# C/M, Purvanchal Prachya Ved Vidyaly, Deoria v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 9 ILRA 1133
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 27118 of 2018
- **Bench:** Neeraj Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/c-m-purvanchal-prachya-ved-vidyaly-deoria-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47352
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

1134 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A. Sanskrit Institution - Application for
taking institution in Grant in aid list -
Deficiencies
found
in
application
-
petitioner removed deficiencies within
time
-
despite
that
Institution
not
included in list - Held- where application
is invited fixing a last date for submission
and
after
receiving
the
application,
notices are issued to remove deficiencies,
if any, within certain time - In case,
deficiencies so pointed out, has been
removed
by
the
person/Institution
concerned
within
the
time
given,
application cannot be rejected on the
ground that deficiencies are removed
after last date of submission of form,
otherwise purpose of issuance of notice
for removing the deficiencies would be
frustrated and it would be a futile
exercise only. (Para 16)

B.
Administrative
Law
-
Once
an
application is rejected on one or more
grounds by the Competent Authority, if
after challenge, rejection order is set
aside by the Appellate Authority/Court
and matter is remanded back to pass
fresh order - Competent Authority would
have no right to reject the same again on
a different ground/grounds which were
available at the time of first rejection
order - Competent Authority is required
to take all such grounds of rejection in its
rejection order available at the time of
passing rejection order, otherwise it
would be unending process resulting into
the harassment of applicant (Para 17)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited :

## Text

9 All C/M Purvanchal Prachya Ved Vidyaly, Deoria Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1133
view of the said general legal principle, it is
immaterial whether or not the Government
has enforced Section 135 (U.P. Cooperative
Societies Act) because, in any case the said
provision (Section 135) had been included
in the Act only by way of clarification and
abundant caution."

12. Similarly, the jurisdiction of the
prescribed authority under the Payment of
Wages Act, 1936, to entertain the claims of
an employee of the Co-operative Society
who is governed by the U.P. Co-operative
Societies Act, 1965, was ousted in Sikta
Mahoogarh
Sadhan
Sahkari
Samiti
Limited Vs. Prescribed Authority under
the Payement of Wages Act, 1936 and
others4, in view of the law laid down in
Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank (supra), this
Court opined as under:

"19. Be that as it may, I am
clearly of the opinion that issue in question
stands covered by judgment of Apex Court
in Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank (supra)
and therefore, since no Labour Laws would
be applicable in respect to service dispute
of an employee and cooperative society
inter se, Prescribed Authority, under Act,
1936, had no jurisdiction to entertain an
application under Section 15 and therefore,
impugned orders are patently illegal and
without jurisdiction."

13. In this case the services and rights
of the respondent no. 5 are governed
exclusively by the provisions of U.P.
Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the
Uttar
Pradesh
High
Schools
and
Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries
of Teachers and Other employees) Act,
1971.
Both
the
enactments
are
comprehensive in nature and squarely
cover the dispute before the labour court.
The law laid down in Ghaziabad Zila
Sahkari Bank (supra) as well as Sikta
Mahoogarh (supra) will be squarely
applicable to the facts to this case. The
jurisdiction of the labour court and the
Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
in the facts of this case was ousted by
virtue of the operation of the UP
Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the
Uttar
Pradesh
High
Schools
and
Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries
of Teachers and Other employees) Act,
1971.

14. In wake of the preceding
discussion, the labour court exceeded its
jurisdiction by passing the impugned award
dated
27.04.2015.
The
award
dated
27.04.2015
and
the
consequential
proceedings taken out under Section 6H(1)
of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, are liable to be set aside and are
set aside.

15. The writ petition is allowed.
----------
(2021)09ILR A1133
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.

Writ C No. 27118 of 2018

C/M, Purvanchal Prachya Ved Vidyaly,
Deoria ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Uma Nath Pandey, Sri Ashok Kumar
Tripathi (Now Sri Ashok Tripathi)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
1134 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A. Sanskrit Institution - Application for
taking institution in Grant in aid list -
Deficiencies
found
in
application
-
petitioner removed deficiencies within
time
-
despite
that
Institution
not
included in list - Held- where application
is invited fixing a last date for submission
and
after
receiving
the
application,
notices are issued to remove deficiencies,
if any, within certain time - In case,
deficiencies so pointed out, has been
removed
by
the
person/Institution
concerned
within
the
time
given,
application cannot be rejected on the
ground that deficiencies are removed
after last date of submission of form,
otherwise purpose of issuance of notice
for removing the deficiencies would be
frustrated and it would be a futile
exercise only. (Para 16)

