C/M Purvanchal Prachya Ved ... vs State Of U P And 4 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 11043 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R
 
Court No. - 36
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27118 of 2018
 

 
Petitioner :- C/M Purvanchal Prachya Ved Vidyaly, Bharauli
 
Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Uma Nath Pandey,Ashok Kumar Tripathi (Now Ashok Tripathi)
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

Heard Sri Uma Nath Pandey and Sri Ashok Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. D.K. Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

Present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 24.5.2018 passed by the respondent no.1 and further directing the respondent no.1 to take the petitioner Institution in grant-in-aid list in pursuance of the Government Orders dated 7.2.2014 and 11.2.2014.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is society in the name of Purvanchal Prachya Shiksha Samiti duly registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1860). The said society is running an educational institution in the name of Purvanchal Prachya Ved Vidyalay, Bharauli, Lar Road (hereinafter referred to as Institution) established in the year 1991-1992 and having affiliation with Sampuranand Sanskrit University, Varanasi. The aforesaid Institution was granted permanent recognition in the year 1994.

He next submitted that Government Orders dated 7.2.2014 & 11.2.2014 have been issued inviting application from Sanskrit Institution having recognition upto December, 2000 for taking the Institution in grant-in-aid list. For the said purpose, two committees were constituted to make recommendation one is Regional Level Committee and another is State Level Committee. Accordingly, petitioner has submitted an application on 10.6.2014 for taking his Institution in grant-in-aid list as per aforesaid Government Orders. The Regional Level Committee recommended the name of petitioner's Institution at serial no. 7 to State Level Committee on 25.11.2014 for being brought the Institution in grant-in-aid list. The State Level Committee consider the application of petitioner and found certain deficiencies for which through D.I.O.S., letter dated 9.2.2015 was issued to petitioner to remove deficiency. Deficiency mentioned against the petitioner's Institution is that endowment fund was not arranged. For removal of that, petitioner was granted three days time and accordingly petitioner has submitted reply on 24.2.2015 removing the deficiency so pointed out. After receiving the reply, State Level Committee made its recommendation. Recommendation was made into two parts, in the first part 84 institutions were recommended and in the second part, 71 institutions were recommended wherein the name of petitioner's Institution has been mentioned at serial no.23, but even after that, no decision was taken on the application of the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner filed Writ-C No. 20817 of 2016 before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 6.5.2016 with direction to respondents to take appropriate decision within three months. Even after order of the Court, no decision was taken and petitioner has no option, but to file contempt petition. Upon which, to show compliance of the order passed by the writ Court, order dated 5.8.2016 has been passed by Joint Director of Education, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur on the ground that as per report dated 9.6.2016, State Level Committee has not recommended the petitioner's Institution to bring on grant-in-aid list. Thereafter, petitioner has again challenged the order dated 9.6.2016 by filing Writ-C No. 9603 of 2017 (C/M Purvanchal Prachaya Ved Vidyalaya Thru' Its Manager Vs. State of U.P. & 4 others). After hearing the writ petition, Court has directed for personal appearance of Director of Education (Secondary) alongwith supplementary counter affidavit on the next date fixed. On the date fixed, in the presence of Director of Education (Secondary), supplementary counter affidavit was perused by the Court and Court is of the view that contention raised in the impugned order dated 9.6.2016 is not correct. There is nothing like not recommending the petitioner's Institution by the State Level Committee rather recommended the Institution.

This Court has set aside the order dated 5.8.2016 and remanded the matter back for passing fresh order. Petitioner has served the order and thereafter, impugned order has been passed. He next submitted that impugned order has been passed only on the ground that petitioner has not submitted the endowment fund within the time prescribed in Government Order. He also submitted that it is nothing but an attempt to frustrate the order of this Court. After submission of application very first time, very same deficiency was pointed out by the D.I.O.S. for the letter dated 9.2.2015 and same was also removed by the petitioner vide order letter 24.2.2015. After that, recommendation was made by the State Level Committee vide order dated 24.3.2015. Earlier, the very same issue as to whether the State Level Committee recommended the case of petitioner or not, was very well considered by this Court in Writ-C No. 9603 of 2017 and Court is of the view that it was a recommendation, which also includes the removal of deficiency so pointed out in present impugned order. Therefore, at this stage, once the time was granted to petitioner to remove the deficiency, he has removed the same and after considering the same matter was recommended, very same deficiency cannot be raised again as it will be treated to be removed within the time otherwise it was required on the part of petitioner to reject the application instead of issuing the letter dated 9.2.2015 granting three days time to remove the same. He lastly submitted that under such facts and circumstances, order may be quashed and writ petition be allowed with heavy costs as petitioner is being harassed for no reason time and time again.

In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of C/M Pt. Janardhan Mani Sri Krishnadeo Mani Sri Durga Maa vs. State of U.P. and 4 others passed in Writ- C No. 13179 in which educational Institution for grant-in-aid was rejected on three grounds and one of the ground was endowment fund with the recognized University was not available. This Court after considering the facts allowed the petition with the observation that once the endowment fund is provided, proposal for taking the Institution in grant-in-aid list cannot be rejected.

He also placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Shishu Vidya Mandir Koiripur, Block Pratappur Kamaicha, District Sultanpur through its Manager Vs. State of U.P. And others in Writ Petition No. 5704 (M/S) of 2016. In that case too, issue of grant-in-aid was involved and respondents are taking new grounds on every occasion. Ultimately, Court after taking note of this, allowed the petition.

