# C/M Janhit Madhyamik Vidyalaya & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 1510
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-15
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 31912 of 2018
- **Bench:** Saral Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/c-m-janhit-madhyamik-vidyalaya-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54607
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

Civil Law - U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972
-
Inclusion
in
Grant-in-Aid
List
-
Government Order dated 07.09.2006 -
Government Order dated 14.07.2020 -
5 All. C/M Janhit Madhyamik Vidyalaya & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1511
Petitioner's institution granted permanent
recognition in 1986 - Claim for grant-inaid wrongly rejected firstly on nonexistent ground of suspicious signature
and thereafter on unsustainable grounds
including appointment of two Class-IV
employees
-
Petitioner's
earlier
writ
ppetition No.66902 of 2009 allowed with
categorical positive direction that if there
is some optimum limit the petitioner shall
be adjusted against such institution or
alternative arrangement shall be made -
Despite that, respondents again rejected
claim which was quashed in Writ Petition
No.48835 of 2011 and special appeal
dismissed. Held : Claim was rejected on
grounds not sustainable in law, right of
petitioner crystallised under Government
Order dated 07.09.2006 and subsequent
Government
Order
dated
14.07.2020,
which provided that it was not feasible to
open a new institution or to establish a
new institution on grant-in-aid, could not
defeat such crystallised right, rejection on
pretext of new policy misconceived -
Once State Government had extended
benefit of grant-in-aid to similarly placed
institution
denial
to
petitioner
was
arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution. Impugned order set aside,
Special Secretary, Basic Education, U.P.
directed to take petitioner's institution on
grant-in-aid and provide full financial aid
forthwith - Writ petition allowed.

Allowed. (E-5)

## Text

_Characters 0–39,912 of 40,320. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39912 for what follows._

1510 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
document or to present it for registration.
We do not have the power of attorney
before us. Petitioner has not been able to
even allege that his cousins or any one of
them have raised some dispute regarding
dealing with their shares on the sale deed,
as could not be done in exercise of the
power. As such we presume that the
official act of the Sub-Registrar
in
registering the document (sale deed) was
pursuant to satisfaction obtained that the
power of attorney produced was a good and
valid one, to enable respondent no.3 to also
deal with the shares of respondent nos. 4
and 5. Clearly, Jugraj Singh (supra) is not
applicable.

10. In S.P. Velayutham (supra) the
Supreme Court said that where a party
questions only the failure of the registering
authority to perform his statutory duties in the
course of third step i.e. failure of the
registering authority to perform his statutory
duty, the High Court's jurisdiction to interfere
under article 226 in the Constitution of India
cannot be said to stand completely ousted. The
declaration has to be read like a demurrer. For
a party to challenge the act of the registering
authority, he must accept, inter alia, statements
in the power of attorney empowering the
person(s), to execute and present the document
for registration since he is only challenging the
discharge of statutory duty of the registering
authority. In that case there was a sale made by
the constituent attorney on strength of a power
of attorney that specifically excluded power to
sell. In such facts the Supreme Court said,
action of the authority was amenable to writ
jurisdiction. It reinforces our view that, to
challenge the official act there must be reliance
on the documents presented for registration.
As aforesaid, petitioner has not even taken
inspection of the power of attorney. Here,
petitioner disputes the power of attorney and
he is seeking to render the compulsorily
registerable sale deed, on the registration, if
cancelled, to be a document of little or no
consequence. We will not, in this way exercise
our writ jurisdiction to usurp that of the civil
Court. It follows, S.P. Velayutham (supra)
does not come to aid of petitioner.

11.
We
see
the
underlying
controversy between petitioner and unnoticed
private respondents to be civil in nature.
Petitioner must find his remedy. As
aforesaid, we will not be drawn into exercising
our writ jurisdiction.

12. The writ petition is disposed
of.

13. Registry will communicate
website copy of this order to respondent
nos. 3 and 6 as we have not noticed them in
dealing with the writ petition.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1510
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ C No. 31912 of 2018

C/M Janhit Madhyamik Vidyalaya & Anr.
 ....Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Ashok Khare (Sr. Adv.), Siddharth Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Pankaj Kumar Singh

