Bombay High Court
Nat. Women Welfare Societys ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 14 September, 2023
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote, Urmila Sachin Phalke
2023:BHC-NAG:13756-DB
wp 7316.22. 1/4 4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.7316/2022
National Women Welfare Society's
Hajarat Abu Bakar Siddique Urdu High School,
Manbha, Tq. Karanja Lad, District Washim,
through its President,
Tausif-Ur-Rahman Khan s/o Ataur Raheman Khan,
aged 26 years, Occ- Business, R/o Katikpura,
Darwha, District Yavatmal. ..... Petitioner.
- Versus -
1. State of Maharashtra
through its Secretary,
Department School Education and Sports,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Commissioner Education, Education
Commissionerate, Maharashtra State,
Central Building, Dr. Annie Basent Marg, Pune-411001.
educommoffice @gamil.com
3. The Directer of Education,
Secondary and Higher Secondary
Maharashtra State, Pune
4. The Deputy Director of Education,
Amravati Region, Amravati.
5. The Education (Secondary), Zilla Parishad,
Washim. .... Respondents.
************************************************************************
Mr. Mohammad Ateeque, Adv for petitioner.
Mr. N.S. Rao, AGP for respondents.
*************************************************************************
wp 7316.22. 2/4 4
CORAM : AVINASH G GHAROTE &
URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, JJ.
DATE : 14-09-2023
Oral Judgment (Per Avinash G Gharote, J.)
Heard Mr. Mohd. Ateeque, learned Counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Rao, learned AGP for the respondents.
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
3. The petition seeks to quash and set aside the order dated
15-09-22 (pg 146), whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of
100% salary grants from 2012-13 has been rejected on the ground that
the requirements in that regard have not been completed.
4. The deficiency claimed which is reflected from the report
was the absence of the Overhead Projector and the LCD for the use of
education to be imparted for the students.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner invites our attention to
the communication dated 23-05-14 by the Block Education Officer,
Panchayat Samiti Karanja (Lad) (Pg 68), which states that inspection
has been made in the academic session 2015-16. In the inspection, it is
mentioned that he has found Overhead Projector and LCD were being
used by the students. Surprisingly, the communication also contains a
statement that the said instruments, were also being used by the
students for the academic Sessions 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and
2013-14 without specifying the basis on which such statement was
wp 7316.22. 3/4 4
being made, it being an admitted position that the said person had
never made any inspection of the petitioner school earlier in point of
time. That apart, the communication also does not contain the date on
which the Block Education Officer is supposed to have visited the
school run by the petitioner, which clearly indicates that no credence
can be placed upon this communication. Learned Counsel for the
petitioner then relies upon the communication dated 06-01-14 by the
Education Officer, Zilla Parishad (pg 69), which report also suffers from
the same defect as indicted above. In fact, it contradicts the statement
regarding use of the aforesaid instruments by recording that the earlier
projector which has been purchased developed some defects and
therefore new projector and LCD were purchased on 01-04-2012,
however, no document has been produced on record to indicate such
position rather on the contrary to substantiate the plea that the
Overhead projector and LCD were been used, reliance is placed only
upon the stock register which indicates date of purchase as 09-04-2010
and none else, which is clearly contrary to the claim putforth by the
petitioner itself. It is, therefore, apparent that the report/communication
dated 03-01-2014 also cannot be relied upon. He then relies upon an
Annual Inspection Report for the academic year 2010-11 (pg 93) to
contend that the Overhead Projector and LCD were used, however, a
perusal of the report (pg 102), would indicate the sentence in this
regard, clearly appears to have subsequently inserted. Similar is the
position in respect of the Inspection Report for the academic session
2011-12 (pg 113), where also the same position is indicated. It would
be therefore apparent that the petitioner is creating documents for the
wp 7316.22. 4/4 4
purpose of claiming entitlement for grant in aid from the academic
session 2012-13 without substantiating the satisfaction of the
requirement in that regard.
6. That apart, it would be material to note that the grant in aid
is not as a matter of right, rather it is based upon the discretion of the
State and availability of funds as is indicated in the Government
Resolution dated 15-11-2011 clause 11 (a) and (b) and to the
satisfaction of necessary requirement regarding imparting the education
to be fulfilled by the institution claiming grant. In that view of the
matter, when the requirement in that regard is not satisfied, no
entitlement can be claimed. We, therefore, do not see any merit in the
petition, the same is dismissed. No costs.
7. Rule stands discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
Deshmukh
Signed by: Mr. S.Deshmukh
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 15/09/2023 11:32:54
