C/M Sukhdev Prasad Tripathi ... vs State Of U.P Thru Prin Secy ...
2019 Latest Caselaw 4236 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

A.F.R.
 
Court No. - 25
 
Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 6863 of 2016
 
Petitioner :- C/M Sukhdev Prasad Tripathi Smarak Sanskrit Vidyapeeth
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru Prin Secy Secondary Edu Lko & Ors
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Girish Chandra Verma,Ashish Verma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C
 
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.

Oral

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G.C. Verma.

2. The petitioner has challenged the orders dated 29.2.2016 and 17.3.2016 passed by the Principal Secretary, Secondary Education rejecting the case of the petitioner for being taken under grant-in-aid in pursuance of the Constitution Bench judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner' institution has an attached primary section which primary section runs under a different name, viz Lok Nayak Harijan Shishu Shiksha Sadan. The Basic Education Officer gave temporary recognition to the primary section running classes I to V by his order dated 24.3.1992 and permanent recognition was granted on 13.3.1996.

4. The Junior High School i.e. classes VI to VIII of the petitioner's institution which is known as Shri Shukdev Prasad Tripathi Smarak Sanskrit Vidyapeeth was taken under grant-in-aid by the State Government on 15.6.2015, but primary section was left unaided.

5. It has been submitted that the petitioner's case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Chand Vs. Director of Education Basic, U.P. and also the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P., Civil Appeal No. 3989 of 2006.

6. Being aggrieved by the action of the Education Authorities, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ-C No. 2641 of 2009 which was disposed of on 7.5.2015 by this Court without making observations on the merits, but directing that the pending application of the petitioner be considered and decided appropriately within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order.

7. In pursuance of the orders passed by this Court, the Government asked the Joint Director of Education and District Inspector of Schools, Kushinagar to conduct a spot inspection. The spot inspection was done on 6.6.2015 and the District Inspector of Schools, Kushinagar forwarded the case of the institution along with recommendation to the Joint Director of Education who it turn recommended for grant-in-aid to the institution by his letter dated 15.6.2015.

8. The letters dated 6.6.2015 and 15.6.2015 which have been filed as Annexures 7 & 8 of the writ petition, were read out in their entirety by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner emphasized that point no. 6 of the report, submitted by the District Inspector of Schools which report was affirmed by the Joint Director of Education VIIth Region, Gorakhpur, clearly says that the Society which runs Shukdev Prasad Tripathi Smarak Sanskrit Vidyapeeth affiliated to the Sampuranand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi from classes VI to graduate level, also runs the primary school, namely Lok Nayak Harijan Shishu Shiksha Sadanand 948 students were found registered in classes I to V of which some 400 were found present during spot inspection.

10. The Director of Education forwarded the report of the District Inspector of Schools dated 6.6.2015 and the Joint Director of Education, Gorakhpur's report dated 15.6.2015 to the Government. The Government on 15.10.2015 again wrote to the Director of Education that the Finance Department has put two specific queries which need to be answered by the Education Department with respect to school in question.

11. The letter of the Government dated 15.10.2015 has been read out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Finance Department made two queries which are being quoted herein below :-

^^1- iz'uxr izdj.k ek0 loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 2-9-2014 ls iw.kZr;k vkPNkfnr gS rFkk vuqnku lwph ij fy;s tkus ds vfrfjDr vU; dksbZ fof/kd mipkj @ fodYi miyC/k ugha gSA izkbejh fo|ky; dk uke yksd uk;d gfjtu f'k'kq f'k{kk lnu Hkngh [kqnZ dq'khuxj gS tks fd laLd`r fo|ky; ds uke ls fHkUu uke gSA vr% fo|ky; mDr ls vkPNkfnr gksus ds laca/k esa rF;kRed vk[;kA

2- ;fn iz'uxr fo|ky; ek0 loksZPp U;k;ky; ds mDr fu.kZ; fnukad 2-9-2014 ls vkPNkfnr gS rks fdrus f'k{kdks lfgr fu;ekuqlkj vuqnku dh vuqeU;rk gksxh] ij Hkh viuk vfHker miyC/k djk;sa] D;ksfd iz'uxr izkbejh fo|ky; esa 25 f'k{kd dk;Zjr crk;s x;s gSa tks fd cgqr cM+h la[;k izrhr gksrh gSA**