Civil Law - U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972
-
Inclusion
in
Grant-in-Aid
List
-
Government Order dated 07.09.2006 -
Government Order dated 14.07.2020 -
5 All. C/M Janhit Madhyamik Vidyalaya & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1511
Petitioner's institution granted permanent
recognition in 1986 - Claim for grant-inaid wrongly rejected firstly on nonexistent ground of suspicious signature
and thereafter on unsustainable grounds
including appointment of two Class-IV
employees
-
Petitioner's
earlier
writ
ppetition No.66902 of 2009 allowed with
categorical positive direction that if there
is some optimum limit the petitioner shall
be adjusted against such institution or
alternative arrangement shall be made -
Despite that, respondents again rejected
claim which was quashed in Writ Petition
No.48835 of 2011 and special appeal
dismissed. Held : Claim was rejected on
grounds not sustainable in law, right of
petitioner crystallised under Government
Order dated 07.09.2006 and subsequent
Government
Order
dated
14.07.2020,
which provided that it was not feasible to
open a new institution or to establish a
new institution on grant-in-aid, could not
defeat such crystallised right, rejection on
pretext of new policy misconceived -
Once State Government had extended
benefit of grant-in-aid to similarly placed
institution
denial
to
petitioner
was
arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution. Impugned order set aside,
Special Secretary, Basic Education, U.P.
directed to take petitioner's institution on
grant-in-aid and provide full financial aid
forthwith - Writ petition allowed.

Allowed. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saral Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Aditendra
Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri Jitendra Narayan Rai, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State-respondents.

2. The petitioner by means of the
present writ petition has assailed the order
dated 13.10.2018 passed by the respondent
no.1-Special Secretary, Basic Education,
Government of U.P., Lucknow rejecting
the claim of petitioner for taking the
institution of petitioner on grant-in-aid.

3. The facts in brief are that there is
a Junior High School run under the name of
Janhit Madhyamik Vidyalaya Machha,
District Kanpur Dehat (hereinafter referred
to as 'institution'). The said institution was
granted temporary recognition as a Junior
High School by order dated 18.06.1981
followed by permanent recognition granted
by an order of the Assistant Director
(Basic), 4th Region, Allahabad.

4. The respondent no.2-Director of
Education (Basic), U.P., Lucknow issued a
notification inviting applications from the
desirous institutions for taking 1000
recognised Junior High Schools on grantin-aid. The Management of the institution
also applied in pursuance to the aforesaid
notification. The State Government on
02.12.2006 issued a Government Order
whereby 1000 Junior High Schools were
brought on grant-in-aid. However, the
name of petitioner's institution was not
included in the list appended to the said
Government
Order.
According
to
petitioner, the Regional Assistant Director
of Education (Basic) issued an order dated
04.01.2007 specifying the reasons for not
including the petitioner's institution on
grant-in-aid which contained recital that
signature on the order granting permanent
recognition appeared to be suspicious.

5. The petitioner further states that
the reason so assigned in the order dated
04.01.2007
was
non-existent
as
the
Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P.
Allahabad
vide
communication
dated
17.01.2007
verified
the
order
dated
24.10.1986 granting permanent recognition
to the petitioner's institution.
1512 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
6.
The
petitioner's
institution,
thereafter,
filed
a
representation
on
19.01.2007
before
the
Director
of
Education (Basic). When the aforesaid
representation was not paid heed to by the
authority,
the
petitioner's
institution
preferred a Writ Petition No.30719 of 2008
which was disposed off by this Court by
judgement and order dated 04.07.2008 with
a direction to the Director of Education to
decide representation of the petitioner dated
19.01.2007.

7.
Pursuant
to
the
aforesaid
judgement, the Director of Education
(Basic) proceeded to pass an order dated
31.12.2008 holding the institution entitled
to be included in the list of grant-in-aid and
forwarded
the
papers
to
the
State
Government for final orders.

8. When the matter remained
pending at the level of State Government
without any order being passed, the
petitioner's institution preferred another
Writ Petition No.37081 of 2009 which was
disposed off by this Court by judgement
and order dated 27.07.2009 directing the
State Government to take a decision. When
the
judgement
of
this
Court
dated
27.07.2009 in Writ Petition No.37081 of
2009 was not complied with, the petitioner
preferred Civil Misc. Contempt Petition
No.3947 of 2009. The said contempt
petition was disposed off by this Court by
judgement dated 04.11.2009.

9.
The
State
Government,
thereafter, proceeded to pass an order dated
13.11.2009 rejecting the claim of petitioner
for being brought on grant-in-aid. The
petitioner, thereafter, preferred Civil Misc.
Writ
Petition
No.66902
of
2009
challenging the order dated 13.11.2009
which was allowed by this Court by
judgement and order dated 18.02.2011.
This
Court
set
aside
the
State
Government's order dated 13.11.2009 and
remanded
the
matter
to
the
State
Government for fresh consideration.

10. The State Government after
remand proceeded to pass fresh order on
11.07.2011 and rejected the claim of
petitioner for being brought on grant-in-aid
list which led the petitioner to file Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No.48835 of 2011. The
said writ petition was decided by this Court
by judgement and order dated 27.08.2013
alongwith bunch of other writ petitions.

11. Perusal of the judgement dated
27.08.2013
discloses
that
this
Court
categorised the writ petitions into two
categories. The Writ Petition No.48835 of
2011 was categorised in the first category.
This Court recorded a finding in favour of
petitioner with regard to validity of
appointment of certain staff.