B.
Administrative
Law
-
Once
an
application is rejected on one or more
grounds by the Competent Authority, if
after challenge, rejection order is set
aside by the Appellate Authority/Court
and matter is remanded back to pass
fresh order - Competent Authority would
have no right to reject the same again on
a different ground/grounds which were
available at the time of first rejection
order - Competent Authority is required
to take all such grounds of rejection in its
rejection order available at the time of
passing rejection order, otherwise it
would be unending process resulting into
the harassment of applicant (Para 17)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited :

1. C/M Pt. Janardhan Mani Sri Krishnadeo Mani
Sri Durga Maa Vs St. of U.P. & ors. Writ- C No.
13179

2. Shishu Vidya Mandir Koiripur, Block Pratappur
Kamaicha,
District
Sultanpur
through
its
Manager Vs St. of U.P. & ors. Writ Petition No.
5704 (M/S) of 2016

(Delivered by Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard Sri Uma Nath Pandey and
Sri Ashok Tripathi, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Dr. D.K. Tiwari, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State-respondents.

2. Present petition has been filed for
quashing the order dated 24.5.2018 passed
by the respondent no.1 and further directing
the respondent no.1 to take the petitioner
Institution in grant-in-aid list in pursuance
of the Government Orders dated 7.2.2014
and 11.2.2014.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that there is society in the name
of Purvanchal Prachya Shiksha Samiti duly
registered under the Societies Registration
Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as Act,
1860). The said society is running an
educational institution in the name of
Purvanchal
Prachya
Ved
Vidyalay,
Bharauli, Lar Road (hereinafter referred to
as Institution) established in the year 19911992
and
having
affiliation
with
Sampuranand
Sanskrit
University,
Varanasi. The aforesaid Institution was
granted permanent recognition in the year
1994.

4. He next submitted that Government
Orders dated 7.2.2014 & 11.2.2014 have
been issued inviting application from
Sanskrit Institution having recognition upto
December, 2000 for taking the Institution
in grant-in-aid list. For the said purpose,
two committees were constituted to make
recommendation one is Regional Level
Committee and another is State Level
Committee. Accordingly, petitioner has
submitted an application on 10.6.2014 for
taking his Institution in grant-in-aid list as
per aforesaid Government Orders. The
Regional Level Committee recommended
the name of petitioner's Institution at serial
9 All C/M Purvanchal Prachya Ved Vidyaly, Deoria Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1135
no. 7 to State Level Committee on
25.11.2014 for being brought the Institution
in grant-in-aid list. The State Level
Committee consider the application of
petitioner and found certain deficiencies for
which
through
D.I.O.S.,
letter
dated
9.2.2015 was issued to petitioner to remove
deficiency. Deficiency mentioned against
the
petitioner's
Institution
is
that
endowment fund was not arranged. For
removal of that, petitioner was granted
three days time and accordingly petitioner
has submitted reply on 24.2.2015 removing
the deficiency so pointed out. After
receiving the reply, State Level Committee
made
its
recommendation.
Recommendation was made into two parts,
in the first part 84 institutions were
recommended and in the second part, 71
institutions were recommended wherein the
name of petitioner's Institution has been
mentioned at serial no.23, but even after
that, no decision was taken on the
application of the petitioner. Therefore,
petitioner filed Writ-C No. 20817 of 2016
before this Court, which was disposed of
vide order dated 6.5.2016 with direction to
respondents to take appropriate decision
within three months. Even after order of the
Court, no decision was taken and petitioner
has no option, but to file contempt petition.
Upon which, to show compliance of the
order passed by the writ Court, order dated
5.8.2016 has been passed by Joint Director
of
Education,
Gorakhpur
Region,
Gorakhpur on the ground that as per report
dated 9.6.2016, State Level Committee has
not
recommended
the
petitioner's
Institution to bring on grant-in-aid list.
Thereafter, petitioner has again challenged
the order dated 9.6.2016 by filing Writ-C
No. 9603 of 2017 (C/M Purvanchal
Prachaya Ved Vidyalaya Thru' Its Manager
Vs. State of U.P. & 4 others). After hearing
the writ petition, Court has directed for
personal
appearance
of
Director
of
Education
(Secondary)
alongwith
supplementary counter affidavit on the next
date fixed. On the date fixed, in the
presence
of
Director
of
Education
(Secondary),
supplementary
counter
affidavit was perused by the Court and
Court is of the view that contention raised
in the impugned order dated 9.6.2016 is not
correct.
There
is
nothing
like
not
recommending the petitioner's Institution
by the State Level Committee rather
recommended the Institution.

