Daggubati Chenchuramaiah Memorial Degree College vs Govt. of A.P. and Another

Motilal B. Naik, J.—The petitioner College seeks a Mandamus declaring the provisions contemplated u/s 3 (1) (b) of A.P. Act 22 of 1988 and void and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner-College for grant of grant-in-aid scheme.

It is the case of the petitioner-College that in the year 1984 the Pranteeya Vidya Vygnanikabhivrudhi Sangham, Inkolu, Prakasam District, established a Degree College at Inkolu in the name and style of Daggubati Chenchuramaiah Memorial Degree College. It is stated that establishing the Degree College at Inkolu was agreed to by the 1st respondent in the year 1984-85 itself. On 22-4-1985, as per the direction of the 1st respondent, the petitioner-College deposited an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards advance corpus fund. On 22-7-1984 the College seems to have acquired nearly Ac.24-70 Cents of land for the purpose of establishing the College at Inkolu.

While so, by G.O.Ms. No. 340, Education (CE) Department, dated 15-7-1985, the 1st respondent permitted for establishing the petitioner-College at Inkolu. Accordingly, the academic year was commenced from 5-8-1985 with B.A. and B.Com., Courses. Through Resolution dated 5-8-1991 the Executive Council of Nagarjuna University seems to have granted permanent affiliation to the petitioner - College to the Nagarjuna University.

It is stated that the college has established good standards and the U.G.C. was also approached in this regard. During the year 1991 the U.G.C. also sanctioned an amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- for the purpose of obtaining necessary facilities to Library and also another amount of Rs. 20,000/- under Teachers'' Developmental Programme to the College. While so, during the academic year 1986-87 the College also constructed buildings worth Rs. 12,00,000/- for housing the students. In the academic year 1994-95 B.Sc. Course was also introduced in the petitioner-College. It is stated that during these years the salaries to the staff were paid by the management of the College without any governmental assistance.

After successful completion of five (5) years, the management as well as the teaching staff felt that the petitioner College could request the 1st respondent for admissing the College in Grant-in-aid Scheme so that the College could function on strong footings without depending on the private funds. Pursuant to that, the petitioner-College and the staff seems to have made a representation some where in the year 1991-92. The management of the College and the teaching staff expected that the 1st respondent would grant the request made by the management for admitting the College into grant-in-aid. However, the request of the Petitioner-College was not considered.

It is stated that normally institutions are admitted to grant-in-aid after completion of five (5) years and after satisfying the requirements contemplated in this regard. By virtue of the executive instructions, various Colleges have been admitted to grant in-aid scheme. The allegation of the petitioner-College is that though this College has successfully completed five (5) years and has brought out name and fame to the institution, despite the best efforts the petitioner-College is the only institution which is denied grant-in-aid, which normally the institution is entitled to.

While so, on 30-6-1988 the 1st respondent brought out Ordinance II of l988 which culminated into Act 22 of 1988 bringing certain changes in the system of grant-in-aid. The counsel for the petitioner-College states that through provisions of Section 3(1) (b) of the Act, such of those private colleges which were established prior to 1-3-1985 were only eligible for grant-in-aid. This scheme, according to the counsel for the petitioner, is only intended to deny the petitioner-College the benefit of grant-in-aid which was established on 15-7-1985 1985. The counsel states that against this College there are no allegations whatsoever from any quarter. On the contrary, the petitioner-College has been found worthy and has been rendering yeoman service to the student community. For all these years the petitioner-College was managing the salaries from their funds. It is only from the academic year 1991 onwards, after completing five (5) years, the management as well as the teaching staff thought it fit to seek admission into grant-in-aid so that the College could function smoothly without depending upon private resources.

Counsel for the petitioner further says that the State under the directive principles of State Policy is obliged to establish as many colleges, including professional, depending upon the resources available to them. The object of the Constitution makers emphasizing establishment of Colleges is to see that the citizens of this country would be brought within the purview of literacy which would sub serve the interests of Article 19(1)(a). Such of those State Governments which are unable to establish Colleges on their own, normally encourage the private managements also for establishing Colleges, so that the object of the Constitution under Article 19(1)(a) is achieved.

The object of Clause 3 (1) (b) of Act 22 of 1988 fixing a cut-off date as 1-3-1985 for admitting private colleges for grant-in-aid and the logic of the respondents in fixing 1 -3-85 as the cut-off date and the reasons for fixing the cutoff date as 1-3-1985 is not known to this Court. The petitioner-College was admittedly established on 15-7-1985.There are no adverse reports against the petitioner-College. Keeping this in view, counsel for the petitioner-College says that fixing of cut-off date as 1-3-1985 is only intended to deny the petitioner-College grant-in-aid, which action, according to counsel for the petitioner-College is arbitrary and abuse of powers vested in the State. According to the counsel for the petitioner, denial of grant-in-aid to the petitioner-College amounts to hostile discrimination and therefore, seeks appropriate direction.

The learned Government Pleader, on the contrary, submitted that the Act 22 of 1988 is brought out only for the purpose of working out suitable modalities for ensuring the Grant-in-aid Scheme. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that fixing the cut-off date as to 1-3-1985 cannot be construed as a hostile discrimination against the petitioner-College and, therefore, it is contended that the petitioner cannot make grievance against the cut-off date being fixed as 1-3-1985.

After hearing both the counsel, I am inclined to say, in view of the Supreme Court decision in State of Maharashtra Vs. Manubhai Pragaji Vashi and others, . That the State is bound to admit the institutions which are otherwise eligible for grant-in-aid without regard to financial ability of the State. The emphasis of the Supreme Court on this aspect is very much clear from a reading of . paragraphs 9, 10, 13 and 17 of the decision referred to above. When the institution is eligible for being admitted into grant-in-aid, the respondents ought not to have rejected the case of the petitioner for admitting into grant-in-aid. Keeping in view the decision of the Supreme Court, I hold that the petitioner-College is entitled for admission into grant-in-aid subject to fulfilment of other requirements contemplated in this regard without regard to the provisions contemplated u/s 3 (1) (b) of the Act 22 of 1988.

The petitioner-College if not already made any representation, shall make a representation to the respondents for admission of the petitioner-College into grant-in-aid scheme. On such representation being filed by the petitioner-College, the 1st respondent shall consider and pass appropriate order within a period of two(2) months from the date of such representation being filed.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.