JUDGMENT H.L. Gokhale, C.J.
1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate with Sri Siddharth Khare for the appellant. Sri Y.K. Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. appears for the respondents. The appeal is admitted and heard forthwith finally.
2. The appellant is a Junior High School running classes from 5th to 8th standard for girls in district Basti. It is the appellant's case that school is being run right from 1984 and it got permanent recognition on 2.7.1993. In pursuance to a government advertisement, the appellant applied for being included in the grant-in-aid list of the State Government. The appellant school has not been included in the list of schools which are being given grant. Such a communication has been sent by the Assistant Director of Education on 18.1.2007. Being aggrieved by that, a petition was filed by the appellant praying for a direction to command the respondents to include the petitioner's name in the institutions receiving the grants with effect from 1.12.2006.
3. Sri Khare, learned Counsel for the appellant, submits that principally the reason for which the appellant's name was not included appears that according to the respondents the appellant's school building was not on its own land. This objection was replied subsequent to the above referred communication dated 18.1.2007 of the Assistant Director and therefore the prayer was that the appellant's claim be considered and the respondents be commanded to include the appellant's name in the concerned list.
4. The learned Single judge has rejected the petition, amongst other grounds, by observing that it is a matter of judicious discretion of the State Government to choose some institutions which comply with the conditions for grant-in-aid. He has also observed that the State has limited resources and all its revenue cannot be poured only in education sector.
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 requirement 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 21A 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.
6. The fact remains that large number of children are still uneducated and are not going to schools. The State is undoubtedly trying its level best of its own to achieve such goal, but for years together private schools are also permitted to operate in the education field and the Government has been giving grants. As per the policy, the inclusion of the schools fulfilling the requirement in the list for grant of aid is to be made on the basis of the date of permanent recognition granted to the concerned school by the education authorities. If there are two schools fulfilling the norms which are both recognized on the same date, then also the policy provides that the strength of the students in the previous year and the results of the class VIII students would be the determining factor.
7. The appeal is allowed in these terms, with no cost.