12.
The
judgement
dated
27.08.2013 was assailed in Special Appeals
before the Division Bench of this Court
leading of which was Special Appeal
Defective No.542 of 2014.

13. The judgement in the case of
petitioner in Writ Petition No.48835 of
2011 was subject matter of challenge in
Special Appeal Defective No.546 of 2014.
All the special appeals were jointly heard
and dismissed by the Division Bench by
judgement dated 11.09.2014.

14. The petitioner further stated
that after the judgement of the Division
Bench affirming the judgement of learned
Single Judge, the State Government by
order dated 03.01.2017 had taken another
institution in the name of 'Junior High
5 All. C/M Janhit Madhyamik Vidyalaya & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1513
School Roopan Chapra, Village & Post
Roopan Chapra, District Deoria' on grantin-aid.

15. When no decision was taken in
respect of petitioner's institution, the
petitioner preferred a representation before
the State Government. However, no action
was taken on the representation of the
petitioner.

16.
The
petitioner,
thereafter,
preferred Writ-C No.16477 of 2017 which
was disposed off by this Court by
judgement and order dated 24.05.2017
directing the State Government to decide
the representation of the petitioner within a
period of three months from the date of
production of certified copy of the order.

17. When the State Government
did not decide the representation of the
petitioner,
the
petitioner
preferred
Contempt Application (Civil) No.3417 of
2018 on which notices were issued by this
Court on 07.08.2018.

18. After issuance of notice in the
aforesaid contempt petition, the State
Government on 13.08.2018 rejected the
claim of petitioner by placing reliance upon
a judgement in Special Appeal Defective
No.994
of
2014.
The
order
dated
13.08.2018 further referred to a policy
decision of the State Government notified
by office order dated 13.07.2017 and
rejected the claim of petitioner on the
ground that under the existing policy, it
was not feasible to establish a new
institution or to take a new institution on
grant-in-aid.

19. In the counter affidavit, the State
Government stated that in the light of the order
dated 05.12.2014 passed in Special Appeal
Defective No.994 of 2014 (Paripurna Nand
Tripathi and Another Vs. State of U.P. and
Others) and in compliance of the order dated
05.11.2015 passed in Writ-C No.62182 of
2015 (Gram Vikash Sewa Samiti and Another
Vs. Union of India and Others), a new Policy
has been fixed vide Order No.1143/79-62017-Bha.Sa-27/2017 dated 13.07.2017. It is
further stated that the Policy dated 13.07.2017
was challenged in Writ Petition No.38992 of
2017 (Jairam Singh and Others Vs. State of
U.P. and Others).

20. The aforesaid writ petition
alongwith other writ petitions was decided by
this Court vide order dated 23.05.2019, and in
compliance thereof, for taking the recognised
institutions being run in the State of U.P. on
grant-in-aid list, the Government Order
No.499/Arsath-3-2020
Lucknow
dated
14.07.2020 was issued and under the said
policy, it is provided that it is not feasible to
take institution on grant-in-aid.

21. Challenging the impugned order,
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has
contended that petitioner's institution was
entitled to be taken on grant-in-aid under the
Government Order dated 07.09.2006. It is
contended that the petitioner's institution was
not taken on grant-in-aid on invalid grounds
due to which, the petitioner had to approach
this Court seven times, five times by filing writ
petition and two times by filing contempt
petitions. It is submitted that respondent had
earlier passed an order dated 13.11.2009
rejecting the claim of petitioner which led the
petitioner to file the Writ Petition No.66902 of
2009 which was allowed by this Court by
judgement and order dated 18.02.2011 and the
matter was remitted to the State Government
to consider the claim of petitioner afresh.

22. It is contended that respondent
again by order dated 11.07.2011 rejected
1514 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the claim of petitioner for being taken on
grant-in-aid on invalid grounds which again
led the petitioner to file Writ Petition
No.48835 of 2011 and thus, petitioner was
entitled for being taken on grant-in-aid
under
the
Government
Order
dated
07.09.2006. It is further contended that
since rights of the petitioner are governed
by earlier judgement passed by this Court
on 18.02.2011 in Writ Petition No.66902 of
2009 and judgement dated 27.08.2013 in
Writ Petition No.48835 of 2011, therefore,
rejection of claim of petitioner for taking
the institution on grant-in-aid on the ground
of Government Order dated 14.07.2020 is
not sustainable in law.

23. It is contended that rights of
petitioner to be taken on grant-in-aid
accrued under the Government Order dated
07.09.2006 and because of arbitrary action
of respondent-State in rejecting the claim
of petitioner on flimsy grounds, the
petitioner had to approach this Court seven
times, five times by filing writ petitions and
two times by filing contempt petitions.

