Kshetra Uttareshwar Shikshan ... vs State Of Maha & Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 3877 Bom

                                              WP Nos. 2133/02 & Ors.
                                       1


                  IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
              APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      WRIT PETITION NO. 2133 OF 2002

          Gajanan Shikshan Sanstha,
          Ganeshwadi, Tal. Karjat,
          Dist. Ahmednagar,
          Through its President
          Vilas S/o Bapu Kayagude,
          Age: 35 Years, Occu: Agril.,
          R/o Ganeshwadi,Tq. Karjat,
          Dist. Ahmednagar.                    ....Petitioner.

                  Versus

 1.       The State of Maharashtra
          Through the Government Pleader,
          High Court of Bombay,
          Bench at Aurangabad

 2.       The Deputy Director of Education,
          Pune Region, Pune.

 3.       The Education Officer (Sec.)
          Zilla Parishad Ahmednagar.           ....Respondents

Mr. S.V. Kshirsagar h/f. Mr. A.S.Deshpande, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mrs. P.V. Diggikar, AGP for Respondents/State.

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3503 OF 2002

Osmanabad Zilla Samaj Seva Mandal, Osmanabad, Bombale Hanuman Chowk, (Wasahat), Osmanabad- Through its Secretary Shri. Pandurang Baburao Late, Age: 45 Years, Occu: Service, R/o Osmanabad Taluka Osmanabad, District Osmanabad. ....Petitioner.

Versus

WP Nos. 2133/02 & Ors.

1. The State of Maharashtra

2. The Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad Region, Station Road, Aurangabad.

3. The Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad Osmanabad. ....Respondents

Mr. P.G. Rodge, Advocate for Petitioner. Mrs. P.V. Diggikar, AGP for Respondents/State.

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1016 OF 2004 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11660 OF 2008

Vidhaya Vikas Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Tugaon (Dhoki). Tq. and Dist. Osmanabad, Through its President Chandrakant Pandharinath Hajgude, Age: 43 Years, Occu: Agril, R/o Tugaon (Dhoki), Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad. ....Petitioner.

Versus

1. The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary School Education Department Mantralaya, Mumbai- 32. ....Respondent.

Mr. T. B. Bhosle, Advocate for Petitioner. Mrs. P.V. Diggikar, AGP for Respondent/State.

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4162 OF 2002

Kai. Mohinibai Badriprasad Agrawal Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Visarwadi, Taluka Nawapur, District Nandurbar

WP Nos. 2133/02 & Ors.

Through its President Shri. Subhash Badriprasad Agrawal Age: 45 Years, Occu: Social Work, Resident of Visarwadi, Tal. Nawapur, District. Nandurbar. ....Petitioner.

Versus

1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary School Education Department Mantralaya, Mumbai

2. The Director of Education, Maharashtra State, Central Building, Pune.

3. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Nashik Region, Nashik.

4. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nandurabar, District Nandurabar. ....Respondents.

Mr. S. T. Shelke, Advocate for Petitioner. Mrs. P.V. Diggikar, AGP for Respondents/State.

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4343 OF 2002

Shri. Sangmeshwar Bhauddeshiya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Sonwal Galli, Ausa. Dist. Latur. Through its Secretary, Shivshankar S/o Virbhadrappa Kalyani Age: 40 years, Ocuu: Business, & Secretary of Trust. R/o Ausa, Tq. Ausa. Dist. Latur. ....Petitioner.

Versus

1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary

WP Nos. 2133/02 & Ors.

Education Department Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai

2. The Education Officer (Primary) Zilla Parishad, Latur, Dist. Latur.

3. The Deputy Director of Education Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. ....Respondents.

Mr. V. D. Salunke, Advocate for Petitioner. Mrs. P.V. Diggikar, AGP for Respondents/State.

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2052 OF 2003

Shri Kshetra Uttareshwar Shikshan Sanstha, Kelgaon, Post Massajog, Taluka Kaij, District Beed, Through its Secretary, Gopinath Sukhdeo Ghule, Age : 44 Years, Occu: Social Worker, resident of Kelgaon, Taluka Kaij, District : Beed. ....Petitioner.

Versus

1. The State of Maharashtra Secretary Education Dept. Mantralaya Mumbai.

2. The Secretary, Department of Education, State of Maharashtra, Mantralay Mumbai-32.

3. The Deputy Director of Education Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad.

4. The Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Beed, Taluka and District Beed. ....Respondents.

WP Nos. 2133/02 & Ors.

Mr. A. N. Kakade, Advocate for Petitioner. Mrs. P.V. Diggikar, AGP for Respondents/State.

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2544 OF 2003

Bhartiya Gramin Vikas Sanstha, Nandur (Ghat) Taluka Kaij, District : Beed, of village Pitthi (Ghat) Taluka Kaij District : Beed, Through its Secretary, Ramdas S/o Daywanrao Gite, Age: 40 years, Occu: Social worker, and Secretary, resident of at Post Dhotra, Taluka kaij, District Beed. ....Petitioner.

