Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38417 of 2018 Petitioner :- C/M M.S. Public School (Maan Saraswati Public School) Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Heard Sri Anand Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents.
The petitioner Institution has made an application for being brought under the grant-in-aid. The criteria for bringing the Institutions under the grant-in-aid of the State Government is laid out in various Government Orders including the Government Order dated 17.01.2014.
Sri Anand Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that an enquiry report was submitted by the District Magistrate, Saharanpur as contemplated under the Government Order. The respondent authorities are not processing the application of the petitioner. Sri Anand Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgements rendered by this Court in the case of Paripurna Nand Tripathi Vs. State of U.P., reported at (2015) 3 ADJ 567 (DB) and rendered by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Pawan Kumar Divedi, reported at (2014) 9 SCC 692.
Learned Standing Counsel on the contrary, submits that the grant of affiliation is subject to satisfaction of eligibility criteria of such Institution. These aspects which have to be enquired into and verified by the competent authority.
Some facts are beyond the pale of dispute. A report was submitted by the District Magistrate, Saharanpur on 17.07.2014. The criteria for affiliation is laid out in the Government Order dated 17.01.2014. The application of the petitioner Institution to be brought in the purview of grant-in- aid has not been decided.
This Court in the case of Paripurna Nand Tripathi (supra) while considering the Rights of Children to Free and Compulsory Education and the obligations of the State Government in this regard held thus:
"20. Undoubtedly, now it is the State's responsibility to provide free and compulsory education to the children of the age of six to fourteen years. Private institutions, which are imparting education to children of the said age group, in fact, are performing and sharing the obligations of the State. Therefore, an obligation is cast upon the State Government not only to provide the grant-in-aid to such institutions but to provide infrastructure also subject to reasonable conditions laid down by it. Providing education to the children of the age of six to fourteen years shall be a mirage unless qualitative education is provided to them.
21. In the State of Uttar Pradesh, the large majority of children of the said age group come from the marginalized sections of the society. Most of the institutions providing primary and basic education are situated in rural and semi-urban areas. To provide quality education it is necessary that trained and competent teachers are appointed and necessary infrastructure is also made available to such institutions. The teachers in private unaided institutions are working in pitiable conditions. No good teacher would like to work in such institutions. Thus, the students will be deprived of quality education.
22. In view of the supervening events, we are of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge dated 29 August 2014 and the order of the State Government dated 10 January 2002 need to be set aside and are, accordingly, set aside. The matter is remitted to the State Government to reconsider it in the light of the law referred to above. The State Government may reconsider its policy of 1989 in respect of the grant of aid to the unaided institutions in the light of the constitutional amendment, the Act of 2009 and the law laid down in the judgments referred above."
The Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Divedi (supra) distilled the responsibilities of the State Government in regard to imparting education to children as follows:
"36. The statement by the five-Judge Constitution Bench in Unni Krishnan [Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of A.P., (1993) 1 SCC 645 : 1 SCEC 523] that primary education is a fundamental right is echoed in H.P. State Recognised & Aided Schools Managing Committees [State of H.P. v. H.P. State Recognised and Aided Schools Managing Committees, (1995) 4 SCC 507 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 1049] as well. The three-Judge Bench in paras 16 and 17 reiterated the constitutional mandate to the State to provide free education to the children up to the age of 14. The three-Judge Bench said: (H.P. State Recognised & Aided Schools Managing Committees case[State of H.P. v. H.P. State Recognised and Aided Schools Managing Committees, (1995) 4 SCC 507 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 1049] , SCC pp. 514-15) "16. The constitutional mandate to the State, as upheld by this Court in Unni Krishnan case [Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of A.P., (1993) 1 SCC 645 : 1 SCEC 523] —to provide free education to the children up to the age of fourteen—cannot be permitted to be circumvented on the ground of lack of economic capacity or financial incapacity.
17. It is high time that the State must accept its responsibility to extend free education to the children up to the age of fourteen. Right to education is equally guaranteed to the children who are above the age of fourteen, but they cannot enforce the same unless the economic capacity and development of the State permits the enforcement of the same. The State must endeavour to review and increase the budget allocation under the head 'Education'. The Union of India must also consider to increase the percentage of allocation of funds for 'Education' out of the Gross National Product."
In the light of the submissions made at the Bar, no useful purpose would be served by keeping this writ petition pending. The writ petition is disposed of finally with the consent of parties.
The matter is remitted back to the respondent no. 1. A mandamus is issued to the respondent no. 1 to execute the following directions:
(i). To consider the application for grant-in-aid of the petitioner- Institution in the light of the law laid down by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Paripurna Nand Tripathi (supra) and Pawan Kumar Divedi (supra) respectively, and the terms of the Government Order dated 17.01.2014.
(ii). The respondent no. 1 shall ensure that the due diligence exercise is conducted into the credentials of the staff and teachers infrastructure and all other relevant criteria is conducted. Upon consideration of relevant criteria, the respondent no. 1 shall pass appropriate orders in the matter in accordance with law.
(iii). This exercise shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
The writ petition is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 28.11.2018 Dhananjai