Allahabad High Court
C/M Mateshwari Poorva Madhyamik ... vs State Of U.P. & Others on 11 October, 2013
Author: Surya Prakash Kesarwani
Bench: Surya Prakash Kesarwani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 14 A.F.R. Reserved on 30.8.2013 Delivered on 11.10.2013 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 31802 of 2010 Petitioner :- C/M Mateshwari Poorva Madhyamik Vidyalaya Trimuhani & Anr Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- A. K. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C. S. C. With Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19482 of 2010 Petitioner :- C/M, Kisan Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya & Anr. Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secr. Dept. Of Basic Educ. & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- A.K. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,K.S.Kushwaha Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
1. Both the above noted writ petitions involved similar controversy and similar set of facts and as such with the consent of the parties, both are being heard together. The Writ Petition No. 31802 of 2010 is taken as a leading writ petition and the facts as mentioned in this writ petition are being noted.
2. In Writ Petition No. 31802 of 2010, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 13.4.2010 (Annexure No.7) passed by respondent no.1 whereby the claim of the petitioners for taking the institution on grant-in-aid was rejected on the ground that the petitioner institution does not fulfil the criteria laid down in the Government Order dated 7.9.2006 and accordingly, the representation of the petitioners was rejected. In Writ Petition No. 19482 of 2010, the petitioners have prayed for a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 31.12.2009 (Annexure No. 6) passed by respondent no.1 rejecting the claim of the petitioner to take it on grant-in-aid list. The reason for rejection was that in the M.R. much higher number of teachers and employees have been shown as working in the institution against the much lower sanctioned strength and their appointments were made without following the statutory provisions and thus the statutory provisions were violated.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the leading Writ Petition No. 31802 of 2010 are that the petitioner institution is a junior high school and was granted the recognition certificate by the Deputy Director, Education, 7th Mandal, Gorakhpur vide letter dated 31.5.1985 subject to the following conditions :
^^1- laLFkk }kjk izsf"kr ekU;rk lEcU/kh fooj.k esa ;fn dksbZ lwpuk xyr ik;h tkrh gS rks fo|ky; dh iznRr ekU;rk fujLr dj nh tk;sxhA 2- fo|ky; esa foHkkxh; fu;eksa ,oa vkns'kksa dh fdlh izdkj dh vogsyuk djus rFkk rF;ksa dks fNikus ij ekU;rk fujLr djus dk vf/kdkj foHkkx dks lqjf{kr gSA 3- mi oxZ c<+kus dh vuqefr fu;ekuqlkj izkIr dh tk;s dsoy rhu oxZ ekU; gSA 4- foHkkx }kjk fu/kkZfjr u;wure ;ksXrkvksa ls foHkwf"kr v/;kidksa dh fu;qfDr fu;ekuqlkj dh tk; rFkk vizf'kf{kr v/;kidksa ds LFkku ij izf'kf{kr ,oa ;ksX; v/;kidksa dh fu;qfDr dh tk;A 5- 25^^x 20^^ ds ,d fuekZ.kk/khu dejs dks oSdfYid d{k gsrq N% ekg ds Hkhrj djkdj lwfpr fd;k tk;sA 6- ,d dk;kZy; d{k rFkk ,d LVksj d{k dk fuekZ.k N% ekg ds Hkhrj djkdj lwfpr fd;k tk;A^^
