C/M. Samaj Kalyan Primary Pathshala Samogar, Deoria vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunita Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri. Awadh Narain Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Present petition was originally filed with the prayer for mandamus directing the respondents to release grant in favour of the petitioner institution in accordance with law.

Brief facts as mentioned in the writ petition are that petitioner institution Samaj Kalyan Primary Pathshala Saogar, District Deoria was granted aid on 31.3.1990 by the District Basic Education Officer, Deoria subject to certain conditions mentioned therein. The petitioner''s case is that institution is a primary institution running since 1984. The management of the institution after completion of necessary formalities applied for permanent grant in aid to the State Government. Enquiry was completed by the District Level Officer and a report was submitted. However, despite several representations made by the petitioner institution no order has been passed for release of grant in aid by the State Government. Grant to primary education to children upto the age of 14 years has been recognised as a Fundamental right under Article 21-A of the Constitution of India and in the case of "Unni Krishnan" the Apex Court has held that the State Government is under obligation to provide free education i.e. at the expense of the State.

During pendency of the present writ petition an amendment application dated 1.11.2011 was filed by the petitioner which was allowed. By the amendment brought in the writ petition, a writ of certiorari has been prayed for quashing of order dated 22.2.2011 passed by the State Government whereby the representation dated 7.9.2010 of the petitioner was rejected.

It has been brought on record by way of amendment that during pendency of the present writ petition, that the petitioner institution filed another writ petition, namely writ petition no. 58618 of 2010(Committee of Management Samaj Kalyan Primary Pathshala Mangurahi vs. State of U.P.) which was disposed of by judgment and order dated 23.9.2010 with a direction to the respondent no. 2 to take appropriate decision regarding bringing the petitioner institution under grant in aid taking into consideration the earlier judgment passed by this Court. Pursuant thereto the representation dated 7.9.2010 submitted by the petitioner Manager of the institution, namely Sarvesh Kumar Singh was considered and rejected.

In so far as the challenge of order dated 22.2.2011 passed by the State Government, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the State Government is under obligation to provide grant in aid to the institution which is imparting primary education to the children upto the age of 14 years and moreover there are other similarly situated institutions to whom recurring grant in aid was given by the State Government. The order impugned is in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The State Government cannot act in an arbitrary manner and cannot adopt pick and choose policy. The reason given in the order dated 22.2.2011 for rejection of the representation of the petitioner cannot be sustained.

Learned Standing Counsel invited attention of the Court to the Government Orders dated 5.10.2006 and 23.5.2012 whereby the State Government had abolished the policy for giving grant in aid by the Samaj Kalyan Vibhag to the institution run by private management.

Learned Standing Counsel submits that there is no dispute that the State Government is under obligation to provide free education to the children upto the age of 14 years as enshrined in the Constitution of India and as per the direction of the Apex Court in Unni Krishnan. In order to meet the said objective, the State Government has itself undertaken the scheme for opening primary institutions at different places under "Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan". The State Government is conscious of its obligation and established primary institutions being run by the Basic Shiksha Parishad in every village. It has further undertaken a target to open primary institutions in every village at a distance of 1.5 kms. In view of the same, The State Government has decided not to provide grant in aid to the institutions being run by private management in future. And as such, scheme for providing recurring grant in aid was abolished by the Government Order dated 5.10.2006.

Further, the scheme for One time grant in aid floated by the Government Order dated 3.8.2010 was abolished by means of Government Order dated 23.5.2012. He further submitted that while granting recognition to the petitioner institution, no assurance was given to provide grant-in-aid.. The petitioner was well aware of the fact that the Government will not be responsible for financial resources and it has to be arranged by the institution itself. Moreover, the private institutions have no right to claim the grant in aid as a matter of right. Referring to the order dated 22.2.2011, learned Standing Counsel submits that under the scheme floated by the Government Order dated 3.8.2010 there was a provision for submitting applications by private institutions. The scheme was published in various newspapers and 8.9.2010 was the date fixed for receipt of the applications. It has been recorded in the order that the petitioner institution has never moved any application for one time grant in aid in pursuance of Government Order dated 3.8.2010 and therefore there was no question of consideration of petitioner''s claim. The representation was rejected on both grounds i.e. that the scheme for recurring grant in aid was abolished by the G.O. dated 5.10.2006 and no application whatsoever was moved for one time grant in aid in pursuance of Government Order dated 3.8.2010. This apart, now the policy decision for providing one time grant in aid has also been abolished by the Government Order dated 3.8.2010 by the State Government, the petitioner has no legal right.

Record of writ petition no. 58618 of 2010 was summoned from the office. A perusal of the writ petition filed on 13.9.2010 indicates that the relief sought was for quashing of the Government Order dated 3.8.2010 and further relief of mandamus was sought to bring the petitioner institution in grant in aid list of the State Government. There is no reference of the present writ petition which has been filed for the self same relief i.e. mandamus commanding the respondents to bring the institution for grant in aid list. Present writ petition was pending at the relevant point of time.

A perusal of the writ petition no. 58618 of 2010 further indicates that the petitioner disclosed that another writ petition no. 31715 of 2010 has been filed challenging the legality and validity of order dated 19.6.2009 is pending consideration before this Court. It is apparent that order dated 23.9.2010 was obtained by the petitioner without disclosure of pendency of the present writ petition and it has been wrongly stated therein that no other writ petition was pending for the same relief.

Having considered rival submission of learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that petitioner institution has no right to get benefit of scheme for grant in aid by the State Government. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner institution is being run by private management. It is nowhere stated in the writ petition that is it imparting free education to the students belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes category and therefore the Government Order on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner is not applicable. Moreover, indisputably the earlier policy decision to provide grant in aid to the institution run by private management has been abolished by the State Government and the State Government itself has undertaken the task of providing free education to students belonging to SC/ST category and also primary education to students upto the age of 14 years. In order to meet its objective, it has opened institutions which are being run by Basic Shiksha Parishad. The direction of the Apex Court has been taken care of by the State Government under the scheme of "Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan". For the reasons stated above, the order dated 22.2.2011 calls for no interference by this Court. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.