12. In compliance to the specific queries made by the Government, again an inspection was carried out and a report submitted jointly by the District Inspector of Schools, Kushinagar and the Joint Director of Education, Gorakhpur. The report filed as Annexure 11 has also been read out in its entirety by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The report submitted states that earlier the Basic Education Department creates a distinction between schools running Classes I to V and schools running classes VI to VIII. Although Junior High School was not defined under the Basic Education Act as the 1978 Payment of Salaries Act relates only to schools having classes VI to VIII no aid is given to primary schools.

13. The Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in Pawan Kumar Dwivedi on 2.9.2014 took into account the Right to Education Act and the Constitutional Liability of the State to give Compulsory and Free Education to children from ages six to fourteen years. Classes I to V and VI to VIII can be said to be such classes where education is given to children whose ages ranged from 6 years to 14 years, therefore the Supreme Court observed that even if separate recognition is being granted to class I to V and VI to VIII, to save the provisions of Payment of Salaries to Junior High School (Teaching and Non Teaching Staff) Act 1978 from becoming unconstitutional, it should be read down and the 1978 Act should be taken as covering even those schools which have primary section attached to them.

14. With regard to Sanskrit Education, the report submitted states that initially Sanskrit Education was being run with affiliation granted by Sampuranand Sanskrit Vishvidalaya, Varanasi for Purva Madhyama to Uttar Madhyama and Shastri levels. Classes VI and VIII relate to Prathama level and Classes IX to X to Purva Madhayama level. Later on, after U.P. Madhayamic Sanskrit Shiksha Adhiniyam 2000 came into being Prathama, Purva Madhyama, Uttar Madhyama are all being recognised by the Sanskrit Shiksha Parishad.

15. Sampuranand Sanskrit Vidhyalaya did not give affiliation to classes below Prathama level as the Statutes of the University do not envisage Sanskrit as medium of education in primary classes. Such institutions which ran classes from I to V had to take recognition for primary classes from the Basic Education Department, therefore classes I to V were recognised by the BSA and classes VI upto XII were recognised by the Sanskrit Shiksha Parishad and Graduate and Post-Graduate levers were recognised by the Sampuranand Sanskrit Vishvidalaya. However, the campus of Shukdev Prasad Tripathi Smarak Sanskrit Vidyapeeth was also being utilised for running classes I to V with the name of the school being changed to Lok Nayak Harijan Shishu Shiksha Sadan. This school was given permanent recognition in 1996 by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari.

16. The Education Department recommended that since, one society was running classes I to V i.e. primary section with a different name in the same campus, with the same Principal, it should be treated as a part and parcel of Junior High School. However, it was further stated in the report that the Law Department be consulted for a final decision with regard to whether the same School can be considered to be running classes I to V as was running classes VI upto Graduate level.

17. With regard to the query no. 2, the report dated 6.1.2016 found more than 900 children studying in the school and also got the children names registered in the school verified from the Block Education Officer to find out whether there is any simultaneous registration of such students in school run by Basic Shiksha Parishad. The total number of students registered being 947, the report recommended 24 teachers to be paid salary under the Payment of Salaries Act, 1978.

18. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even after a favourable report was forwarded to the Government by the Director, the petitioner's claim was rejected on 5.2.2016. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation thereafter on 9.2.2016 annexing copies of judgments passed in similar cases and orders issued by the Government granting grant-in-aid to primary sections running under similar circumstances.

19 Apprehending that the representation dated 9.2.2016 would not be considered appropriately by the Government, the petitioner again filed a writ petition, namely Writ Petition No. 3799 (M/S) of 2016. This writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 25.2.2016 and a copy of the judgment has been filed as Annexure 15 to the writ petition.

20. This Court observed that in pursuance of the Government's letter dated 5.2.2016, the petitioner has furnished requisite information and therefore a direction was issued to the State Government to take appropriate decision in the matter of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law and documents, reports and evidences available before it expeditiously say within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. A liberty was granted to the petitioner to file a fresh application if it so desired.