4. Government Order No. 2010/79-6-06-7(2)/2006 dated 7.9.2006 was issued which provides the procedure and condition for bringing an institution on grant-in-aid. The aforesaid government order dated 7.9.2006 is reproduced below :
Þizs"kd] ts0,l0 nhid] lfpo] csfld f'k{kk] m0iz0 'kkluA lsok esa] f'k{kk funs'kd ¼csfld½ mRrj izns'k] y[kumA f'k{kk vuqHkkx&6 y[kum% fnukad 7] flrEcj] 2006 fo"k;% izns'k ds vlgkf;d LFkkbZ ekU;rk izkIr ¼v&Js.kh ekU;rk izkIr½ mPp izkFkfed fo|ky;ksa dks vuqnku lwph ij fy;s tkus gsrq izfdz;k@'krksZa ds fu/kkZj.k ds lEcU/k esaA egksn;] mi;ZqDr fo"k;d vius i= la[;k& f'k-fu-¼cs-½@ 10804@2006&07 fnukad 28 vxLr] 2006 ,oa 31 vxLr] 2006 dk d`i;k lanHkZ xzg.k djsaA 2- bl laca/k esa eq>s vkils ;g dgus dk funsZ'k gqvk gS fd izns'k ds 1000 LFkk;h ekU;rk izkIr vlgkf;d twfu;j gkbZLdwyksa dks vuqnku lwph ij fy, tkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSA bu fo|ky;ksa dks vuqnku lwph ij fy, tkus gsrq iwoZ esa fuxZr 'kklukns'k la[;k 1983@15&6&92&12¼8½@71 Vh-lh- fnukad 31 vxLr] 1992 dks vfrdzfer djrs gq, fuEuor izfdz;k ,oa 'krsZ fu/kkZfjr dh tkrh gS%& 1- fo|ky; ^^v^^ Js.kh esa ekU;rk ¼LFkk;h ekU;rk½ izkIr gksA 2- lkslkbVh jftLVMZ o uohuhd`r gksA 3- fo|ky; dk d{kk&8 dk foxr 3 o"kksZa dk ijh{kkQy U;wure 45 izfr'kr ls de u gksA 4- fo|ky;ksa dh d{kk 6] 7 o 8 dh foxr 3 o"kksZa ls Nk= la[;k 30 flrEcj dks 105 ls de u gksA 5- vuqnku lwph ij fy, tkus okys fo|ky;ksa esa ckfydk fo|ky;ksa dh la[;k 20 izfr'kr j[kh tk;A vgZ ckfydk fo|ky; miyC/k u gksus ij 'ks"k LFkku ckyd fo|ky;ksa ls iwjs fd;s tk;sxsA 6- vuqnku gsrq vkosnu i= lEcfU/kr ftyk csfld f'k{kk vf/kdkjh dk;kZy; esa izkIr djkus dh frfFk dks fo|ky; esa Lohd`r inksa ij vuqeksfnr ,oa fu;fer v/;kid@deZpkjh dk;Zjr gksA vkjf{kr inksa gsrq vko';d vuqcU/k@lgefr i= izkIr fd;k tk;] ftlls Hkfo"; dh fjfDr;ksa esa tc rd vkj{k.k] dksVk iwjk u gks] rc rd 50 izfr'kr fu;qfDr;ka dh tkosA 7- fo|ky; esa foRrh; j[k&j[kko fu;ekuqlkj gks jgk gks rFkk dksbZ foRrh; vfu;ferrk u gksA 8- fo|ky; dk viuk futh Hkou gksA 9- lkekU; 'krksZa ds v/khu fo|ky;ksa dks mudh d{kk 6 ls 8 rd dh LFkk;h vFkok ^^v^^ Js.kh dh ekU;rk dh frfFk dh ofj"Brk ds dzekuqlkj vuqnku lwph ij fy;k tk;A vFkkZr ftl fo|ky; dks LFkk;h ekU;rk igys izkIr gqbZ gS mls vuqnku lwph esa igys fy;k tk;sxkA ;g lwph jkT; Lrj ij ckyd o ckfydk fo|ky; dh vyx&vyx cuk;h tk;sA 10- ,d gh frfFk dks ekU;rk izkIr laLFkkvkas dh vUrjojh;rk vfUre o"kZ dh Nk= la[;k vkSj d{kk 8 ds ijh{kkQy ds izfr'kr ds xq.kQy ls izkIr yC/kkad ij vk/kkfjr jgsA 11- izcU/kra= dk bl vk'k; dk izLrko gks fd fo|ky; dks vuqnku lwph ij fy;k tk; rFkk ml sorZeku esa rFkk Hkfo"; esa fu/kkZfjr gksus okyh 'krsZ ekU; gksxhA 12- izcU/kra= fookn jfgr gksuk pkfg,A 13- mRrj izns'k twfu;j gkbZLdwy ¼v/;kidksa vkSj vU; deZpkfj;ksa ds osru dk Hkqxrku½ vf/kfu;e 1978 ds vUrxZr vuqnku izkIr djus gsrq vkosnu nsus ds fy, dsoy twfu;j gkbZLdwy ¼d{kk 6&8 Lrj rd ds gh fo|ky; vgZ gksxsA blls mPp vFkok uhps dh d{kkvksa dk lapkyu djus okys fo|ky; vkosnu i= nsus gsrq vgZ ugh gksxsA 14- fo|ky;ksa ds fy;s viuh mifjfufnZ"V vgZrkvksa dks Hkfo"; esa Hkh cuk;s j[kuk vuqnku lwph ij cus jgus ds fy, vfuok;Z gksxhA 3- izns'k ds twfu;j gkbZ Ldwyksa dks vuqnku lwph ij fy;s tkus gsrq p;u dh izfdz;k dks ljy cukus ds mn~ns'; ls fuEuor lfefr;ksa ds xBu fd;s tkus dk izLrko gS& ¼d½ funs'kky; Lrj dh lfefr 1& f'k{kk funs'kd ¼csfld½ ,oa lHkkifr v/;{k csfld f'k{kk ifj"kn 2& vij f'k{kk funs'kd ¼csfld½ lnL;
