The central legal point established in the judgment is that colleges must fulfill specific conditions for obtaining ad hoc grant-in-aid from the State Government, and the Government has the discretion to discontinue grant-in-aid if the conditions are not met.

Prafulla C. Pant, C.J.:--

1. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 03.07.2009 passed by the learned single Judge in WP(C)No. 192(SH) 2008, whereby the writ petition has been allowed with the direction to the respondents No. 1 and 2 (present appellants) to release the arrears of ad hoc grant-in-aid of Raid Laban College, w.e.f. 01.01.2007, and the respondents No. 3 and 4 are directed to take amount from ad hoc grant-in-aid sanctioned by the Government for payment towards pay and dearness allowances of teaching and non-teaching staff of the college.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner No. 1 is a registered association of Teachers Welfare of Raid Laban College, Shillong, and the petitioner No. 2 Dr. Alicia Gatphoh is the President of the said Association. It is stated that Raid Laban College, Shillong, started getting ad hoc grant-in-aid since 1986-87 from the Government of Meghalaya under Meghalaya Aided Colleges Maintenance Grant-in-Aid Rules, 1986. Under the Grant-in-Aid Scheme, the State Government agreed to bear 75% of the recurring expenditure of pay and dearness allowances in respect of the sanctioned posts of teaching and non-teaching staff of the college while the remaining 25% was to be borne by the Governing Body of the College. The deed was executed by the Governing Body of the College in compliance of the provisions of Grant-in-Aid Rules. However, the grant-in-aid was required to be given under certain conditions mentioned in the Rules. The college received the ad hoc grant year after year till 2006. The Raid Laban College is stated to be recognized by the University Grants Commission (UGC) under Section 2(f) and Section 12(b) of UGC Act, 1956. It has permanent affiliation with the North Eastern Hill University (NEHU), Shillong. The ad hoc grant-in-aid was discontinued to the Raid Laban College w.e.f. 01.01.2007, while the other colleges continued to get the same. It is alleged by the petitioners that stoppage of ad hoc grant-in-aid by the State Government to the college is arbitrary and discriminatory. As such the prayer was made in the writ petition for quashing the resolution dated 03.04.2008 passed by respondents No. 3 and 4 regarding discontinuance of the ad hoc grant-in-aid to the college. A further prayer is made in the writ petition that judgment and order dated 23.04.2008 passed in WP(C)No. 26(SH) of 2008 : (AIR 2009 (NOC) 1242 (Gau)) be reviewed.

4. On behalf of the respondents No. 1 and 2 (present appellants before this Court), a counter affidavit was filed before the learned single Judge stating therein that there was dispute regarding reconstitution of Governing Body of the College between the two fractions and the term of the Governing Body of the college expired on 01.08.2006. In the circumstances, as the college was receiving grant-in-aid, the answering respondents (present appellants) had to take over the control and management of the college by appointing a Joint Director of Higher and Technical Education as Administrator but his appointment was challenged by filing WP(C)No. 26(SH) 2008 by the Society running the college, which was allowed vide order dated 23.04.2008, against which WA No. 8/2008 was filed and the same was dismissed by the Division Bench on 15.05.2008. It is further stated in the counter affidavit of the answering respondents (present appellants) that the Governing Body of the College appointed Acting Principal without advertising the post and without seeking approval from the State Government and as such there was maladministration in the college. It is also stated that since the college has now chosen not to be in grant-in-aid of the Government, and it is not claiming grant-in-aid nor ready to fulfill obligations required under the rules, the employees (members of the petitioners association) cannot seek direct financial assistance without compliance of rules by the colle