Anil Kumar and Others vs State of Himachal Pradesh, Director, Higher Education to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, H.P. and G.A. Senior Secondary School, Patta Jattian, Tehsil Fatehpur, District Kangra, H.P.

Rajiv Sharma, Judge

Petitioners are working in various capacities in respondent No.3-school. Respondent No.3-school was given affiliation on 27.12.1991. The name of respondent No.3- school could not be included in the list of schools who were getting 95% grant-in-aid from the State Government. Respondent No.3-school is a Senior Secondary School.

The State Government took a conscious decision on 23.3.1999 whereby approval was granted by the State Government for correcting the status of 11 schools including respondent No.3-school by allowing 95% grant-in-aid to Senior Secondary and high school wings. It was also mentioned in letter dated 23.3.1999, Annexure P-3 that necessary corrections be made in the directory of private institutions published by the Education Department and grantin- aid be also calculated as per rules and may be included in the proposal while sending the same for release alongwith the case of other institutions. In sequel to communication, dated 23.3.1999, the Director of Education sent communication to all the District Education Officers, Kangra at Dharamshala, Una, Hamirpur etc. dated 5.5.1999 to do the needful. The name of respondent No.3-school finds mention at Sr. No.1 in the same. Petitioners and similarly situate persons were legitimately expecting that since the mistake has now been rectified and the respondent No.3-school has been included in the directory of the private Institutions published by the Education Department and has been held entitled to 95% grant-in-aid, the same shall be released to them within a reasonable period. However, it appears that the District Education Officers have sought certain clarifications from the Director of Education including whether 95% grant-in-aid to higher wings of 11 schools granted vide letter dated 23.3.1999 would be considered retrospectively or prospectively. The Director of Education has clarified that this decision has the prospective effect and not retrospective effect.

Mr. Subhash Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously argued that the teachers and employees working in all the institutions covered under the Grant-in-Aid Rules have been paid their salaries etc. with effect from April, 1993 and qua the petitioners, it cannot be restricted from 1999. He has also argued that equals cannot be treated unequally.

Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General has strenuously argued that letter dated 23.3.1999 will apply prospectively and will not cover the case of respondent No.3-Institution. In other words, his submission is that the grant-in-aid cannot be released to the petitioners with effect from April, 1993

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully.

It is apparent that inadvertently, the name of respondent No.3-Institution could not be included in the list of schools which were released grant-in-aid by the State Government. This mistake was rectified on 23.3.1999 and the respondent No.3-school was included in the directory of the private Institutions with a direction to the Director of Education to calculate the grant-in-aid and thereafter to do the needful. Thereafter the direction has also been issued to the District Education Officers to do the needful vide letter dated 5.5.1999.

Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure P-5, dated 24.5.2000 whereby according to him, the Director of Education has clarified that letter dated 23.3.1999 would apply prospectively and not retrospectively. It cannot be inferred from notification Annexure P-3 that the same was to be applied prospectively. Respondent No.3-Institution was not covered inadvertently by not including it in the directory of those institutions who were released grant-in-aid. This mistake has now been rectified. Once the school has been included in the directory as per annexure P-3, dated 23.3.1999, there is no justification why the grant-in-aid be not released with effect from April, 1993 at par with those institutions, whose names were included in the directory and were granted grant-in-aid with effect from April, 1993. The petitioners are similarly situate as the teachers and staff of those Institutions which were included in the list of schools for the purpose of grant-in-aid. There is no intelligible differentia so as to distinguish the petitioners from their counter parts after inclusion of respondent No.3-School in the directory maintained by the State Government for release of grant-inaid. The equals cannot be treated unequally. Once the decision has been taken to release the grant-in-aid, it should be released uniformly without putting any riders in the same. The respondents cannot restrict the release of grant-in-aid to the petitioners from 1999 onwards instead of with effect from April, 1993. This action of the respondent-State is declared arbitrary.

Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Respondent-State is directed to release grant-in-aid to the petitioners with effect from April, 1993 onwards. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.