3& foRr fu;a=d] csfld f'k{kk ifj"kn lnL;
4& lfpo] csfld f'k{kk ifj"kn lnL;
5& lEcfU/kr e.Myh; lgk;d f'k{kk funs'kd ¼csfld½ lnL;
6& mi f'k{kk funs'kd ¼vFkZ½ la;kstd&lnL;
¼[k½ e.My Lrjh; lfefr
1& e.Myh; lgk;d f'k{kk funs'kd ¼csfld½ v/;{k
2& lg e.Myh; ckfydk fo|ky; fujhf{kdk lnL;
vFkok ftyk ckfydk fo|ky; fujhf{kdk
vFkok LFkkuh; jktdh; ckfydk fo|ky;
dh iz/kkukpk;kZ
3& ys[kkf/kdkjh] dk;kZy; ftyk csfld f'k{kk lnL;
vf/kdkjh] e.Myh; eq[;ky;
4& lEcfU/kr tuin ds ftyk csfld f'k{kk vf/kdkjh la;kstd&lnL;
¼x½ tuin Lrjh; lfefr
1& ftyk csfld f'k{kk vf/kdkjh v/;{k
2& foRr ,oa ys[kkf/kdkjh] lnL;
ftyk csfld f'k{kk vf/kdkjh dk;kZy;
3& mi csfld f'k{kk vf/kdkjh lnL;
4& ofj"B lgk;d csfld f'k{kk vf/kdkjh lnL;
4- fo|ky;ksa dks vuqnku lwph ij fy;s tkus gsrq p;u dh dk;Zokgh fuEufyf[kr le;lkfj.kh ds vuqlkj dh tk;sxh& 1& fnukad 10flrEcj] 06 rd csfld f'k{kk funs'kky; ls foKfIr dk izlkj.k djk;k tkuk rFkk fo|ky;ksa dks foKfIr esa izlkfjr izk:i ij izkFkZuk i= izLrqr fd;s tkus dh lwpuk fn;k tkukA 2& fnukad 03 vDVwcj 06 rd fo|ky;ksa }kjk vius tuin ds ftyk csfld f'k{kk vf/kdkjh dks fu/kkZfjr izk:i ij vkosnu i= izkIr djkus dh vafre frfFkA 3& fnukad 20 vDVwcj 06 rd ftyk Lrj ij vkosnu djus okys fo|ky;ksa dk ftyk csfld f'k{kk vf/kdkjh] mi csfld f'k{kk vf/kdkjh ,oa 2 ofj"B lgk;d csfld f'k{kk vf/kdkfj;ksa dh lfefr }kjk LFkyh; fujh{k.k djkus ds mijkUr izkFkZuk i=ksa dk ftyk Lrj ij ijh{k.k ¼LdzwVuh½ dj izLrko e.Myh; lfefr dks izsf"kr fd;k tkukA 4& fnukad 01 uoEcj] 06 rd e.Myh; lfefr }kjk cSBd vk;ksftr djds izkFkZuk i=ksa dk ijh{k.k djuk ,oa vugZ ik;s x;s fo|ky;ksa dks mudh dfe;kas ls voxr djkukA 5& fnukad 10 uoEcj 06 rd lEcfU/kr fo|ky;ksa ds izR;kosnu izkIr djukA 6& fnukad 15 uoEcj] 06 rd e.Myh; lfefr }kjk iqu% izkIr izR;kosnuksa dk fuLrkj.k djrs gq;s lwph dks vfUre :i iznku djrs gq;s funs'kky; Lrjh; lfefr dks izsf"kr djukA 7& fnukad 30 uoEcj] 06 rd funs'kky; Lrjh; lfefr }kjk cSBd vk;ksftr dj vius izLrko 'kklu dks izsf"kr fd;k tkukA 5- f'k{kk funs'kd csfld LFkk;h ekU;rk&izkIr vlgkf;d twfu;j gkbZLdwyksa ¼d{kk 6&8½ dh LFkk;h ekU;rk dh iqf"Vr lwph tuinksa ls izkIr dh tk;sxhA tuinksa ls izkIr lwph dk feyku tuin ,oa e.My Lrj ij ekU;rk iznku djus laca/kh ewy jftLVj@vfHkys[kksa ls djrs gq, funs'kky; Lrj ij lqjf{kr j[kh tk;sxhA 6& ftyk csfld f'k{kk vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk fo|ky;ksa ds vkosnu i=ksa] mlds lkFk layXu vfHkys[kksa] fo|ky; Hkou] f'k{kdksa dk fooj.k] ukekafdr cPpksa dk fooj.k rFkk vkosnu i= esa vU; vafdr fcUnqvksa dk LFkkuh; :i ls lR;kiu djsxs rFkk fo|ky;ksa dk la;qDr fujh{k.k djsxs ,oa fo|ky; ds lapkyu vkfn ds ckjs esa viuh Li"V vk[;k vafdr djsxhA ftyk Lrjh; lfefr }kjk ckyd&ckfydk fo|ky;ksa dh lwph vyx&vyx rS;kj djs viuh Li"V laLrqfr lfgr le;kUrxZr e.Myh; lfefr dks izsf"kr djsxhA 7& e.Myh; p;u lfefr fo|ky;okj leLr izdj.kksa dk ijh{k.k iw.kZ dj vugZ ik;s x;s fo|ky;ksa dks mudh dfe;ksa ls voxr djk;sxh rFkk 10 fnu dk volj iznku djrs gq;s muls dfe;ksa dk fujkdj.k djkdj izR;kosnu rFkk vko';d