Gujarat High Court
Adarsh Balamandir & Primary School ... vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 31 July, 2017
Author: N.V.Anjaria
Bench: N.V.Anjaria
C/SCA/23812/2005 CAV JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 23812 of 2005
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ? No
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of
the judgment ? No
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of No
India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
ADARSH BALAMANDIR & PRIMARY SCHOOL TRUST....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BHARAT T RAO, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR MANAN MEHTA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
Date : 31/07/2017
CAV JUDGMENT
By filing the present petition, the Page 1 of 8 HC-NIC Page 1 of 8 Created On Sun Aug 20 21:19:08 IST 2017 C/SCA/23812/2005 CAV JUDGMENT petitioner-Trust has challenged two orders, both passed by District Education Officer, Ahmedabad-
respondent No.3 herein. The first order impugned is dated 16th April, 2002 whereby respondent NO.3 authority has directed recovery of grant of Rs.07,45,760/-, further directing the petitioner to deposit the said amount under the budget head. The second order was brought under challenge is dated 03rd May, 2003 whereby Rs.07,50,000/- given towards grant was ordered to be recovered.
2. The recovery of grant under the first impugned order dated 16th April, 2002 was on the ground that the petitioner-Trust was paid grants towards vocational classes run by it which were found to be ghost classes. The second order dated 03rd May, 2003 was on the ground that petitioner-Trust was given grant towards equipments and constructing of work shed which was liable to be recovered as the classes were closed.
3. Noticing the relevant facts, the State Government evolved a policy to encourage and promote vocational course training and education. The petitioner which was running school in the name of Adarsh Vidhyavihar, Jawahar Chowk, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad since 1983, was allowed to start classes in the Vocational Guidance Stream. In all 10 classes were started and being run for standards 11 and 12 in different trades/courses such as office management, stenography, affidavit-in-reply conditioner repairing, electronics computer technology, civil draftsmanship, Page 2 of 8 HC-NIC Page 2 of 8 Created On Sun Aug 20 21:19:08 IST 2017 C/SCA/23812/2005 CAV JUDGMENT etc. The Vocational Training Center of the petitioner was was given approval by the State Government and grant was sanctioned as payable for such courses. Rs.75,000/- was given as grant per trade to the Vocational Training Center for the purpose of purchase of equipments, maintenance and construction of Shed etc. The amount of Rs.75,000/- was subsequently increased to Rs.01.00 lakh in the year 1998 to be given per trade/course. The petitioner-Trust was released the grant.
3.1 A communication dated 22nd September, 1988 addressed by the office of Joint Commissioner of Education to the school while approving the commencement of courses of office management, stenography, accountancy and auditing in standard 11 from June, 1988, mentioned certain conditions which included that number of students would be required to be maintained as per the government norms. Other courses in the technical group were allowed to be started from June, 1991. In that approval also, conditions were mentioned inter alia also that in the event of closure of the classes, equipments and construction grant would be liable to be given back. The grant was paid to the petitioner-Trust for the vocational training classes permitted as above on the conditions mentioned.
3.2 On 12th August, 1995 an inquiry was undertaken at the school premises of the petitioner by the District Education Officer. The authority found certain irregularities including that the students Page 3 of 8 HC-NIC Page 3 of 8 Created On Sun Aug 20 21:19:08 IST 2017 C/SCA/23812/2005 CAV JUDGMENT were enrolled on register but physically they were not admitted in the class. In the years 1995-1997 a mass level checking of the schools were undertaken to verify the actual existence of students and actual presence of the students in the classes and to verify whether enrollment of students was a paper enrollment. It was in this exercise that the above state of affairs were noticed at the petitioner school. In the register of enrollment, much more number of students were shown but those actually studying were very few and rest were fake students. In other words, by registering ghost students, the petitioner school was found to be running the classes.
3.3 The averments in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the District Education Officer inter alia stated that, "... ... ... the petitioner school is running the vocational guidance stream and conducting the courses of office management, steno, air-conditioning and repairing, electronics, computer technology, cicil draftsman etc., in Vocational stream for standard 11th and 12th. That total 10 classes was running by the petitioner school in vocational stream. That on 12.08.1995, the sudden inquiry of the petitioner school is made by the District Education Officer of the other District and found the certain irregularities that students who are enrolled on register, but physically not studying in the classes are identified and called as a "Bhutiya classes". That the authority has found that actual students are low, but on register, shown more number of students as enrolled to take the advantage of the grant. That such practise is called as a "Bhutiya Classes"."
3.4 It appears that in view of the above irregularities and fake students having been shown in the enrollment register by the school who were not actually admitted, the District Education Officer Page 4 of 8 HC-NIC Page 4 of 8 Created On Sun Aug 20 21:19:08 IST 2017 C/SCA/23812/2005 CAV JUDGMENT passed order dated 03rd March, 1997 imposing 5% grant cut for the Academic Year 1995-96.