5. This Court has set aside the order
dated 5.8.2016 and remanded the matter
back for passing fresh order. Petitioner has
served the order and thereafter, impugned
order has been passed. He next submitted
that impugned order has been passed only
on the ground that petitioner has not
submitted the endowment fund within the
time prescribed in Government Order. He
also submitted that it is nothing but an
attempt to frustrate the order of this Court.
After submission of application very first
time, very same deficiency was pointed out
by the D.I.O.S. for the letter dated 9.2.2015
and same was also removed by the
petitioner vide order letter 24.2.2015. After
that, recommendation was made by the
State Level Committee vide order dated
24.3.2015. Earlier, the very same issue as
to whether the State Level Committee
recommended the case of petitioner or not,
was very well considered by this Court in
Writ-C No. 9603 of 2017 and Court is of
the view that it was a recommendation,
which also includes the removal of
deficiency so pointed out in present
impugned order. Therefore, at this stage,
once the time was granted to petitioner to
remove the deficiency, he has removed the
same and after considering the same matter
was recommended, very same deficiency
1136 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
cannot be raised again as it will be treated
to be removed within the time otherwise it
was required on the part of petitioner to
reject the application instead of issuing the
letter dated 9.2.2015 granting three days
time to remove the same. He lastly
submitted that under such facts and
circumstances, order may be quashed and
writ petition be allowed with heavy costs as
petitioner is being harassed for no reason
time and time again.

6. In support of his contention,
learned counsel for the petitioner has
placed reliance upon the judgment of this
Court in the case of C/M Pt. Janardhan
Mani Sri Krishnadeo Mani Sri Durga
Maa vs. State of U.P. and 4 others passed
in Writ- C No. 13179 in which educational
Institution for grant-in-aid was rejected on
three grounds and one of the ground was
endowment fund with the recognized
University was not available. This Court
after considering the facts allowed the
petition with the observation that once the
endowment fund is provided, proposal for
taking the Institution in grant-in-aid list
cannot be rejected.

7. He also placed reliance upon the
judgment of this Court in the matter of
Shishu Vidya Mandir Koiripur, Block
Pratappur Kamaicha, District Sultanpur
through its Manager Vs. State of U.P. And
others in Writ Petition No. 5704 (M/S) of
2016. In that case too, issue of grant-in-aid
was involved and respondents are taking
new
grounds
on
every
occasion.
Ultimately, Court after taking note of this,
allowed the petition.

8. Learned Standing Counsel though
vehemently opposed, but could not
dispute the facts raised as well as
judgment relied by the learned counsel
for the petitioner. He only submitted that
petitioner has submitted the endowment
fund only after issuance of letter dated
9.2.2015 and not alongwith application
form before the cut off date i.e. 30.4.2014
provided in Government Order.

9. I have considered the rival
submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties and perused the
record as well as judgment relied by the
learned counsel for the petitioner. The
contention raised by learned counsel for
the petitioner is getting full support from
the record and could not be disputed by
the learned standing counsel. It is
apparent that on the first occasion,
application
of
petitioner
was
not
considered for which he has approached
this Court by filing Writ- C No. 20817 of
2016 and in haste manner, an order dated
5.8.2016 has been passed on non existent
ground as it was not found correct in
second writ petition i.e. Writ- C No.9603
of
2017
filed
by
the
petitioner
challenging the order dated 5.8.2019.
Relevant portions of said judgment are
being quoted below:-

"A perusal of the letter/report
dated 9th June, 2016 (Annexure-SCA'1' to
the supplementary affidavit), which is at
page 10, would reveal that there appears
nothing specific in the report which may
indicate that the Institution was not liable
to be taken on grant-in-aid list although
there is a statement that the teaching staff
of the Institution up to the extent of
Principal and five Assistant Teachers could
be brought on grant-in-aid whereas the
remaining staff would have to be paid
salary from the management's own sources.
But there appears no adverse comment
which may enable the authority to conclude
that there was a negative report against the
9 All C/M Purvanchal Prachya Ved Vidyaly, Deoria Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1137
Institution in respect of its claim for being
brought on grant-in-aid list.

That
apart
there
is
no
consideration of the State Level Committee
report dated 27th July, 2016, which finds
mention in the document which has been
appended at page 95 of the paper book.

In view of the above, this Court is
of the view that the order dated 5th August,
2016 (Annexure-'13' to the petition) has been
passed by the State Government in hurry
without properly applying its mind to various
reports which were there on record.