24. Thus, in view of the aforesaid
fact, it is submitted that claim of petitioner
is to be considered under the Government
Order dated 07.09.2006, and it does not lie
in the mouth of respondent to reject the
claim of petitioner on the basis of
Government Order dated 14.07.2020 since
the
said
Government
Order
is
not
applicable in the case of petitioner.

25. It is further submitted that
action of respondent in denying the claim
of petitioner for taking the institution on
grant-in-aid is arbitrary and discriminatory
and is violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India inasmuch as the
institutions who were juniors to the
petitioner's institution had been taken on
grant-in-aid whereas petitioner's institution
had been denied the benefit of grant-in-aid
under
the
Government
Order
dated
07.09.2006.

26. It is further contended that even
after the judgement of this Court dated
27.08.2013 in bunch of writ petitions, the
State Government has granted the benefit
of grant-in-aid to one institution namely,
'Junior High School, Roopan Chapra,
Village & Post Roopan Chapra, District
Deoria', therefore, the action of respondent
in rejecting the claim of petitioner is
arbitrary and discriminatory and cannot be
sustained in law.

27. Per contra, learned counsel for
the respondents would contend that State
Government framed a policy by issuing a
Government Order dated 14.07.2020 in
pursuance
to
the
judgement
dated
23.05.2019 passed by this Court in Writ
Petition No.38992 of 2017 under which,
the Government had taken a decision that it
is not feasible to open a new institution or
to establish a new institution on grant-inaid. It is submitted that in such view of the
fact, there is no illegality in the impugned
order.

28. I have considered the rival
submissions of the parties and perused the
record.

29. The facts of the case have been
delineated above, therefore, they are not
being reiterated to unnecessarily burden the
judgement.

30. So far as the first submission of
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
that rights of petitioner's institution accrued
in the year 2006 as the institution was
wrongly denied the benefit of grant-in-aid
5 All. C/M Janhit Madhyamik Vidyalaya & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1515
under
the
Government
Order
dated
07.09.2006 is concerned, it is pertinent to
note
that
the
Assistant
Director
of
Education
(Basic),
Kanpur
Division,
Kanpur
by
letter
dated
04.01.2007
informed the petitioner that claim of
petitioner was not accepted under the
Government Order bearing शासनादेश सांख्या-
2010/79-6-7(2) 2006 dated 07.09.2006 on
the ground that signature on the order
granting permanent recognition appeared to
be suspicious. However, the record reveals
that the said ground was non-existence
inasmuch as the Secretary, Basic Shiksha
Parishad,
U.P.
Allahabad
by
communication dated 17.01.2007 verified
that petitioner's institution was granted
permanent
recognition
by
Divisional
Assistant Director of Education (Basic),
Kanpur Region, Kanpur. The relevant
extract of the order dated 17.01.2017 is
reproduced herein below:-

 "उक्त िे सम्बंध मे अवित िरािा है कि जिकहत
माध्यकमि कवद्यालय मांचा िािपुर देहात िो मान्यता मण्डलीय
सहायि कशिा किदेशि बेकसि इलाहाबाद द्वारा प्रदाि िी ियी है।
कजला बेकसि कशिा अकधिारी िािपुर देहात द्वारा पररिद िायाभलय
िो प्रस्तुत सूची जो पररिद िायाभलय िो मान्यता प्रमाण पत्र कििभत
िरिे हेतु प्रेकित िी ियी है उक्त सूची िे िमांि 43 पर जिकहत
माध्यकमि कवद्यालय मांचा िािपुर देहात िा िाम अंकित है तथा
पत्रांि 4962-96/86-81 कदिांि 24.10.86 िो मान्यता
कििभत कदखायी ियी है।

 िृपया उक्त िे अिुसार आप स्वयं अपिे स्तर से
मान्यता िे सत्यापि िे सम्बंध मे कियमािुसार आवश्यि िायभवाही
िरे।"

31. After the verification by the
Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P.
Allahabad, the petitioner approached the
authorities for taking the institution on
grant-in-aid and when no heed was paid,
the petitioner approached this Court by
filing Writ Petition No.30719 of 2008
which was disposed off by this Court with
a direction to the authority to consider the
claim of petitioner.

32. Thereafter, the Director of
Education (Basic) proceeded to pass an
order holding that institution is entitled to
be included in the grant-in-aid list and
forwarded
the
papers
to
the
State
Government to take final decision. When
the State Government did not take any
decision, petitioner again approached this
Court by filing Writ Petition No.37081 of
2009.

33.
Thereafter,
the
State
Government considered the claim of
petitioner by order dated 13.11.2009 and
rejected the same on the ground that after
promulgation of Government Order dated
02.07.1990, there can be only one post of
Class-IV employee in Junior High School
and since appointment had already been
made, therefore, subsequent appointment
on 16.07.1992 contravenes the State
Government's Order, therefore, petitioner
is not entitled for grant-in-aid as it violates
the terms of recognition and involves
financial complications.