vfHkys[kksa dks izkIr dj mu ij fopkj djsxh rFkk viuh laLrqfr lfgr ckyd@ckfydk fo|ky;ksa dh lwph vyx&vyx rS;kj djsxh rFkk fo|ky;ksa ds uke ds lEeq[k viuh Li"V laLrqfr vafdr djsxh vkSj bl lwph ds izR;sd izi= ij e.Myh; lfefr ds izR;sd lnL; ds gLrk{kj gksxsA bl izdkj e.Myh; lfefr vyx&vyx lwph dks funs'kky; Lrjh; lfefr dks izLrqr djsxhA 8& funs'kky; Lrjh; lfefr }kjk mPp izkFkfed fo|ky;ksa dh ckyd@ckfydk lwph vyx&vyx mudh d{kk 6 ls 8 rd dh LFkk;h vFkok ^^v^^ Js.kh dh ekU;rk dh ofj"Brk dh ojh;rk ds dzekuqlkj rS;kj djds Li"V laLrqfr lfgr 'kklu dks izLrqr dh tk;sxhA 9& twfu;j gkbZ Ldwyksa dks vuqnku lwph ij ysus gsrq vkosnu&i= dk izk:i ,oa vU; izk:i@izi= f'k{kk funs'kd ¼csfld½ ds Lrj ls izsf"kr fd;s tk;sxsA 10& d`i;k mi;qZDr izfdz;k@'krksZa ,oa le;&lkfj.kh ds vuqlkj dk;Zokgh lqfuf'pr djkrs gq, Li"V laLrqfr lfgr izLrko fu/kkZfjr le; ij 'kklu dks miyC/k djk;sA Hkonh;] g0 viBuh;
ts0,l0 nhid lfpoAß
5. It is alleged in paragraph-4 of the writ petition that vide order dated 2.12.2006 (Annexure-3) 800 junior high schools for boys having permanent recognition up to 30.4.1988 and 204 girls schools of the level of junior high schools having recognition certificate up to 23.4.1999 were brought on grant-in-aid list of the State Government. But the petitioner institution was not included in this order. The aforesaid order dated 2.12.2006 granted the approval of grant-in-aid to the aforesaid junior high school institution subject to certain conditions mentioned therein. The condition no. 2 of the aforesaid order dated 2.12.2006 as referred and relied by the petitioners is reproduced below :
Þ2- 'kklukns'k fnukad 07 flrEcj] 2006 esa of.kZr O;oLFkk ds vuq:i fo|ky; esa ekU;rk ds le; vuqeU; U;wure f'k{kd@deZpkjh] tks fofgr izfdz;k }kjk fu;qDr gks rFkk l{ke Lrj ls vuqeksfnr gks ,oa fu/kkZfjr 'kSf{kd vgZrk,a j[krs gks] osru Hkqxrku gsrq ik= gksxsA ;fn fo|ky; esa U;wure vuqeU; la[;k ls vf/kd f'k{kd@f'k{k.ksRrj deZpkjh dk;Zjr gS] rks ,sls v/;kidksa ds laca/k esa l{ke Lrj ls l`ftr inksa ds fo:) mRrj izns'k v'kkldh; vkU;rk izkIr v/;kid lsokfu;ekoyh&1978 esa fofgr izfdz;kuqlkj fu;qfDr ,oa vuqeksfnr f'k{kd gh osru Hkqxrku ds fy, vuqeU; fd;s tk;sAß
6. It is alleged in paragraphs no. 5, 6 and 7 of the writ petition that although the permanent recognition was granted to the petitioners' institution on 31.5.1985 and the application for bringing on grant-in-aid was made well in time yet the respondents have not issued the order for grant-in-aid and as such the petitioners filed the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 69251 of 2006 seeking direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to include the petitioners' institution in the list of the institutions receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government with effect from 1.12.2006 and to modify the aforesaid government order accordingly. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the petitioners received a letter dated 4.1.2007 (Annexure-4) from the Assistant Director of Education (Basic) VII, region Gorakhpur whereby the reasons for not including the petitioners' institution in the list of grant-in-aid were assigned. The letter of the Assistant Director of Education (Basic) VII, region Gorakhpur filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition is reproduced below:
