SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(All) 15

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, ARUN KUMAR, JJ.
State of U.P. and others - Appellants
Versus
Ramesh Kumar Singh and others -Respondents
Special Appeal No. 213 of 2025 Along with Special Appeal No. 214 of 2025, Special Appeal Defective No. 4 of 2025, Special Appeal Defective No. 7 of 2025, Special Appeal Defective No. 9 of 2025
Decided On : 05-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Tej Bhanu Pandey
For the Respondents: Rajesh Kumar Singh

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.

Headnote:(A) Article 21A of the Constitution of India - Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 - Institutional grants - The Court upheld the legitimacy of the State Government's decision to cease recurring grants to certain private institutions based on its 2006 policy and subsequent decisions - The petitioners' claims for salary and grant-in-aid were rejected, emphasizing that while the obligation exists to provide education, it does not confer a right to grant-in-aid for all recognized private schools, especially those failing to meet specified standards (Paras 10-39).

(B) Educational policy - The Court reiterated that the State's obligations under the Constitution and RTE Act do not extend to granting aid to all recognized institutions indiscriminately, especially when Government Orders delineate specific conditions for such aid (Paras 11-15).

(C) Qualification requirements - The ruling emphasized established qualifications and processes for employment in recognized schools, rejecting claims of teachers lacking proper documentation and qualifications as per the 1975 Rules (Paras 42-44).

Facts of the case:
The appeals arose from orders rejecting requests for recurring grants and salaries at institutions primarily catering to the scheduled caste/st scheduled tribe population. Petitioners cited constitutional amendments and previous court rulings as a basis for claims.

Findings of Court:
The State has fulfilled its obligations under Article 21A through public school establishment, negating claims for aid from private institutions not fulfilling requisite conditions.

Issues: The court addressed whether private institutions have an unequivocal right to financial aid under constitutional provisions, alongside the legitimacy of previous rulings and appointments of teachers.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court highlighted that the right to education does not equate with a right to funding, thereby upholding governmental discretion in allocating educational grants, contingent on adherence to established criteria.

Result: Appeals partly allowed; however, qualifications for salary claims needed to be verified -denied outright salary claims until proper compliance is shown.

Table of Content
1. claims for recurring grants by primary schools. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. state policy on grant-in-aid to private schools. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. history of attempts by institutions for aid. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
4. points for consideration in appeals. (Para 28)
5. fundamental right to education under article 21-a. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
6. responsibilities under the rte act. (Para 33 , 34 , 35)
7. state's obligation versus aid claims. (Para 36 , 38)
8. conditions and qualifications for grant-in-aid. (Para 40 , 44 , 47)
9. conclusion on recurring grants and appointments. (Para 49 , 51)

Judgment :

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top