34. The Order dated 13.11.2009
was challenged by the petitioner in Writ
Petition No.66902 of 2009. This Court did
not find the grounds of rejection in the
order dated 13.11.2009 sustainable in law
and set aside the same by judgement dated
18.02.2011 with further direction to the
State Government to consider the claim of
petitioner. Relevant extract of the order
dated 18.02.2011 is being reproduced
herein below:-

 "The institution has been in
existence for the last almost 30 years. The
date of permanent recognition has been
1516 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
verified and there is no invalidity on that
score. Had the petitioner beer considered
for award of grant-in-aid the petitioner
should have been included in accordance
with the date of grant of permanent
recognition and the petitioner was entitled
to the said benefit.

 It
is
also
urged
that
this
discriminatory attitude violates Article 14,
inasmuch as, the petitioner was non-suited
on an erroneous ground which stood
removed and then subsequently a new
ground has been raised.

 The issue relating to appointment
of two Class IV employees in 1992 has been
taken as an excuse for non-suiting the
petitioner as noted above whereas the
recognition of the petitioner is of 1986 when
the said Government Order was not in
existence. There is therefore no occasion to
construe that the recognition order has been
violated. At the best the two appointments
made in 1992 would not be entitled for the
benefit of grant-in-aid but the same cannot be
a ground to deny the availability of such a
benefit. The Recognition of the petitioner still
stands and if the institution continues to be
recognized then there is no reason as to why
the claim of the petitioner cannot be
considered. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed and the order dated 13th November
2009 is quashed.

 While deciding the dispute again
the respondent no.1 shall take into account
the fact that if there is some optimum limit
provided for the number of institutions
entitled for such benefit then the petitioner
will have to be adjusted as against such an
institution which has been extended such a
benefit in place of the petitioner or any
alternative arrangement shall be made."
35.
The
State
Government,
thereafter, again passed an order dated
11.07.2011 which was again challenged by
the petitioner by filing Writ Petition
No.48835 of 2009. The said writ petition
was allowed by this Court by judgement
and order dated 27.08.2013.

36. Against the judgement and
order dated 27.08.2013, the Special Appeal
Defective No.546 of 2014 was preferred
which was dismissed by this Court by
judgement dated 11.09.2014.

37. Now, from the aforesaid facts,
it is evident that the petitioner had been
pursuing his claim for being taken on grantin-aid since the issuance of Government
Order dated 07.09.2006, and claim of
petitioner was firstly rejected on invalid
ground that signature on the recognition
order was suspicious. The Secretary, Basic
Shiksha
Parishad,
U.P.,
Allahabad,
thereafter,
verified
the
order
dated
24.10.1986 granting permanent recognition
to
the
institution
and
issued
a
communication order dated 17.01.2007 that
the petitioner's institution was granted
permanent recognition. The relevant extract
of the communication dated 17.01.2007 has
already been extracted above.

38. Thereafter, second time by
order dated 13.11.2009, the claim of the
petitioner was rejected on a new ground
that since there can be only one post of
Class-IV employee in Junior High School,
therefore,
subsequent
appointment
on
Class-IV
employee
contravenes
and
violates the term of recognition order and
also involves financial implication. The
said ground was also not found sustainable
by this Court in Writ Petition No.66902 of
2009. Accordingly, this Court set aside the
5 All. C/M Janhit Madhyamik Vidyalaya & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1517
order dated 13.11.2009 by judgement and
order dated 18.02.2011.

39. It is pertinent to note that this
Court while remanding the matter to the
authority categorically in the underline
portion of the judgement dated18.02.2011,
extracted above, directed the authority that
if there is some optimum limit provided for
the number of institutions entitled for such
benefit, then the petitioner will have to be
adjusted as against such an institution
which has been extended such a benefit in
place of the petitioner or any other
alternative arrangement shall be made.

40. The aforesaid fact reveals that
in the judgement dated 18.02.2011, this
Court categorically recorded a positive
finding in favour of petitioner that
petitioner's institution shall be adjusted
against such an institution which has been
extended such a benefit in place of
petitioner
or
any
other
alternative
arrangement shall be made.

41. Despite the aforesaid positive
direction of this Court, the respondent
proceeded to again reject the claim of
petitioner by order dated 11.07.2011 which
order came to be challenged by the
petitioner in Writ Petition No.48835 of
2011 which writ petition was allowed and
special appeal against the same was
dismissed.

42. So before passing the order
dated 13.11.2018, the claim of petitioner
was rejected on one or other ground which
was not sustainable in law.