Þizs"kd] lgk;d f'k{kk funs'kd ¼csfld½] lIre e.My] xksj[kiqjA lsok esa] iz/kkuk/;kid@izcU/kd] ekrs'ojh iwoZ ek0 f=eksgkuh ?kkV dukSjktkSjk&dq'khuxjA i=kad fofo/k@ 2006&2007 fnukad 4-1-07 fo"k;% v'kkldh; vlgkf;d LFkk;h ekU;rk izkIr iwoZ ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa dks vuqnku lwph ij fy;s tkus fo"k;dA egksn;] d`i;k mijksDr fo"k;d vius vkosnu i= dk lanHkZ ysus dk d"V djsaA vkidk vkosnu i= 'kklu }kjk xfBr jkT; Lrjh; lfefr ds le{k fopkjkFkZ izLrqr fd;k x;k FkkA vkids vkosnu i= ,oa mlds lkFk layXu fd;s x;s vfHkys[kksa dh xgu leh{kk dh x;hA leh{kksijkUr vkidk fo|ky; 'kklukns'k la[;k&2010@79&6&06&7¼2½@2006 fnukad 7 flrEcj 2006 esa bafxr 'krksZa@izfrcU/kksa dh iwfrZ u djus ds dkj.k 'kklu }kjk vuqnku lwph esa 'kkfey ugh gks ldkA vkids }kjk izLrqr vkosnu i= ,oa i=tkrksa dk ijh{k.kksaijkUr fuEufyf[kr dkj.kksa ls vkidk fo|ky; vuqnku lwph esa 'kkfey ugh fd;k tk ldk%& 1- HkwfeLokfeRo dk izek.k i= layXu ughA 2- ekud ls vf/kd v/;kid dk;ZjrA 3- in l`tu ughA 4- vuqeksnu lafnX/kA Hkonh;
g0 viBuh;
Jherh ¼e`nqyk vkuUn½
lgk;d f'k{kk funs'kd ¼csfld½
lIre e.My] xksj[kiqjA
i`0la0 fofo/k@ 2006&2007 rn~ fnukadA
izfrfyfi%& ftyk csfld f'k{kk vf/kdkjh] dq'khuxj dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf"krA Jherh ¼e`nqyk vkuUn½ lgk;d f'k{kk funs'kd ¼csfld½ lIre e.My] xksj[kiqjAß
7. It is alleged in paragraph-8 of the writ petition that a reply dated 20.1.2007 (Annexure-5) was submitted annexing therewith the copy of khatauni as proof of ownership of land. With regard to other objections, it was submitted by the petitioners under the aforesaid reply dated 20.1.2007. There are five approved teachers, one clerk and two peons and the approval is not doubtful. The aforesaid writ petition no. 69251 of 2006 was decided by this Court vide judgment and order dated 4.11.2009 (Annexure-6) whereby the writ petition was disposed of finally in terms of the judgment and order dated 6.10.2009 passed in writ petition no. 1096 of 2007, C/M Bapu Poorva Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya and another. Vs. State of U.P and others. The order dated 6.10.2009 passed in writ petition no. 1096 of 2007 and filed along with Annexure-6 to the writ petition is reproduced below :
" It is stated that vide Government order dated 2.12.2006 contained in Annexure-6 of the writ petition Boys Junior High Schools which have been permanently recognized by 30.4.1988 and Girls Junior High Schools recognized by 23.4.1999 have been taken into grant-in-aid list of the State Government but the petitioner's institution which is Boys Junior High School has been permanently recognized on 31.5.1985, despite thereof has not been taken into grant-in-aid list of the State Government merely on account of the fact that there was some discrepancy in Khatauni in respect of land belonging to the said institution. The petitioner has approached the authorities concerned comining to know about the aforesaid discrepancy on 19.1.2007 after being intimated by the authority on 4.1.2007. But the matter is still lying pending before District Basic Education Officer, Deoria.
In case the petitioner furnishes the proof of requisite land belonging to the institution, the authorities are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order passed by this Court and District Basic Education Officer, Deoria shall also recommend the petitioner's institution for taking into grant-in-aid list of the State Government in view of the aforesaid Government order dated 2.12.2006. Thereafter the State Government is directed to extend the aforesaid benefit to the institution of the petitioner within another period of two months as given to the other institutions contemplated by Government order dated 2nd December, 2006. "
8. Pursuant to the order dated 4.11.2009 of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 69251 of 2006 filed by the petitioner, the Secretary Basic Education, Government of U.P., Lucknow considered the case of the petitioner and disposed of the same vide impugned order dated 13.4.2010 (Annexure-7) after obtaining the report of the District Basic Education Officer, Kushinagar and Director Education, Basic. The State Government held that the petitioners' institution does not fulfil the conditions for taking it on grant-in-aid. The aforesaid impugned order dated 13.4.2010 records the findings as under :
Þ3- iz'uxr fo|ky; ds lEcU/k esa ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ds vuqikyu esa 'kklu Lrj ij fnukad 24-12-2009 dks cSBd vk;ksftr dh x;h ftlesa ftyk csfld f'k{kk vf/kdkjh dq'khuxj }kjk izfrHkkx fd;k x;k rFkk vk[;k miyC/k djk;h x;hA ftyk csfld f'k{kk vf/kdkjh }kjk miyC/k djk;h x;h vk[;k ds ifjizs{; esa f'k{kk funs'kd] csfld ls Hkh vk[;k izkIr dh x;hA izkIr vk[;k ds vuqlkj iz'uxr fo|ky; ds lEcU/k esa fLFkfr fuEuor gS %& 1- ekrs'ojh iwoZ ek/;fed fo|ky; f=eqgkuh ?kkV tkSjk] dq'khuxj dks fnukad 31-5-1985 dks LFkk;h ekU;rk iznku dh x;h gSA 2- ekU;rk ds vuqlkj laLFkku esa U;wure ekud ds vuqlkj 01 iz/kkuk/;kid rFkk 04 lgk;d v/;kid ds uke vafdr fd, x;s Fks ijUrq fo|ky; dks vuqnku lwph ij lfEefyr fd, tkus gsrq laLFkk izcU/kd }kjk tks ,e0vkj0 miyC/k djk;k x;k Fkk mlesa 01 iz/kkuk/;kid] 25 lgk;d v/;kid] 01 fyfid rFkk 03 ifjPkkjd ds uke vafdr fd, x;s FksA 3- ijh{k.k djus ij ;g ik;k x;k fd mDr fo|ky; esa U;wure ekud ds vfrfjDr dk;Zjr fdlh Hkh v/;kid dk in l`tu fu;ekuqlkj ugh gqvk gSA in l`tu ds lEcU/k esa izcU/kd@iz/kkuk/;kid }kjk dksbZ vfHkys[k miyC/k ugh djk, x;s rFkk laLFkk izcU/kd }kjk fcuk in l`tu ,oa vuqeksnu ds ekud ls vf/kd v/;kidksa dh fu;qfDr dh x;h gSA vuqnku vkosnu i= esa iz/kkuk/;kid ds in ij Jh jkepUnz flag dk;Zjr fn[kk, x;s gSa ftudh fu;qfDr 1-7-1977 rFkk ftyk csfld f'k{kk vf/kdkjh }kjk fn, x;s fofu;ferhdj.k dh frfFk 23 uoEcj] 1985 vafdr dh x;h gSA m0iz0 ekU;rk izkIr csfld Ldwy ¼tw0gk0 Ldwy½ v/;kidksa dh HkrhZ ,oa lsok dh 'krsZ @fu;ekoyh 1973 ds fu;e 10 ,oa 11 esa ;g izkfo/kku gS fd fu;ekuqlkj p;fur vH;FkhZ ds vuqeksnu gsrq fo|ky; ds izcU/kd }kjk izLrko ftyk csfld f'k{kk vf/kdkjh dks Hkstk tk,xkA ftyk csfld f'k{kk vf/kdkjh }kjk vuqeksnu izkIr gksus ds mijkUr p;fur vH;FkhZ dks fu;qfDr i= jftLVMZ Mkd }kjk Hkstk tk,xk ijUrq bl fo|ky; esa dk;Zjr fn[kk, x;s iz/kkuk/;kid rFkk leLr lgk;d v/;kidksa dh fu;ekoyh esa fu/kkZfjr p;u izfdz;k dk ikyu ugh fd;k x;k gS] blds vfrfjDr fu;ekoyh esa iwoZ ls dk;Zjr v/;kidksa ds fu;ferhdj.k ds fy, Hkh dksbZ O;oLFkk ugh gSA mYys[kuh; gS fd 'kklukns'k fnukad 7-9-2006 ds izLrj 2¼6½ esa ;g Li"V fd;k x;k gS fd ogh fo|ky; vuqnku lwph ij fy, tk,xsA tgkW ij fu;ekuqlkj fofgr izfdz;k ds rgr vuqeksfnr f'k{kd dk;Zjr gksA iz'uxr fo|ky; mDr 'krZ dks iwjk ugh djrk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa iz'uxr fo|ky; dks vuqnku lwph esa lfEefyr fd, tkus gsrq fopkj fd;k tkuk fu;ekuqlkj lEHko ugh gSAß
9. Aggrieved with the afore quoted order dated 13.4.2010, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.
10. I have heard Sri A.K.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K.K.Chand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the record.
