When a Government Order was issued on 7.9.2006 to include 200 junior girls high schools in the list of grant-in-aid, the petitioner-institution which was granted permanent recognition on 23.4.1999 considering itself to be an eligible institution, applied for the grant-in-aid. Three committees were formed; one at the District Level; second at the State Level and thereafter at the Directorate Level. On 28.11.2006 the Directorate Level Committee upon getting all the names of the institutions which were desirous of getting grant-in-aid, prepared a list of 204 institutions. When the petitioner-institution was, however, not granted the aid, the then Manager Smt. Nand Kumari Tiwari on 9.12.2006 represented to the Secretary, Basic Education that the petitioner-institution be also included in the list of institutions which were to be granted aid. When no heed was paid to the application of the petitioner-institution, a writ petition being Writ Petition No.51152 of 2007 (Committee of Management, Sukhdeo Singh Kanya Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) was filed. This writ petition was disposed of on 28.7.2009 with a direction to the Secretary, Basic Education to decide the representation of the petitioner by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of the order dated 28.7.2009. The Manager of the petitioner-institution represented along with the judgment of the High Court dated 28.7.2009. On 23.4.2010, the Secretary, Basic Education upon considering the representation of the petitioner held that since the petitioner-institution stood at Serial No.201 and only 200 girls institutions were to be granted the aid, the petitioner-institution could not be granted the aid. Upon getting knowledge of the fact that certain institutions which were contained in the list of 200 institutions had been squeezed out on account of their production of forged papers etc., the Manager of the petitioner-institution on 21.4.2011 again applied for being included in the list of grant-in-aid. When no action was taken on the petitioners' application, the petitioners again filed a writ petition being Writ-C No.37211 of 2011 (C/M Sukhdeo Singh Kanya Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.). In this writ petition, categorically in paragraph nos.18 to 20, it was stated that the grant given to four institutions in the list of 200 institutions had been withdrawn as they had placed certain forged documents. On 31.3.2014, Writ-C No.37211 of 2011 was disposed of holding that the institutions which were eligible on 7.9.2006 i.e. the date when the Government Order was issued, alone were to be considered as eligible institutions and thereafter a further direction was also issued that the petitioners' representation be decided in the light of the observations made in the judgment dated 31.3.2014. On 27.3.2015, the petitioners' representation was rejected. Amongst other grounds on the basis of which the rejection order was passed a ground was taken that within three kilometers of the petitioner-institution, there were Parishadiya Schools/private schools which were aided, were running and, therefore, the petitioner-institution could not be granted the aid. It was also stated in the order dated 27.3.2015 that since 1000 schools already had been taken for the grant-in-aid as per the Government Order dated 7.9.2006, no further inclusion could be done. The petitioner again filed a writ petition being Writ-C No.26241 of 2015 (C/M Sukhdeo Singh Kanya Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) and submitted that the order dated 27.3.2015 was not sustainable as the grounds which had been taken in the impugned order were not available to the State when the Government Order dated 7.9.2006 was issued. The Writ Petition No.26241 of 2015 was allowed by the order dated 18.7.2016 and it was observed that the only issue which had to be decided by the respondents was as to whether when the institutions which had been taken in the grant-in-aid on 2.12.2006 were ousted from the said list on account of their ineligibility then would not the petitioner-institution be taken into that list by which the aid was granted. The order dated 27.3.2015 was quashed and the matter was again sent back for a fresh decision. The petitioners again approached the State Government. However, when the State Government once again rejected the petitioners' representation on 8.2.2017, the instant writ petition was filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the action of the State-respondents in not granting the petitioner-institution the grant-in-aid was malicious. Initially when the State Authorities had stated that since the petitioner-institution was at Serial No.201 and only 200 institutions had to be taken in the grant-in-aid list, then the petitioners had informed that when actually four institutions had been ousted from the list, then the petitioner-institution which was at Serial No.201, ought to have been treated as having been at Serial No.197 and, therefore, under no circumstance could the petitioner-institution be deprived of the grant-in-aid. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that malice is writ large if one reads the order dated 8.2.2017 and the order dated 27.3.2015. The subsequent order is a verbatim reproduction of the earlier order which was set-aside by the High Court by the order dated 18.7.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.26241 of 2015. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the Acts and the Rules which had been promulgated after the issuance of the Government Order dated 7.9.2006 would not be taken into account for ousting the petitioner-institution from the grant-in-aid list.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 and the learned counsel, who represented respondent no. 4, on the basis of separate counter affidavits filed by them, argued that the petitioner-institution when was placed at Serial No.201 could not be considered for being included in the grant-in-aid list as the petitioners' right to get included in the list exhausted the day the first list was declared. In this connection, learned counsel appearing for the State and the respondent no.4 relied upon a judgment of this Court dated 4.9.2014 which was passed in Writ-C No.51176 of 2007 (C/M Adarsh Balika Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) and submitted that when the petitioner-institution had been ousted from the list of selected institutions which was issued on 2.12.2006, then subsequently if the petitioner-institution was eligible, it could not be included in the list.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that when the list of 200 institutions was published on 2.12.2006, on that date had the four institutions which had been ousted from the list, not been put in the list, then the petitioner-institution would have definitely been at Serial No.197. Here the case of the petitioners is not that the petitioner-institution had attained eligibility on a subsequent date. In fact the case of the petitioners is that on 2.12.2006 if the four institutions which had been subsequently ousted were not there, then the petitioner-institution would have definitely been in the list of institutions which were to be granted the aid. The way the orders are being passed, especially the last order dated 8.2.2017 which is a verbatim of the order dated 27.3.2015, shows that the State Authorities had made up their mind not to include the petitioner-institution in the list of grant-in-aid. The Court also finds that the reasons given in the orders dated 27.3.2015 and 8.2.2017 were not available to the State Authorities for ousting the petitioner-institution from the list by which the grant-in-aid was to be granted. The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and the U.P. Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 were not in operation in the year 2006 when the list was prepared.
The Court definitely holds that the petitioner-institution was entitled to be included in the list of 200 institutions which was published on 2.12.2006 and was also entitled for getting the grant-in-aid on the date 2.12.2006. The Court also finds that maliciously the petitioner-institution had been deprived of grant-in-aid since 2.12.2006.
Under such circumstances, a writ of mandamus is being issued to grant the aid to the petitioner-institution with effect from the date when the institutions which were included in the list on 2.12.2006 were granted the aid. All arrears be granted to the petitioner-institution within a period of two months. A cost of Rs.25,000/- is also imposed on the Joint Secretary who has passed the order dated 8.2.2017 which is a verbatim reproduction of the order dated 27.3.2015 and which had been set-aside by this Court on 18.7.2016 in Writ-C No.26241 of 2015.
In view of what has been stated above, the writ petition stands allowed.
Order Date :- 27.10.2021 GS (Siddhartha Varma, J.)