for providing grant-in-aid to one thousand recognized junior high schools subject to certain conditions.

3. In terms of the said Government Order, it is claimed that the petitioners applied for being taken into grant-in-aid. On the said application, initially the objection was raised on 03.11.2006 to the effect that the school in question only has eight classes, the playground is admeasuring 0.3890 hectares and at the time of inspection, children in excess of the sanctioned strength were found in the institution. The petitioner gave the objection in pursuance to the objection raised by the respondents, however, subsequently thereto an order came to be passed on 31.01.2007 rejecting the application of the petitioners mainly on the ground that it has recognition upto primary stage and with regard to the high school it was stated that it has direct recognition. The said objection was, according to the State, in consonance with Condition No.2(13) of the Government Order dated 07.09.2006.

4. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that Condition No.2(13) of the Government Order dated 07.09.2006 was challenged before this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.61343 of 2006 (Committee of Management Mata Tapeshwari Saraswaati Vidya Mandir Unchachar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Maradah, District Ghazipur and Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.), which was finally allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 04.01.2007 as contained in Annexure -6 wherein the said Condition No.2(13) was quashed. The said judgment of the High Court dated 04.01.2007 was challenged in an intra-Court appeal and the appeal was also dismissed and subsequently, an SLP was filed being Special Leave petition (C) No.4630 of 2008 (State of U.P. & Ors. v. Committee of Management Mata Tapeshwari Saraswaati Vidya Mandir & Ors.) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 02.12.2009 affirmed the judgment passed by Single Judge as well as the special appeal and issued directions for consideration of the applications ignoring the Condition No.2(13) of Government Order dated 07.09.2006 and Condition No.12 of the Advertisement dated 09.09.2006.

5. After the said order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed on 02.12.2009, a fresh order came to be passed against the order on 28.09.2010 rejecting the application of the petitioner on two fresh grounds, namely that in respect of two teachers who were removed by the management, no approval was taken, which, according to the order, speaks against the management. It was further recorded that in the college, there were more than 450 students whereas including the Principal, three teachers are working and no steps have been taken by the management to fill the balance vacancies, which reveals that the management is not interested in the educational activities of the school. It was further recorded that the advertisement, permission for advertisement and the documents pertaining to the interview with regard to appointment of Shri Kedar Singh were not made available and thus, the request for taking the petitioner institution under grant-in-aid in terms of the Government Order dated 07.09.2006 was rejected.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the order dated 28/29.09.2010 is bad in law for the reasons more than one. He argues that the grounds taken in the impugned order while rejecting the request for grant-in-aid are not contemplated under the Government Order dated 07.09.2006. He further argues that the petitioner has been denied the benefit of consideration on one ground or the other. He further argues that prior to passing of the order dated 28/29.09.2010, the petitioner was never confronted with the proposed objections and if given an opportunity, the petitioner would have demonst