43. If the claim of petitioner had
not been rejected on the grounds not
sustainable
in
law,
the
petitioner's
institution was entitled to be taken on
grant-in-aid earlier and thus, petitioner
cannot be denied its claim for taking the
institution on grant-in-aid on the pretext of
introduction of new Policy vide Order
No.1143/79-6-2017-Bha.Sa-27/2017
through
Government
Order
dated
14.07.2020 as the petitioner's right to be
taken on grant-in-aid cyrstalised under the
Government Order 07.09.2006.

44. In this respect, it would be apt
to refer to a judgement of this Court in
Writ-C
No.44284
of
2011
(Uma
Maheshwar Primary Pathshala Vs. State of
U.P. and Others). Paragraph nos.16 and 17
of the said judgement are reproduced
herein below:-

 "16.
Having
considered
the
submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties as also on perusal of the record,
this Court is of the view that there are two
relevant aspects on which the impugned
order is silent. The first aspect is whether
the institutions that were earlier brought
under grant-in-aid list by order dated
31.03.1994 have been removed from the
grant-in-aid
list
pursuant
to
the
Government Order dated 05.10.2006 or
not. If, by subsequent Government Order
dated 05.10.2006, only fresh inclusion of
private institutions under the grant-in-aid
was stopped, but the earlier inclusion
already made continued to subsist, then the
cause of action for the petitioner-institution
to pursue its claim in terms of the earlier
order dated 21.09.2010 passed in Writ C
No. 15429 of 1994 survives, because it was
dependent on the alleged discrimination on
the part of the State Authorities in not
bringing the petitioner-institution under the
grant-in-aid
list
when
those
other
institutions, though similarly placed but
established after the petitioner-institution,
were brought under the grant-in-aid list.
1518 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The Government Order dated 05.10.2006
has been brought on record as Annexure
CAl
to
the
counter
affidavit
dated
20.12.2011. A perusal thereof, prima facie,
reveals that it does not seek to stop the
grant in aid to the institutions already
brought under the grant in aid list, but only
seeks to stop fresh induction of private
institutions under the grant in aid list.
Therefore, the above aspect was a relevant
consideration
which
has
escaped
consideration of the respondent no.1 while
passing the impugned order.

 17. The other aspect which
requires consideration is dependent on the
determination of the first aspect. If the
institutions that were brought under the
grant-in-aid list by order dated 31.03.1994
continue to receive grant-in-aid, then, if it
is found that the petitioner's institution was
wrongly deprived of being brought under
the grant-in-aid even though it was eligible
and
was
established
prior
to
the
establishment of those institutions that were
brought
under
the
grant-in-aid,
the
respondent No.1 was required to provide
the benefit to the petitioner institution in
terms of the order dated 21.09.2010 passed
in Writ-C No.15429 of 1994. Therefore,
while rejecting the representation of the
petitioner-institution a specific finding
ought to have been returned whether any
institution which was brought under the
grant-in-aid, vide order dated 31.3.1994,
was
established
after
the
petitionerinstitution or not or that its claim for some
reason was higher in priority than that of
the petitioner-institution at the time when
the
earlier
government
order
dated
31.03.1994 was issued. The impugned
order fails to record such finding."

45. Similarly, in Writ Petition
No.17883 of 2008, this Court allowed the
writ petition in an identical circumstances
where though petitioner was eligible to be
taken
on
grant-in-aid
under
the
Government Order dated 06.09.2006, but
was refused to be taken on grant-in-aid on
flimsy grounds. This Court approved the
right of petitioner for being taken on grantin-aid and directed the authorities to take
the
new
institution
on
grant-in-aid.
Relevant extract of the order dated
03.11.2017
passed
in
Writ
Petition
No.17883 of 2008 is reproduced herein
below:-

 "Having
heard
the
learned
counsel for the parties and after going
through the record, I am of the definite
view that the grant-in-aid should be made
available to the petitioners. From the
record, it is evident that ever since 2006
when the notification to bring certain
institutions
under
the
Aid
list
was
advertized, the petitioners were refused the
grant for virtually non-existent reasons. On
4.1.2007, the grant was refused because the
petitioners were running in addition to the
Junior High School Intermediate Classes.
When this confusion was cleared and the
writ petition challenging the order dated
4.1.2007 was allowed on 6.10.2007 then
the petitioners was refused the financial aid
on 28.2.2008 without considering the
report of the Basic Siksha Adhikari which
was dated 26.2.2008 and was in favour of
the petitioners and, therefore, the Court
had directed, on 11.4.2014, the respondent
no. 1 to pass fresh orders after looking into
the report dated 26.2.2008. When the
respondents on 16.7.2014 have again
passed the order saying that the petitioners
could not be granted the financial aid as
one thousands Schools which were to be
granted the Aid had already been granted
the same and that there was no further
budget available for giving the petitioners'
5 All. C/M Janhit Madhyamik Vidyalaya & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1519
institution Financial assistance then the
order was again challenged. It is apparent
that when the order dated 16.7.2014 has
been passed, the respondent no. 1 had not
seen the report of its own official dated
16.4.2012
which
said
that
7
more
institutions could be brought under the
grant-in-aid list.