Versus

1. The State of Maharashtra

2. The Secretary, Department of Education State of Maharashtra, Mantralay Mumbai-32.

3. The Deputy Director of Education Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad.

4. The Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Beed, Taluka and District Beed. ....Respondents.

Mr. A. N. Kakade, Advocate for Petitioner. Mrs. P.V. Diggikar, AGP for Respondents/State.

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1015 OF 2004

Shivshakti Bahu-udheshiya Gram Vikas Mandal Ingoda Tq. Paranda, Dist. Osmanabad Through its President

WP Nos. 2133/02 & Ors.

Shri. Subhash S/o Vasantrao Jagtap Age: 33 Years, Occu: as above R/o Ingoda Tq. Paranda. ....Petitioner.

Versus

1. The State of Maharashtra Through the School Education Department Mantralaya, Mumbai.

2. The Deputy Director of Eduction, Station Road, Aurangabad.

3. The Education Officer Secondary Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad. ....Respondents.

Mr. N.S. Kadam, Advocate for Petitioner. Mrs. P.V. Diggikar, AGP for Respondents/State.

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3519 OF 2004

Maharani Tarabai Mahila Gram Vikas Pratishtahan, Anandwadi, Tq. Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagart, (Through its Secretary, Smt. Shalini Bhausagheb Khose, Age: 36 Years, Occu: Social Work, R/o Rashin, Tq. Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar. ....Petitioner.

Versus

1. The State of Maharashtra for Secretary, School Education Department Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

2. Dy. Director, Education, 17, Ambedkar Marg,

WP Nos. 2133/02 & Ors.

Near Red Temple, Pune Division, Pune-1.

3. Director of Education Maharashtra State, Puna Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

4. Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar. ....Respondents.

Mr. P. R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for Petitioner. Mrs. P.V. Diggikar, AGP for Respondents/State.

                           CORAM       :    T.V. NALAWADE AND
                                            SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
                           DATED   :        July 3, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER T.V. NALAWADE, J.]

. Heard both the sides. The learned counsel for

petitioners from Writ Petition Nos. 3503/2002 and 1016/2004

specifically argued about the entitlement of the petitioners to

get the permission on no grant basis from the date of

permission. They submitted that their proposals were not

properly considered and to some institutions to whom

permission was granted subsequent to them and prior to them,

permission was granted on no grant basis and in some cases

grant was given in phased manner.

2. Entitlement of such institutions to get grants or to

WP Nos. 2133/02 & Ors.

get permission on no grant basis or permanent no grant basis

was considered by this Court in many cases. The learned A.G.P.

placed reliance on the cases reported as 2004(3) Bom.C.R.

723 [Keraleeya Samajam & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra

& Ors.] and 2006 BCI 493 (NAGPUR BENCH) [Choulwar

Edn. Society Vs. State of Maharashtra]. This Court has

considered the relevant provisions of Maharashtra Secondary

School Code viz. provision 86.4 and also the provisions of

Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is laid down

that there is no constitutional right to the institutions like the

present petitioners to get the grant in aid. It is laid down that if

the Government has come with a policy decision and has

prepared different schemes for giving permission and that may

be on no grant basis or permanent no grant basis, then it is the

policy of the Government and as a matter of right, nobody can

get the permission under particular scheme.

3. In the present matters, the proposals were made for

getting permission and undertakings were given to the effect

that the institutions will not be claiming grants at any time.

Separate procedure was prescribed for giving permission to

institutions on no grant basis and permanent no grant basis.

WP Nos. 2133/02 & Ors.

Due to the undertakings given and the particular procedure

followed by the present petitioners, the permission was granted

to them to start the schools on permanent no grant basis.

4. Though in the past, there were such schemes of the

Government, it appears that by Government Resolution dated

20.7.2009 the Government removed the difference between the

permissions which were granted on no grant basis and

permanent no grant basis. Some conditions are laid down and

subject to those conditions, the institutions like present

petitioners can get the grants. Thus, due to G.R. of 2009 the

word 'permanent' in the permission is now removed and these

institutions are now treated at par with the institutions to whom

the permissions are granted on no grant basis. However, the

right to get grant to whom the permission was granted to start

schools on permanent no grant basis is subject to conditions

given in G.R. Of 2009. Due to the financial constraints the

Government has taken such policy decision and as no right as

such is vested in the petitioner institutions, no relief can be

granted to them. In view of the aforesaid decision and

particularly the G.R. dated 20.7.2009, this Court holds that relief

cannot be granted and nothing survives in the petitions. In the

WP Nos. 2133/02 & Ors.

result, the petitions stand disposed of as dismissed. All the civil

applications are disposed of. Rule stands discharged.

[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.] [T.V. NALAWADE, J.]

ssc/