Allahabad High Court
C/M Pratibha Sishu Shiksha Bihar ... vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 23 May, 2022
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6671 of 2018
Petitioner :- C/M Pratibha Sishu Shiksha Bihar Gagara, Gorakhpur, Through Its Manager Sarvesh Kumar Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadh Narain Rai,Anoop Trivedi,Navin Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard Sri Anil Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Awadh Narain Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.N. Rajbhar, learned Standing counsel for the respondents.
The writ petition has been filed praying for quashing of the impugned order dated 25.01.2018 passed by respondent no. 1, Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow on the ground that there is policy in this regard.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner applied for including institution of the petitioner in grant-in-aid list. The petitioners claim for including the institution for grant-in-aid list was pending since the year 2015. In the year 2015, a Writ - C No. 68608 of 2015 was filed by the petitioner which was disposed of by the following directions in the judgment of C/M Pratibha Shishu Shiksha Bihar vs. PrincipalSecretary, Social Welfare Department & 2 Others.
"Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the dispute involved in the present writ petition is covered by the adjudication made in Writ Petition No.31825 of 2015 (C/M Of Harijan Primary Pathshala Madhopur throu' Its Manager Vs. Principal Secy. Social Welfare Deptt. and 2 others), decided today i.e. on 3.10.2016.
Following the reasons assigned in the order of date in Writ Petition No.31825 of 2015, the present writ petition also succeeds and is allowed. The State of Uttar Pradesh is directed to examine the petitioner's claim for being taken on list of aid, keeping in view the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. and others Vs. Pawan Kumar Dwivedi and others (supra), as well as the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Paripurna Nand Tripathi (supra), and the required exercise shall be made within a period of three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. "
The petition was disposed of on the basis of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 31825 of 2015 dated 03.10.2016 which is quoted herein below : -
"Petitioner's application for being taken on grant-in-aid list has been rejected by the State Government, essentially on the ground that proper representation was not submitted before the competent authority, and that the scheme of State itself has been discontinued w.e.f. 5.10.2006.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised various grounds to contend that the order is unsustainable in law and on facts. It is also stated that a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment in Civil Appeal No.3989 of 2006 (State of U.P. and others Vs. Pawan Kumar Divedi and others), dated 2nd September, 2014, reported in 2014 (9) SCC 692, has taken note of the subsequent amendments incorporated in the constitution for ensuring right of education as a fundamental right upto age of 14 years. Relying upon the provisions as well as subsequent statutory enactments, State has been directed to examine such matters afresh, in view of the positive obligation created upon the State by way of such constitutional amendment. Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No.994 of 2014 (Paripurna Nand Tripathi and another Vs. State of U.P. and 20 others) has also been pleased to direct the State Government to re-visit the issue in view of constitutional amendment, whereby Article 21-A of the Constitution of India has been added. The relevant part of the order reads as under:-
"After the enactment of the Act, 2009 and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan (supra), Bhartiya Seva Samaj Trust (supra) and State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Pawan Kumar Divedi and others, we are of the view that the State Government may revisit its age old policy in the light of the constitutional amendment and the law laid down by the Supreme Court on the subject.
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.
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."
Learned Counsel submits that in such circumstances, the order impugned cannot be sustained, and the matter be directed to be reconsidered.
Faced with the aforesaid contention, learned Standing Counsel states that the authorities of the State shall re-visit the issue.
In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Order of the State Government dated 22.2.2011 is set aside. The State of Uttar Pradesh is directed to examine the petitioner's claim for being taken on list of aid, keeping in view the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. and others Vs. Pawan Kumar Dwivedi and others (supra), as well as the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Paripurna Nand Tripathi (supra), afresh. The required exercise shall be made within a period of three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order."
The impugned order has been passed in compliance of the aforesaid order passed by this court wherein the prayer of the petitioner for including his institution in grant-in-aid list has been turned down.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out to the order passed by the State Government in compliance of the order passed in Writ - C No. 31825 of 2018 whereby the institutions of other institution were taken into grant-in-aid list but the same was denied to the petitioner.
Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has referred to one such order with regard to Committee of Management, Harijan Primary Pathshala, Madhopur vs. State of U.P and Others. Another such order has been pointed out with regard to Committee of Management, Samaj Kalyan Primary Pathshala, Mangurahi vs. State of U.P. and Another. He has submitted that the petitioner has been discriminated for ulterior motives by the State Government.
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the judgment passed in Writ - C No. 31825 of 2018 became final since the Special Leave Petition filed against the same before Hon'ble Supreme Court was withdrawn by the State. Therefore, the petitioner was required to have been given benefit of the same.
Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that detailed findings have been recorded in the impugned order regarding the claim of the petitioner and on their basis and the impugned order has been passed.
In view of the above consideration it appears that therespondentshave not fairly acted in discharge of their officiating duties. The impugned order is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the State Government to pass fresh order in accordance with the judgment in Writ - C No. 31825 of 2018, Committee of Management, Harijan Primary Pathshala, Madhopur vs. State of U.P and Others.
The aforesaid decision shall taken in accordance with the old policy prevailing at that time within a period of six weeks.
The writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 23.5.2022
Rohit