11. Sri A.K.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after the order of this Court passed in writ petition no. 69251 of 2006 dated 4.11.2009 disposing of the writ petition in terms of judgment and order dated 6.10.2009 passed in writ petition no. 1096 of 2007, the scope of consideration by the respondents was limited only to the proof of ownership of land belonging to the institution.
12. He submits that if there are excess number of teachers and employees then the grant-in-aid cannot be denied on this ground rather the benefit of granting aid may be restricted only to the teachers whose appointment has been approved as has been provided vide paragraph-2 of the government order dated 2.12.2006 (quoted above). He further submits that the petitioners' institution fulfils all the conditions of the government order dated 7.9.2006 (Annexure-2) and as such the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
13. Sri K.K.Chand, learned Standing Counsel reiterates the averments made in the counter affidavit. He submits that the petitioners' institution cannot be included in the list of grant-in-aid since it does not fulfil the necessary conditiions as provided under the government order dated 7.9.2006. Referring to paragraph-8 of the counter affidavit, he submits that the petitioners have concealed the material facts of the case including the fact that an order dated 26.5.2009 (Annexure CA-2) was passed by the Assistant Education Director (Basic) region Gorakhpur after following the principles of natural justice and their application for grant-in-aid was rejected. The petitioners' institution has not challenged this order and as such it has attained the finality. He draws the attention of this Court to paragraphs-8 and 11 of the counter affidavit and submits that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is fully justified and correct. Paragraphs-8 and 11 of the counter affidavit are reproduced below :
" 8. That the contents of paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the writ petition are not admitted as stated. It is stated that the Additional Director of Education (Basic) Gorakhpur Mandal, Gorakhpur through letter dated 4.1.2007 asked a reply from the Manager/Principal of the college and in reply thereto the Manager/Principal of the college produced/submitted the concocted document which found to be contradiction of the letter dated 4.1.2007. It is further stated that the District Basic Education Officer, Kushinagar sent a report on 26th May , 2009 indicating that the college is not completing the basic requirements and this information was also sent by the Additional Director of Education (Basic) Gorakhpur Mandal, Gorakhpur through letter dated 26.5.2009 to the effect that the application for grant in aid of the petitioner's college has been rejected. It is further made clear that against the order dated 26.5.2009 the petitioner do not file any petition before the competent authority for the cancellation of the order dated 26.5.2009 so the order is finality is attach to the order dated 26.5.2009. A copy of the letter dated 26.5.2009 is being filed herewith as Annexure CA-2 to this counter.
11.That in reply to the contents of paragraphs 13 to 17 of the writ petition, it is stated that according to the report given by District Basic Education Officer, Kushinagar and Director of Education (Basic) in that college the name of one Principal and four teachers was given, whereas the Manager of the college has given the name of one Principal and 25 Assistant Teachers, 01 clerk and 03 peons in their MR. which is very much according to the prescribed norms. It is further stated that neither the Manager nor the Principal of the college produced any documents which indicates that any post of the teachers has been sanctioned which is also a basic criteria to the grant in aid of the college. It is further made clear that the Manager of the college do not obtained any approval as well as do not indicate that any post has been sanctioned in the college and making appointment of the teachers without any sanctioned or approval which is totally against the Government Order for the grant in aid and the appointment of Sri Ram Chandra Singh without any sanction post is totally illegal as well as against the rules regarding the appointment of the teachers, 1978. It is further stated that the Manager as well as Principal of the college were not produced any documents regarding the sanction of the post of the teachers in the college and the appointment made by the manager of the college without any approval from the competent authority therefore, the competent authority has rightly refused to provide grant in aid. It is made clear that there is no provisions to regularize the service of the teachers in the college, so all the appointments made in the petitioner's college is illegal and without any jurisdiction and hence, there was no provisions to provide grant in aid to the petitioner's college and all the appointment made in the college of the petitioner contrary to rules."