21. In pursuance of such observations made by this Court, the petitioner moved two fresh applications on 27.2.2016 and 29.2.2016 mentioning details of similarly situated Sanskrit Mahavidalaya where classes I to V were granted aid by the Government.

22. It has been submitted that even before such applications could reach the office of the opposite party no. 1, the case of the petitioner was rejected on 29.2.2016, taking into account the earlier application made by the petitioner dated 9.2.2016.

23. Later on, the applications dated 27.2.2016 and 29.2.2016 were also rejected on 17.3.2016 saying that the case of the petitioner has already been considered and a detailed order has been passed on 29.2.2016 which would govern all further actions by the Department.

24. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that while rejecting the case of the petitioner by the order impugned dated 29.02.2016, the emphasis of the opposite party No. 1 has been on the fact that two different schools are being run under two different names i.e. Sri Sukh Dev Prasad Tripathi Smarak, Sanskrit Vidyapeeth giving Sanskrit Education from ClassVI up to Graduation Level and Lok Nayak Harijan Shishu Shiksha Sadan which has been granted recognition by the Basic Education Department and runs Classes I to V. They cannot be said to be the same school where there is continuity of Education from Classes I to V up to class XII to be governed by the 1978 Act or even by the Act of 1971.

25. It has been submitted that in the judgment rendered by the Constitution Bench in Pawan Kumar Dwivedi, the Supreme Court had considered the argument raised by Sri P.P. Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the State appellant that primary Education from Class I to V is being recognized under the Basic Education Act along with Classes VI to VIII called as Junior High School or Upper Basic School whereas secondary education is being given recognition by a different Board. Yet the Supreme Court issued a mandamus directing the State to pay salary to teachers who were teaching from Classes I to VIII under the 1978 Act.

26. The learned counsel for the petitioner has read out paragraph 41 to 46 of the judgment rendered in Pawan Kumar Dwivedi (Supra) and has emphasised that one School whose S.L.P was being considered by the Supreme Court was Riaz Junior High School, which had been granted recognition by two Boards, yet the Supreme Court negatived the argument raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of U.P. and directed that aid be given to it

27. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a perusal of the order passed by this Court in Ramesh Upadhyay vs. State of U.P. in Writ Petition No. 29290 of 1990 would show that primary section of the Institution was approved by the District Inspector of School, Jaunpur on 23.04.1958 and the Banaras Sanskrit Vishvidayalaya had granted recognition to the institution for giving Sanskrit Education up to B.A. Level.

28. It has been submitted that this Court in Ramesh Upadhyaya's case had issued a general mandamus that the two great languages of India namely Sanskrit and Urdu should be taught for at least 5 years in School, say up to Class VIII, which would provide young generation with a rudimentary knowledge of such languages and would acquaint them with their own culture. The emphasis in the order impugned on two different Institutions being run from the same campus is misplaced according to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

29. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also taken this Court through the judgment dated 12.11.2002 passed in the case of Adarsh Sri Gauri Shankar Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Sujanganj, Jaunpur in writ petition No. 19134 of 1999 where the judgment rendered in Ramesh Upadhyaya's case was relied upon and a mandamus was issued to the Government that Teachers of the Primary Section should also be given salary as well as other benefits admissible to teachers in High School and Intermediate Colleges. It was observed by the Court that Sanskrit is the mother of all other languages in the World and all effort should be made by the State to promote education in Sanskrit.

30. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Special Appeal was dismissed by the High Court and the judgment rendered in Adarsh Sri Gauri Shankar Mahavidyalaya was challenged before the Supreme Court and it was referred to the five Judges Bench in Civil Appeal No. 3993 of 2006 in State of U.P. and others vs. Committee of Management A.S.G.S.S.M. and another and this Civil Appeal was decided along with the Civil Appeal No. 3989 of 2006 on 02.09.2014 by the Constitution Bench.

31. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the representation made by the Manager of the Institution on 6.02.2016 which has been rejected by the order impugned dated 29.02.2016. It has been submitted that the Institution in question is identically placed as Sri Alpeshwar Nath Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Janeshwar Fatehganj, Jaunpur and Adarsh Sri Gauri Shankar Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Jaunpur.