 Be that as it may, even if all the
one thousand Institutions had been granted
the financial aid, the petitioners' institution
cannot be deprived of the financial aid. It
was very much eligible to be granted the
aid in the year 2006 itself. For reasons
which were absolutely not in existence the
petitioners were refused the aid on
4.1.2007 and on 28.2.2008. Now in the
year 2014 it did not lie in the mouth of the
respondents to say that all the one
thousand institutions had been granted the
aid and therefore the petitioners could not
get the aid.

 From the record, it is absolutely
clear that the petitioners have been vexed
for absolutely non-existent reasons. The
petitioners have been forced to challenge
three orders before this Court i.e. the
orders dated 4.1.2007, 28.2.2008 and
11.4.2014 and all because the respondent
no. 1 was passing orders without any
application
of
mind.
Definitely,
the
respondents are under an obligation to
grant aid to the petitioners as the Right of
Children
to
Free
and
Compulsory
Education
Act,
2009,
promises
free
education for all children up to the age of
14. Article 21-A of the Constitution of India
also
recognized
right
to
free
and
compulsory education to all children up to
the age of 14 as a Fundamental Right
under the Constitution of India and thus the
petitioners deserve to be provided the
financial aid.
 Under such circumstances, I
quash the order dated 26.2.2008 and the
order dated 16.7.2014 and also issue a writ
of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1
to provide full financial Aid to the
petitioners forthwith. Since the petitioners
have been made to run to this Court and
indulge in litigation ever since 2006, I feel
that that they should be compensated by the
respondent no. 1 by paying to them a sum
of Rs. 25,000/- within a period of one
month from the date of presentation of a
certified copy of this order.

 The writ petition is allowed with
costs."

46. Similarly, in Writ-A No.12733
of 2020, this Court while placing reliance
upon the judgement of this Court in Writ
Petition No.17883 of 2008 allowed the writ
petition and directed the institution to be
taken on grant-in-aid.

47. Thus, from the aforesaid fact
and in view of the law laid down in the
aforesaid judgements, this Court finds
substance in the submission of learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner that since
the petitioner's right for taking the
institution on grant-in-aid had crystallised
under
the
Government
Order
dated
07.09.2006, and there was a positive
direction of this Court while deciding the
Writ Petition No.66902 of 2009 that if
there is some optimum limit provided for
the number of institutions and petitioner is
entitled for such benefit, the petitioner will
have to be adjusted against such institution
which has been extended such benefit in
place of petitioner, therefore, rejection of
claim of petitioner on the ground that in
view of the Government Order 14.07.2020,
the petitioner cannot be extended the
benefit of grant-in-aid is misconceived
1520 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
more so when, there is no recitation in the
order dated 13.10.2018 that petitioner is not
eligible for being taken on grant-in-aid
under
the
Government
Order
dated
07.09.2006.

48. So far as the other contention
of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
that action of respondent is arbitrary and
discriminatory is concerned, learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner has placed
reliance upon the assertions made in
paragraph nos.9 and 23 of the writ petition,
which are being reproduced herein below:-

 "9. That on 02.12.2006 the State
Government issued a Government Order
whereby 1000 Junior High Schools were
brought on the grant-in-aid. In the list
appended to the said government order the
name of the present institution was
however not included. This is despite the
fact that institutions having date of
permanent recognition on much subsequent
dates than the petitioner institution stood
included in the Government Order.

 23. That a certified copy of the
aforesaid judgement was filed before the
State Authorities. However, no orders have
been passed with regard to the petitioners
institution till date. This is despite the fact
that in pursuance to the same judgement of
Single Judge as affirmed by Division Bench
State Government has by order dated
03.01.2017 taken on grant-in-aid an
institution under the name of Junior High
School Roopan Chapra, Village & Post
Roopan Chapra, District Deoria on the
grant-in-aid."

