Allahabad High Court
C/M, Adarsh Siksha Samiti, Basti Thru. ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 25 April, 2025
Author: Pankaj Bhatia
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23846
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3935 of 2025
Petitioner :- C/M, Adarsh Siksha Samiti, Basti Thru. Manager Panchram
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Social Welfare, Lko. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Brij Mohan Singh,Umesh Pratap Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
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.
Learned Standing Counsel does not deny the law as cleared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
In view thereof, the matter requires reconsideration.
In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Order of the State Government dated 05.08.2024 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.
Order Date :- 25.4.2025
Ashutosh