Findings
14. Having considered the submissions of the parties and perused the records including the relevant Government Order and the impugned orders, I find that the recognition certificate dated 31.5.1985 was granted to the petitioner institution subject to certain conditions including the condition that only such teachers who possess the minimum prescribed qualification by the department shall be appointed in accordance with the statutory provisions. The recognition certificate itself provides that in the event of breach of the conditions of the recognition certificate or any of the statutory provisions or departmental orders, the recognition certificate may be cancelled. Clause-2 of the Government Order dated 7.9.2006 provides to take on grant-in-aid only one thousand recognized unaided junior high schools. Condition no. 6 in clause -2 provides that on the date of submission of application for grant-in-aid, approved regular teachers/ employees on the sanctioned posts should be working. The order dated 2.12.2006 (Annexure-3) takes on grant-in-aid to 1,000 institutions as provided under the Government Order dated 7.9.2006. Clause -2 of the order of grant-in-aid which has been heavily relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners, does not relax the condition as provided in clause-2(6) of the Government Order dated 7.9.2006. The notice dated 4.1.2007 (Annexure-4) issued by the Assistant Director, Education (Basic) also specifically mentions that the petitioner institution could not be included in the list of institutions for grant-in-aid for four reasons. The reasons no. 2, 3 and 4 specifically mention the excess engagement of teachers contrary to the standards prescribed, non creation of post and approval to be doubtful. In the impugned order dated 1.4.2010 (Annexure - 7), the State Government has recorded the findings of fact with regard to highly excessive number of teachers, appointed without following the standards/norms and without creation of post and non observance of the prescribed selection procedure in the appointments. The petitioners have completely failed to bring on record any evidence so as to rebut the finding of facts recorded in the impugned order. This also violates conditions of recognition certificate. Thus petitioner institution does not fulfil the condition no.2(6) of the Government Order dated 7.9.2006 and as such it cannot be included the grant-in-aid list.
15. The object of grant-in-aid scheme is generally to provide grant-in-aid to recognize unaided educational institution with the view to ensure smooth running of such institutions and to maintain standard of teaching. But an institution which does not have the teachers appointed according to norms/standards and violates the conditions of the recognition certificate, cannot be said to be eligible for being included in the list of grant-in-aid. The Government Order dated 7.9.2006 is the policy decision of the State Government. This Court, in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can neither widen the scope of the aforesaid policy decision nor can amend its conditions so as to include those who do not fulfil the conditions or the criteria laid down in the said Government Order. This Court has already held in para 14 above that the petitioner's institution does not fulfil the conditions of Government Order dated 7.9.2006. Thus the petitioner has no legal right for being included in the grant-in-aid list.
16. In the case of Vidya Devi Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalay Parasdeeh Gaur, District Basti through its Manager Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2008 (71) ALR 109, a Division Bench of this Court while considering the same Government Order has observed in paragraph-5 as under :
"5. In our view, there was no need for the learned Single Judge to go into any of these aspects. The State Government had come out with a policy of giving grants to some 1000 schools and the question was whether the appellant was fulfilling the requirements as given in such policy. If the appellant fulfilled those requirements, the appellant ought to have been considered. The Government has to follow its own policy and cannot be permitted to pick and choose at their own whims. We cannot ignore that the State has the responsibility to make effective provision for securing the right to education under Article 41, which is a directive principle of the State policy, and Article 21-A of the Constitution of India has also been introduced laying down that the State shall provide free and compulsory education to children of the age of 6 to 14 years in such manner as the State may by law determine. "
17. The facts of the present cases clearly shows that the petitioners have not fulfilled the criteria laid down in the Government Order dated 7.9.2006.
18. The learned counsel for the petitioners has heavily relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Committee of Management Mata Tapeshwari Saraswati Vidya Mandir Uchchttar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Maradah, District Ghazipur and others Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (2007) BSC 373 All. and the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. Committee of Management Mata Tapeshwari Saraswati Vidya Mandir and others reported in 2010 (1) SCC 639 .
Perusal of the aforesaid judgments would show that the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering entirely different controversy and held in paragraph 26 as under :
" 26. If it was the intention of the State Government to extend the benefit of the grant-in-aid scheme to 1000 unaided permanently recognised (A class) junior high schools by its advertisement dated 9.9.2006, then it would not be fair, as has been rightly held by the High Court, to exclude such unaided institutions which besides imparting education, either at the primary or the higher secondary level, from the grant-in-aid scheme, inasmuch as, they too continued to have junior high schools imparting education for Classes 6 to 8."
Thus the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mata Tapeshwari Saraswati Vidya Mandir (supra) is wholly distinguishable and does not support the case of the petitioners.
19. In view of the discussions made above, I find no merit in both the writ petitions. Both the writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.
Order Date :-11.10.2013 (Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani)
Ashish Pd.