49. Paragraph nos.9 & 23 of the
writ petition have been replied by the
respondents in paragraph nos.10 and 25
of the rejoinder affidavit, which are
reproduced herein below:-

 "10. That the aforesaid Writ
Petition along with other Writ Petitions
were decided by this Hon'ble Court vide
order
dated
23.05.2019
and
in
compliance
thereof,
for
taking
the
recognized institutions being run in the
State of U.P. into grant in aid list, vide
Government
Order
No.499/Arsath-32020,
Lucknow,
dated
14.07.2020,
following
policy
has
been
determined/fixed:-

 "प्रस्तर-8 "प्राथकमि कशिा िे मान्यता प्राप्त
असहाकयि कवद्यालयों िे संबंध में कवित विों िी स्थाकपत िीकत
िा पुिाभवलोिि किया िया। सम्यि् कवचारोपरान्त पाया िया कि
सम्प्रकत प्राथकमि कशिा िी िुणवत्ता में सुधार किये जािे एवं जो
कवद्यालय से पूवभ में स्थाकपत है उन्हें आधारर्ूत सुकवधायें उपलब्ध
िराते हुए कविकसत किया जािा आवश्यि है कजससे कवद्यालयों में
शैकिि िुणवत्ता में सुधार हो सिे। इस हेतु छात्र संख्या िे
आधार पर अध्यापिों िी तैिात (समायोजि), छात्रों एवं
अध्यापिों िी कियकमत उपकस्थकत, पठि-पाठि िा कियकमत
अिुश्रवण किया जाये, कजससे छात्र-छात्राओं िे अकधिमस्तर में
वृकद्ध हो सिे। यकद िये कवद्यालयों िो अिुदाि पर कलया जायेिा
तो किकश्चत रूप से राज्य सरिार पर कवत्तीय व्यय र्ार पडेिा और
पूवभ संचाकलत कवद्यालयों में आधारर्ूत सुकवधाएं व शैकिि
िुणवत्ता िे सुधार हेतु अन्य योजिाएं प्रर्ाकवत होंिी। अतः िये
किजी कवद्यालयों िो अिुदाि पर लेिा उकचत िहीं है। अतः
प्राथकमि कशिा में िवीि पररिदीय कवद्यालय स्थाकपत किया
जािा अथवा किजी कवद्यालयों िो अिुदाकित किया जािा
समीचीि िहीं पाया िया है।"

 25.
That
the
contents
of
paragraph no.23 of the writ petition are
matter of record and hence do not call for
any reply. In the Letter No.18/79-6-2017,
dated 03.01.2017 issued by the Special
Secretary, Government of U.P., there is a
clear direction that the above order shall
not be treated to be the example for other
matter."
5 All. Laxmi Objection Filed Appropriate Bench & Ors. Vs. U.P. Zila Adhikari/Sub-Divisional
 Officer Misrikh Sitapur & Ors.
1521
50. From the contents of paragraph
nos.10 & 25 of the counter affidavit, it is
evident that respondents have not denied the
specific averments made by the petitioner
that institution junior to the petitioner have
been granted benefit of grant-in-aid. Further,
the respondent in paragraph no.25 of the
counter affidavit admits that the institution
namely 'Junior High School Roopan Chapra,
Village & Post Roopan Chapra, District
Deoria' has been granted recognition.
However, the only excuse which they have
taken is that there is clear stipulation in the
Government Order 03.01.2017 that above
order shall not be treated to be the example
for other matters.

51. This Court may note that such
direction in the order dated 03.01.2017 cannot be
sustained in law inasmuch as the State
Government has no right to discriminate two
identically placed persons. In the present case,
once State Government has granted the benefit
of grant-in-aid to similarly placed institution
namely, 'Junior High School Roopan Chapra,
Village & Post Roopan Chapra, District Deoria',
the State Government cannot deny the said
benefit to the petitioner's institution on the
pretext that the Special Secretary, Government of
U.P. in the order dated 03.01.2017 has stated that
this shall not be treated as an example for other
cases.

52. Thus, it is evident that the action of
the respondents in not taking the petitioner's
institution on grant-in-aid is arbitrary and is
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India, therefore, impugned order cannot be
sustained in law for this reason also.

53. Normally this Court would have
remanded the matter to the authority to consider
the claim afresh, but in the instant case, as
already stated above that petitioner had been
contesting since 2009 and had to approach this
Court for seven times prior to filing of present
writ petition, therefore, this Court does not find it
appropriate to remand the matter to the authority
concerned to take a fresh decision.

54. It is also pertinent to note that this
Court has already held above that petitioner's
right to be taken on grant-in-aid has crystallised
under the Government Order dated 07.09.2006,
and the impugned order has not been passed on
the ground that petitioner is not eligible to be
taken on grant-in-aid under the Government
Order dated 07.09.2006 rather a new ground has
been set up that petitioner cannot be extended the
benefit of grant-in-aid on the pretext of new
Government Order dated 14.07.2020, therefore,
in such view of the fact, it would not be
appropriate to remand the matter to the authority
concerned.

55. Thus, for the reasons given above,
this Court set aside the impugned order and
directs the Respondent no.1-Special Secretary,
Basic Education, Government of U.P., Lucknow
to take petitioner's institution on grant-in-aid and
provide full financial aid to the petitioner
forthwith.

56.