Learned Standing Counsel though vehemently opposed, but could not dispute the facts raised as well as judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He only submitted that petitioner has submitted the endowment fund only after issuance of letter dated 9.2.2015 and not alongwith application form before the cut off date i.e. 30.4.2014 provided in Government Order.

I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is getting full support from the record and could not be disputed by the learned standing counsel. It is apparent that on the first occasion, application of petitioner was not considered for which he has approached this Court by filing Writ- C No. 20817 of 2016 and in haste manner, an order dated 5.8.2016 has been passed on non existent ground as it was not found correct in second writ petition i.e. Writ- C No.9603 of 2017 filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 5.8.2019. Relevant portions of said judgment are being quoted below:-

"A perusal of the letter/report dated 9th June, 2016 (Annexure-SCA'1' to the supplementary affidavit), which is at page 10, would reveal that there appears nothing specific in the report which may indicate that the Institution was not liable to be taken on grant-in-aid list although there is a statement that the teaching staff of the Institution up to the extent of Principal and five Assistant Teachers could be brought on grant-in-aid whereas the remaining staff would have to be paid salary from the management's own sources. But there appears no adverse comment which may enable the authority to conclude that there was a negative report against the Institution in respect of its claim for being brought on grant-in-aid list.

That apart there is no consideration of the State Level Committee report dated 27th July, 2016, which finds mention in the document which has been appended at page 95 of the paper book.

In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the order dated 5th August, 2016 (Annexure-'13' to the petition) has been passed by the State Government in hurry without properly applying its mind to various reports which were there on record.

Accordingly, the order dated 5th August, 2016 is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The State Government shall shall accord fresh consideration to the request of the petitioner Institution for being brought on grant-in-aid list in accordance with law keeping in mind all the relevant reports including one that has been noticed here-in-above. Fresh exercise shall be completed preferably within a period of two months from the date of furnishing certified copy of this order upon the first respondent.

The petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above."

It is also undisputed that at the time of submission of application, petitioner was granted three days time to remove the deficiency of endowment fund, which was very well removed by the petitioner and after that State Level Committee recommended the petitioner's Institution for having in grant-in-aid list.

Therefore, at this stage, there is no occasion to reiterate ground of deficiency of endowment fund with intention to reject the petitioner application again, therefore, order is bad and liable to be set aside.

I have perused the judgment of this Court in the matter of C/M Pt. Janardhan Mani Sri Krishnadeo Mani Sri Durga Maa (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In that case too, the application of petitioner was rejected on three grounds: (i) the applicant Institution had to be a recognized Institution; (ii) it had to see that the endowment fund with the recognising University was there and (iii) the Committee of Management which was running the Institution had given its consent that the college be included in grant-in-aid. Relevant portions of the said judgment are being quoted hereinbelow:-

"So far as the defect with regard to the endowment fund was concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the College had submitted the endowment fund of Rs.3000/- and, therefore, the defect had very much been removed. Further the consent of the Committee of Management of the Institution was also very much there on record.

Under such circumstances, the order dated 4.3.2016 passed by the State of Uttar Pradesh is quashed and a writ of mandamus is being issued that petitioner-Institution be brought in grant-inaid list forthwith and the grant be provided to the College within three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.

The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed."

Court after returning the finding that deficiency of endowment fund was removed by the College concerned and allowed the writ petition with direction to respondent-authority to take petitioner's Institution in grant-in-aid list forthwith.

I have also considered and perused the judgment of this Court in the matter of Shishu Vidya Mandir, Koiripur (supra). This matter was also related to the grant-in-aid and Court after considering the same allowed the petition. Relevant portion of the said judgment is being quoted hereinbelow:-

"I find that on every occasion new grounds have been taken which were only to be discarded and rejection after examination by this Hon'ble Court. Through present counter affidavit the opposite parties have not been able to stand the test of fairness and judicial scrutiny......."

In the present case too, situation is same for one reason or other, respondents are rejecting the application of petitioner for grant-in-aid, which is getting full support from this judgment. Therefore, in light of judicial pronouncements made by this Court, order impugned is bad and liable to be set aside.

In such matters, where application is invited fixing a last date for submission and after receiving the application, notices were issued to remove deficiencies, if any, within certain time. In case, deficiencies so pointed out, has been removed by the person/Institution concerned within the time given, application cannot be rejected on the ground that deficiencies are removed after last date of submission of form, otherwise purpose of issuance of notice for removing the deficiencies would be frustrated and it would be a futile exercise only.

Further, once an application is rejected on one or more grounds by the Competent Authority. After challenge, rejection order is set aside by the Appellate Authority/Court and matter is remanded back to pass fresh order. Competent Authority would have no right to reject the same again on a different ground/grounds which were available at the time of first rejection order. It is required on the part of Competent Authority to take all such grounds of rejection in its rejection order available at the time of passing rejection order, otherwise it would be unending process resulting into the harassment of applicant.

Therefore under such facts and circumstances of the case as well as legal position settled by this Court, the writ petition is allowed and order dated 24.5.2018 passed by the respondent no.1 is hereby quashed. In usual course, matter may be remanded back for passing fresh order, but considering this fact that it is fourth round of litigation as well as in light of judgment of this Court in the matter of Shishu Vidya Mandir, Koiripur (supra), respondent no.1 is directed to bring the petitioner's Institution in grant-in-aid list forthwith and grant be provided within three months from the date of production of computer generated copy of this order after verifying the same from the official website of Allahabad High Court.

No order as to costs.

Order Date :- 2.9.2021

Junaid