32. It has been submitted further that both Loknayak Harijan Shishu Shiksha Sadan and Sri Sukh Dev Prasad Tripathi Smarak, Sanskrit Vidyapeeth are being managed by the same Committee of Management and by the same Principal as one unit. The classes are being run on the same campus and, therefore, it could not be said that one Society cannot be running two separate Institutions. It has also been submitted that the petitioner's Institution is also engaged in the promotion of Sanskrit language which was the object of this Court when it allowed the writ petition in Ramesh Upadhyaya's case and in Adarsh Gauri Shankar Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Jaunpur's case.

33. This Court has carefully perused the judgment rendered by the High Court in Ramesh Upadhyaya's case and in Adarsh Sri Gauri Shankar Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya case and in Pawan Kumar Dwivedi's case, copies of all of such judgments having been filed along with the writ petition.

34. It is apparent that the Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar Dwivedi's case was considering whether Junior High Schools recognition would include Education from Classes I to V also, so as to expand the scope of application of the Payment of Salaries Act meant for Junior High Schools notified in 1978. The Supreme Court was conscious of the fact that the Right to Education had become a fundamental right under Article 21-A and under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, it was the Constitutional liability of the State to give free Education to Children of ages six up to fourteen years. Therefore, the Supreme Court observed that even if the Payment of Salaries Act 1978 did not include within its preview classes I to V, as was argued by the State appellant before it, since Basic Education included Classes I to V and also Classes VI, VII and VIII and "Junior High School" had not been defined anywhere under the Basic Education Act and recognition is granted both to Classes to I to V and to Classes VI, VII and VIII by the same Board i.e. the Basic Education Board, the Payment of Salaries Act 1978 should be construed, so as to extend grant in aid/ reimbursement of salary and other expenses to Junior High Schools with attached to primary sections.

35. With regard to High Schools and Intermediate Colleges also the Supreme Court has observed that even though the Basic Education Board was giving recognition from Classes I to VIII and the Secondary Education Board were giving recognition from Classes IX to XII and the Payment of Salaries Act 1971 only related to High School and Intermediate Institutions, it would still be applied to such schools where primary sections were attached. This would save the two Acts of 1978 and 1971 from being declared as unconstitutional in creating discrimination and divisions where there were none.

36. It is undisputed that from Classes I to V there is no Education with Sanskrit as a medium or language of imparting education. The Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishvidayalaya initially granted affiliation from Prathama Level up to Acharaya Level i.e. from classes VI up to post graduation level. Sanskrit as a medium of Education was recognized only from Class VI onwards. On the other hand, from Classes I to V education is imparted in the mother tongue i.e. Hindi.

37. It is also not disputed that the primary school being run by the petitioner i.e. Lok Nayak Harijan Shishu Shiksha Sadan, teachs syllabus as prescribed by the Basic Education Board from Classes I to V. Sanskrit may be one of the subjects that is being taught with the help of "Sanskrit Piyusham" which is a course book prescribed for subject of Sanskrit just as any other course book for any other subject is prescribed by the Basic Education Board. Sanskrit as a medium of imparting education cannot be said to be either envisaged under the earlier scheme of things or in the later scheme as framed by the U.P. Madhyamik Sanskrit Education Board. Also imparting of Education in all subjects viz. Science, History and Geography etc. in Sanskrit language with only Sanskrit as a medium of education cannot be said to be covered under the Constitutional liability of the State Government under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education.

38. Since the petitioner before this Court is only the Committee of Management of Sri Sukh Dev Prasad Tripathi Smarak Sanskrit Vidyapeeth and not the Committee of Management of Lok Nayak Harijan Shishu Shiksha Sadan and the Institution, Lok Nayak Harijan Shiksha Sadan which is a separate School being recognized by the B.S.A under the Basic Education Act 1972, is not before this Court, and has never approached this Court for being considered as a part and parcel of Sri Sukh Dev Prasad Tripathi Smarak Sanskrit Vidyapeeth, it cannot be said that there is any infirmity in the orders impugned.

39. For the reasons as aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Order Date :- 8.5.2019

Arif/C. Mani