3.5 Now, it appears that before filing the present petition, other petitions were also filed. The petitioner itself has referred to about the previous petitions in the memorandum of petition. The petitioner was called upon to pay the grant amount back. Special Civil Application No.2499 of 1997 was filed pursuant to which the petitioner made representation to the authority. Another Special Civil Application No.8279 of 2000 was filed which also was dismissed by this Court requiring the authorities to decide the representation of the petitioner. Petitioner again challenged the legality of the order passed by the authorities by presenting Special Civil Application No.12025 of 2001. It was against an order of recovery of amount given by way of grant for purchase of equipments and construction. The said petition was dismissed on 01st July, 2002 in view of order passed in identical Special Civil Application No.316 of 2000 and other allied matters. The petitioner agitated against the recovery of the grant as above and again being aggrieved by the decision of the authority, has approached this Court by way of present petition.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr.Bharat T. Rao for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Manan Mehta for the respondent-State and its authorities.
5. As far as impugned order dated 03rd May, 2003 Page 5 of 8 HC-NIC Page 5 of 8 Created On Sun Aug 20 21:19:08 IST 2017 C/SCA/23812/2005 CAV JUDGMENT is concerned, the recovery of grant of Rs.07,50,000/- was on account of closure of vocational stream classes by the petitioner-Trust. This order of recovery was in tune with the conditions imposed while permitting opening of classes, namely that in the event of closure, grant relating to purchase of equipments and other material as well as work shed grant would be liable to be given back. Therefore, when the classes were permitted to be closed by the authorities, they were quite justified in recovering the amount of grant. In this view, order dated 03rd May, 2003 could not be faulted.
5.1 The classes opened by the petitioner were permitted to be closed as per communication dated 06th September, 1995. Before that and simultaneously, as noted above, authorities had carried out inspection and noticed that ghost classes were being run where number of students were actually less than shown on paper.
5.2 The other order of recovery of grant was on account of irregularities noticed in the school of the petitioner-Trust where without admitting actual students, inflated number of students were shown and Bhutiya (ghost) classes were run. It was upon inspection that the checking squad noticed this serious irregularity. The say of the authority reiterated in the affidavit-in-reply could not be dislodged. It was stated that in the year 1995-1997, a mass level checking of schools was undertaken to verify the existence of students, classes and their Page 6 of 8 HC-NIC Page 6 of 8 Created On Sun Aug 20 21:19:08 IST 2017 C/SCA/23812/2005 CAV JUDGMENT actual presence. The enrollment was also checked to find out whether there were real students admitted or the enrollment made was on paper only. This exercise was made by the District Education Officer by carrying out a surprise inspection. Checking was done on 12th August, 1995 in the petitioner's school and it was found, averred in the affidavit-in-reply, that minimum students were not present, some classes had nil student, students had shown as enrolled on register but on physical verification they were not found. Pursuant to said irregularity noticed, 5% cut in the grant was imposed for the year 1995-96 and thereafter the impugned order came to be passed by the authority seeking to recover the grant.
5.3 Irregularity noticed in the school was too serious to be countenanced for any concession. The only submission which was vehemently urged by learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner had applied for closure of classes and the permission was granted by the authority. It was sought to be submitted that since closure permission was granted, the authorities could not have taken a ground that ghost classes were run. This submission was misconceived in asmuch as permission given to close the classes was a distinct aspect than the inspecting team noticing that ghost classes were run by the school by showing paper presence of the students not actually admitted. The submission lacks merit that the authorities could not have taken penal action for ghost classes because they had granted permission to close the classes.
Page 7 of 8HC-NIC Page 7 of 8 Created On Sun Aug 20 21:19:08 IST 2017 C/SCA/23812/2005 CAV JUDGMENT 5.4 The submission by learned Assistant Government Pleader could not be brushed aside lightly that it was an attempt on part of the school to grab the amount of grant by admitting and showing fake students. He could submit that grant for the purpose of salary to the teachers and staff of the school was separately given and the authorities are not recovering any amount in respect to the grant given for salaries. He also submitted that only because irregularities were noticed about ghost students, the request for closure of classes was pursued by the petitioner-school.
6. In Forward High School v Secretary being Special Civil Application No.1395 of 2000 and allied petitions decided as per judgment dated 20th April, 2001, the controversy was with regard to recovery of grant. The Court highlighted that utilisation of grant meant proper utilisation and not just spending the money. It also noted the conditions in Government Resolution dated 25th October, 1983 and observed that closure of classes was an aspect irrelevant.
7. For all the aforesaid reasons and considerations, the prayer in this petition could not be accepted, orders of recovery of grant have to be sustained. Prayers to set aside them could not be accepted. The meritless petition is dismissed.
Rule is discharged.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J.) Anup Page 8 of 8 HC-NIC Page 8 of 8 Created On Sun Aug 20 21:19:08 IST 2017