Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(All) 2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, ARUN KUMAR, JJ.
State of U.P. and 3 others – Appellant(s)
Versus
Ramesh Kumar Singh and 13 others – Respondents
SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 213 of 2025
Along with
State of U P and 3 others - Appellant(s)
Versus
C/M Shree Shivmangal Chaudhari Primary Vidyalaya – Respondents
Special Appeal No. 214 of 2025
State of UP and 3 others - Appellant(s)
Versus
Ghan Shyam Chauhan and 10 others – Respondents
Special Appeal Defective No. 4 of 2025
State of UP and 3 others - Appellant(s)
Versus
Kiran Yadav and 3 others – Respondents
Special Appeal Defective No. 7 of 2025
State of UP and 3 others - Appellant(s)
Versus
Chhote Lal Ram and 4 others – Respondents
Special Appeal Defective No. 9 of 2025
Decided On : 05-01-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Tej Bhanu Pandey
For the Respondent: Rajesh Kumar Singh

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.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 21A - Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 - Recurring aid to private recognized primary schools - Petitioners claimed recurring grants alleging constitutional rights under Article 21A; the State argued policy withdrawal inadequate basis for claims - Writ petitions dismissed for failure to meet legal criteria set by state policies and educational statutes. (Paras 5-8, 10-12, 30-35)

(B) State obligations and educational policy - The rights outlined under Article 21A do not obligate the State to grant recurring aid to all recognized private schools; the State must ensure availability of education but may not provide area-specific grants without fulfillment of criteria established under legislative and policy frameworks. (Paras 11, 13-14, 29-38)

(C) Appointments of teachers - Claimants failed to demonstrate compliance with the Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Schools Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, thus lacked basis for salary claims against State. (Paras 52-53)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought to quash orders rejecting their claims for recurring grants; their basis was rooted in constitutional amendments and prior governmental policies, despite an established policy withdrawal on grants for private institutions in 2006.

Findings of Court:
Court found that documentations and systemic regulations must be met for salary claims, ruling some institutions may become eligible for recurring grants but without granting rights for pay to unqualified staff.

Issues: The Court considered whether Article 21A mandates State aid for private primary schools, and the legality of teacher appointments and rights for salary claims under existing statutes.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that while the State has an obligation to provide education, it does not equate to a guarantee of aid to every institution; eligibility for aid is tied to specific conditions, including compliance with legislative requirements.

Result: Appeals allowed in part, decisions to grant aid were upheld conditionally, and salary claims were dismissed due to lack of qualification evidence.

Table of Content
1. claims of assistant teachers for grants. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. state's position on grant-in-aid policies. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
3. obligations under the rte act. (Para 16 , 29 , 30 , 32 , 36)
4. no fundamental right to grant-in-aid. (Para 26 , 38 , 40 , 44 , 46)
5. conclusion on entitlement for recurring grants. (Para 49 , 50)

JUDGMENT

(Per: Hon’ble Arun Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, Learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Sri Tej Bhanu Pandey, Learned Standing Counsel, for the Appellants Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh and Sri Vivek Kumar Singh for the respondents.

2. SPLA No.213 of 2025, SPLA No.214 of 2014, SPLAD No.4 of 2025, SPLAD No.7 of 2025 and SPLA D No.9 of 2024, arises out of Writ-A No.1659 of 2020, Writ-A No.15455 of 2019, Writ-A No.10873 of 2021, Writ-A No.10962 of 2021 and Writ-A No.3215 of 2021, respectively.

BRIEF FACTS

3. Writ-A No.1659 of 2020, Writ-A No.10962 of 2021 and Writ-A No.3215 of 2021, had been filed by Assistant Teachers of Mahamana Malviya Ansuchit Jati Primary Pathsala, Jakariya, Rasra, District Ballia, seeking quashing of the order of the respondent-appellant no.1, the State Government, dated 10.05.2019, rejecting their claim for providing recurring grant to their Institution. A further direction was sought to direct the respondent -appellants to take their institution on the grant-in- aid list and pay salary to the petitioners from the state exchequer. The aforesaid Institution was granted recognition by the order of the Zila Parishad, Ballia, dated 31.01.1970. The petitioners of the aforesaid three writ petitions claim to have been appointed in the Institution between 01.07.2000 to 08.07.2017, by the Committee of Management. The petitioners set up their claim for the first time through their representation dated 15.02.2018, before respondent-appellant no.1.

4. Writ-A No.15455 of 2019, had been filed by the Committee of Management of Shree Shivmangal Chaudhari Primary Vidyalay, Bandhawa Kalyan, Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi, seeking quashing of the order dated 22.02.2019, passed by the respondent-appellant no.1, rejecting the claim of the petitioner-respondent for providing recurring grant to its institution from the Department of Social Welfare, Govt. of U.P. The aforesaid Institution was granted permanent recognition by the order of the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Allahabad, dated 17.07.1987. The petitioner institution had set up its claim by filing its representation dated 13.10.2018, before respondent-appellant no.1.

5. Writ-A No.10873 of 2021, had been filed by 9 Assistant Teachers and 1 Peon, of Sant Ravidas Prathamik Vidyalay, Malap No.1, Yogivir, Ghoghaea, District Ballia, seeking quashing of the order of the respondent-appellant no.1, the State Government, rejecting the claim of the petitioner-respondents, for providing recurring grant to their institution, by the Department of Social Welfare. The aforesaid Institution was granted recognition by the order of the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ballia, dated 23.02.1996. All the petitioners have been appointed in the aforesaid institution between 01.07.2005 to 01.07.2015, by its Committee of Management. They had set up their claim for the first time before the respondent-appellant no.1, through their representation dated 07.05.2018.

6. In all the aforesaid writ petitions, the basis of the claim of the writ petitioners were that they are working as Assistant Teachers and Peon in private recognized primary schools, imparting basic education from classes I to V, having more than 50% students belonging to scheduled caste and scheduled tribes, therefore, their institutions are entitled for recurring grant, from the Department of Social Welfare, Government of U.P. It was further contended that in view of the 86^th amendment of the Constitution of India, Article 21-A has been inserted, which casts an obligation upon the State to provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years.