Accordingly, the order dated 5th
August, 2016 is liable to be set aside and is
accordingly set aside. The State Government
shall shall accord fresh consideration to the
request of the petitioner Institution for being
brought on grant-in-aid list in accordance
with law keeping in mind all the relevant
reports including one that has been noticed
here-in-above. Fresh exercise shall be
completed preferably within a period of two
months from the date of furnishing certified
copy of this order upon the first respondent.

The petition stands allowed to the
extent indicated above."

10. It is also undisputed that at the time
of submission of application, petitioner was
granted three days time to remove the
deficiency of endowment fund, which was
very well removed by the petitioner and after
that State Level Committee recommended the
petitioner's Institution for having in grant-inaid list.

11. Therefore, at this stage, there is no
occasion to reiterate ground of deficiency
of endowment fund with intention to reject
the petitioner application again, therefore,
order is bad and liable to be set aside.

12. I have perused the judgment of
this Court in the matter of C/M Pt.
Janardhan Mani Sri Krishnadeo Mani Sri
Durga Maa (supra) relied upon by the
learned counsel for the petitioner. In that
case too, the application of petitioner was
rejected on three grounds: (i) the applicant
Institution
had
to
be
a
recognized
Institution; (ii) it had to see that the
endowment fund with the recognising
University
was
there
and
(iii)
the
Committee of Management which was
running the Institution had given its
consent that the college be included in
grant-in-aid. Relevant portions of the said
judgment are being quoted hereinbelow:-

"So far as the defect with regard
to the endowment fund was concerned,
learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the College had submitted the
endowment
fund
of
Rs.3000/-
and,
therefore, the defect had very much been
removed. Further the consent of the
Committee
of
Management
of
the
Institution was also very much there on
record.

Under such circumstances, the
order dated 4.3.2016 passed by the State of
Uttar Pradesh is quashed and a writ of
mandamus is being issued that petitionerInstitution be brought in grant-inaid list
forthwith and the grant be provided to the
College within three months from the date
of presentation of a certified copy of this
order.

The writ petition is, accordingly,
allowed."

13. Court after returning the finding
that deficiency of endowment fund was
removed by the College concerned and
allowed the writ petition with direction to
1138 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
respondent-authority to take petitioner's
Institution in grant-in-aid list forthwith.

14. I have also considered and perused the
judgment of this Court in the matter of Shishu
Vidya Mandir, Koiripur (supra). This matter
was also related to the grant-in-aid and Court
after considering the same allowed the petition.
Relevant portion of the said judgment is being
quoted hereinbelow:-

"I find that on every occasion new
grounds have been taken which were only to be
discarded and rejection after examination by
this Hon'ble Court. Through present counter
affidavit the opposite parties have not been able
to stand the test of fairness and judicial
scrutiny......."

15. In the present case too, situation is
same for one reason or other, respondents are
rejecting the application of petitioner for grantin-aid, which is getting full support from this
judgment. Therefore, in light of judicial
pronouncements made by this Court, order
impugned is bad and liable to be set aside.

16. In such matters, where application is
invited fixing a last date for submission and
after receiving the application, notices were
issued to remove deficiencies, if any, within
certain time. In case, deficiencies so pointed
out, has been removed by the person/Institution
concerned within the time given, application
cannot be rejected on the ground that
deficiencies are removed after last date of
submission of form, otherwise purpose of
issuance of notice for removing the deficiencies
would be frustrated and it would be a futile
exercise only.

17. Further, once an application is
rejected on one or more grounds by the
Competent Authority. After challenge, rejection
order
is
set
aside
by
the
Appellate
Authority/Court and matter is remanded back to
pass fresh order. Competent Authority would
have no right to reject the same again on a
different ground/grounds which were available
at the time of first rejection order. It is required
on the part of Competent Authority to take all
such grounds of rejection in its rejection order
available at the time of passing rejection order,
otherwise it would be unending process
resulting into the harassment of applicant.

18. Therefore under such facts and
circumstances of the case as well as legal
position settled by this Court, the writ petition is
allowed and order dated 24.5.2018 passed by
the respondent no.1 is hereby quashed. In usual
course, matter may be remanded back for
passing fresh order, but considering this fact
that it is fourth round of litigation as well as in
light of judgment of this Court in the matter of
Shishu Vidya Mandir, Koiripur (supra),
respondent no.1 is directed to bring the
petitioner's Institution in grant-in-aid list
forthwith and grant be provided within three
months from the date of production of
computer generated copy of this order after
verifying the same from the official website of
Allahabad High Court.

19. No order as to costs.
----------
(2021)09ILR A1138
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR OJHA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2678 of 2021

Munnu & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellants: