# C/m Raj Dutta Shukla Purva Madhyamik v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2022) 9 ILRA 565
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-09-14
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 1005661 of 2008
- **Bench:** Irshad Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/c-m-raj-dutta-shukla-purva-madhyamik-v-state-of-u-p-49087
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

C.S.C., Deepak Srivastava

A. Educational institution - Grant-in-aid
list - Enlisting - GO dated 07.09.2006 -
Principle of natural justice - Non-supply
of report - No opportunity of hearing to
rebut it - Effect - Reliance on a report
which was obtained subsequent to the
566 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
date of hearing, how far permissible -
High Court found the impugned order
rejecting claim of enlisting the institution
in grant-in-aid list in violation of the
principles of natural justice as it places
reliance on a report dated 10.06.2008,
which was obtained subsequent to the
date of hearing which happened on
31.12.2007 without giving the said report
to the petitioner or permitting him to
rebut the same - Order impugned could
not
have
been
passed
which
has
occasioned in violation of the principles of
natural justice. (Para 25)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-

## Text

9 All. C/m Raj Dutta Shukla Purva Madhyamik Vs. State of U.P.
565
adequate compliance of the requirements as
prescribed under the Regulation 8(4)(i) of
the Regulations 2014.

14. The Supreme Court in the case of
J. K. Industries Limited vs. Union of
India;
(2007)
13
SCC
673,
while
interpreting the scope of Rules made in
exercise
of
the
delegated
legislation
recorded as under :

"Apart from the grounds referred to by
this Court in the above judgment in the
case of Indian Express Newspaper, it is
important to bear in mind that where the
validity of subordinate legislation is
challenged, the question to be asked is
whether the power given to the rule making
authority (in the present case the Central
Government under section 642 (1) of the
Companies Act) is exercised for the
purpose for which it is given. Before
reaching the conclusion that the Rule is
intra vires (we have to begin with the
presumption that the Rule is intra vires),
the court has to examine the nature, object
and the scheme of the legislation as a
whole and in that context, the court has to
consider what is the Area over which
powers are given by the section under
which the Rule Making Authority is to act.
However, the court has to start with the
presumption that the impugned Rule is
intra vires. This approach means that, the
Rule has to be read down only to save it
from being declared ultra vires if the court
finds in a given case that the above
presumption stands rebutted."

15. In the present case, as the
petitioner has a registered lease in his
favour and is running a B.Ed. course in the
same institution and same premises for
which recognition has been granted by
NCTE under same regulation, the order
impugned
denying
the
benefit
of
recognition solely based upon the petitioner
not having a registered Government lease
in his favour cannot be justified, as such,
the impugned orders dated 15.02.2018 and
13.08.2018 are set aside. The respondents
are directed to process the application of
the petitioner treating the registered lease
deed in his favour to be a valid document
as required under Regulation 8(4)(1) of the
NCTE
Regulations,
2014.
The
said
decision shall be taken in accordance with
law within a period of three months. The
said direction shall be subject to the
petitioner fulfilling all the requirements of
deposit of requisite fee etc. that may be
required to be paid.

16. The writ petition stands disposed
off with the said observations.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 565
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ-C No. 1005661 of 2008

C/m Raj Dutta Shukla Purva Madhyamik
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sanjay Misra, Girish Chandra Verma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Deepak Srivastava

A. Educational institution - Grant-in-aid
list - Enlisting - GO dated 07.09.2006 -
Principle of natural justice - Non-supply
of report - No opportunity of hearing to
rebut it - Effect - Reliance on a report
which was obtained subsequent to the
566 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
date of hearing, how far permissible -
High Court found the impugned order
rejecting claim of enlisting the institution
in grant-in-aid list in violation of the
principles of natural justice as it places
reliance on a report dated 10.06.2008,
which was obtained subsequent to the
date of hearing which happened on
31.12.2007 without giving the said report
to the petitioner or permitting him to
rebut the same - Order impugned could
not
have
been
passed
which
has
occasioned in violation of the principles of
natural justice. (Para 25)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-
1. Writ C No. 66100 of 2006; C/M Adarsh Janta
Junior High School Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
2. Committee of Management Vs St. of U.P. &
ors.; (1994) 2 UPLBED 1127
3. Writ C No. 4735 of 2017; C/M Ram Daun
Ram Raj Pre-Secondary School & anr. decided
on 27.02.2019
4. Writ-C No.24767 of 2018; C/M Sri Satya
Narain Junior High School & ors. Vs St. of U.P. &
ors. decided on 16.11.2021
5. Writ C No. 1000923 of 2011; C/M Chandra
Shekhar Azad Junior High School Lucknow Vs
St. of U.P. & ors. decided on 15.07.2022
6. Writ C No.66100 of 2006; C/M Adarsh Janta
Junior High School Vs St. of U.P. & ors. decided
on 13.02.2013
(Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.)

1. Heard Sri G.C. Verma, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj
Kumar Shukla, learned Additional Chief
Standing
Counsel
(A.C.S.C.)
for
respondent - State.

2. This writ petition has been filed
seeking a direction in the nature of
certiorari quashing the impugned order
dated 16.06.2008 issued by respondent
No.1, whereby the representation filed by
the petitioner - Committee of Management
has been rejected.

3. Brief fact of the case is that the
institution in question, namely, Raj Dutta
Shukla
Purva
Madhyamik
Vidyalaya
Sarauli, Amaniganj, Faizabad was granted
recognition in the year 1982 and posts of
teaching and non-teaching staff were
sanctioned by the competent authority and
were filled up in accordance with law and
in pursuance thereof, appointment letters to
the respective appointments were issued on
10.08.1984.

4. The petitioner raised an objection
against the inspection report by which the
institution was not found suitable for taking
into grant-in-aid list by submitting khatauni
of khasra Nos.1408, 1413 & 1414.

5. On 07.09.2006, a Government
Order has been issued, which substantiates
the case of the petitioner. On 03.11.2006,
another objection was raised by the
petitioner and explanation to the same was
submitted on 10.11.2006.

6. On 01.12.2006, the District
Inspector of Schools (DIOS) submitted a
report supporting the institution to be
enlisted into grant-in-aid list. Subsequently,
vide order dated 02.12.2006 Government
itself took a decision to enlist the institution
into grant-in-aid list on the basis of
permanent recognition granted and District
Level Committee as well as Regional Level
Committee submitted its report in the
matter but no heed was paid by the
respondents.

7. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Writ
Petition No.6234 (M/S) of 2007, which was
finally disposed of with a direction to the
respondents to take final decision within a
9 All. C/m Raj Dutta Shukla Purva Madhyamik Vs. State of U.P.
567
period of one month from the date of order
of this Court.

8. Against non-compliance of the
aforesaid judgment and order, the petitioner
filed a contempt petition. Thereafter, vide
order
dated
04.01.2007,
the
Assistant
Director,
Basic
Education
Department
rejected claim of the petitioner. The petitioner
submitted a representation in regard to its
claim on 18.01.2007 & 20.01.2007 and in
pursuance
thereof,
a
Regional
Level
Committee was constituted on 17.05.2007. In
pursuance thereof, the claim of the petitioner
has been rejected vide impugned order dated
16.06.2008. Hence, the present writ petition
has been instituted before this Court.

9. Submission of learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the petitioner is running
the institute in the name of Raj Dutta Shukla
Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, which was
granted temporary recognition on 21.04.1982
and a permanent recognition on 23.03.1985.
It is submitted that although the institution of
the petitioner was recognized, the same was
not having the fruits of grant-in-aid. The State
Government with a view to bring certain
institutions under grant-in-aid issued a
Government Order on 07.09.2006, wherein a
decision was taken for bringing certain
institutions under grant-in-aid, who were
fulfilling the criteria as specified from serial
No.1 to Serial No.8 in the said Government
Order. The said Government Order also
provided timeline for the institutions to file
their applications, which were to be disposed
of according to the time schedule as
specified. Clause-3 of the said Government
Order also created the committees at the
directorate level as well as at the regional
level comprising of a person as specified,
who were to verify and to recommend the
applications for bringing the institutions
under grant-in-aid list.

10. In pursuance to the aforesaid
Government Order, it is claimed that the
institution of the petitioner filed an
application before the District Level
Committee
and
the
said
committee
recommended the case of petitioner's
institution for being considered to be
brought under grant-in-aid (contained as
Annexure No.-2 to the petition).

11. It is also submitted that the
recommendation, as made in favour of the
petitioner, came up for consideration before
the Regional Level Committee, wherein
one objection was raised against the
application of the petitioner, which is
contained in Annexure No.10 to the writ
petition. The said objection was that
approval of the appointment made with
regard to clerk was not available in the
records.

12. It is submitted by the petitioner that
on 10.11.2006, the said objection was duly
removed by the petitioner. On the said
objection, it is submitted that the District
Basic Education Officer sent a letter / report
to the State Government, in which it was
admitted that due to clerical mistake of
department, the objection was raised and the
approval is correct.

13. In this regard, it is also submitted
that despite removal of the objection, name of
the petitioner was not included in the list of
institutions, which were approved for being
taken under grant-in-aid list. The said list
dated 02.12.2006 is on record of the writ
petition
as
Annexure
No.12,
which
demonstrates that all the boys colleges, which
were granted recognition up to 30.04.1989
were taken in the list of grant-in-aid colleges.

14. It is also submitted that
petitioner's
institution
was
granted
568 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
recognition prior in point of time than the
institutions, which were granted the benefit.
Subsequently, the Assistant Director, Basic
Education
raised
fresh
objection
on
04.01.2007 in respect of the application
filed by the petitioner (Annexure No.16). It
is also submitted that on 20.01.2007, the
petitioner gave a detailed reply to the new
objection
filed.
On
17.05.2007,
the
Regional Level Committee considered the
case of the petitioner's institution along
with other institutions and recommended
the name of the petitioner's institution in
the list, wherein the name of petitioner's
institution is contained at Serial No.10
(Annexure No.18).

15. It is further submitted that despite
the recommendation made in favour of the
petitioner
by
the
Regional
Level
Committee, as no decision was being taken,
the petitioner was constrained to approach
this Court by filing Writ Petition No.6234
(M/S) of 2007, wherein directions were
issued to the State Government to take a
decision on the application of the petitioner
in accordance with law within a period of
two months.

16. It is further stated that despite the
said order, as no decision was taken, the
petitioner was constrained to file a
contempt petition before this Court. In the
said petition, it is argued that the notices
were issued and during the pendency of the
contempt petition, an order came to be
passed on 16.06.2008 (Annexure No.1),
wherein the application of the petitioner
was rejected on the grounds as enumerated.

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that in terms of the directions
issued by this Court, the order passed and
impugned reveals that a meeting was
convened on 31.12.2007, wherein the
petitioner was heard and a report was called
from the District Basic Education Officer,
Faizabad. The order further records that the
Director, Basic Education had sent its
report dated 10.06.2008 and on going
through the said report, it was found that
the approval to the appointment was not
issued according to the dispatch register
and the institution has not annexed the
ownership documents of the land, where
the institution was situate as such, it was
recorded that the petitioner's institution was
not eligible in terms of the provisions of the
Government Order dated 07.09.2006. In the
said order, it is also stated that in terms of
the Government Order dated 07.09.2006,
the institutions, which were eligible, have
already been taken under grant-in-aid list
by means of Government Order dated
02.12.2006 and further subsequent thereto,
no financial budget was available and thus,
it was not possible to consider the case of
the petitioner and the said order is under
challenge.

18. He further submitted that in terms
of Government Order dated 07.09.2006, it
is incumbent that the decision be taken by a
committee constituted, which has not been
done in the case of the petitioner and
despite there being a recommendation in
favour of the petitioner, the order impugned
has been passed on consideration other than
that
as
were
required
under
the
Government Order dated 07.09.2006.

19. He next submitted that in any
event the impugned order dated 16.06.2008
is violative of principles of natural justice
inasmuch as the order itself records that the
petitioner
was
heard
on
31.12.2007,
whereas the foundation for passing of the
order is some report dated 10.06.2008,
which was never given to the petitioner nor
was ever the petitioner called to explain the
9 All. C/m Raj Dutta Shukla Purva Madhyamik Vs. State of U.P.
569
discrepancies as allegedly noticed in the
report dated 10.06.2008.

20. He further submitted that in any
view
the
Government
Order
dated
07.09.2006 provided for a decision to be
taken based upon the report of the
committee constituted, whereas the order
impugned has been passed based upon the
report of the Director of Basic Education
dated 10.06.2008, who is not empowered.

21. He next submitted that similarly
placed institutions, which were granted
recognition subsequent to the petitioner's
recognition, have been brought under
grant-in-aid and thus, the rights of
petitioner enshrined under Article 14 of
Constitution of India for being brought
under grant-in-aid have been violated. He
has also drawn attention of this Court to
one of the condition as contained in the
Government Order dated 07.09.2006 with
regard to ownership of the land by the
institution, which condition was set aside
by this Court in the judgment passed by
this Court in Writ-C No.66100 of 2006;
C/M Adarsh Janta Junior High School
Vs. State of U.P. and others, following the
judgment in the case of Committee of
Management Vs. State of U.P. and
others; (1994) 2 UPLBED 1127, wherein
Clause 8 was found to be arbitrary and
illegal.

22. The counsel for the petitioner
further argues that on filing of the
application in terms of the Government
Order, a right has accrued in favour of the
petitioner for being considered within the
parameters of the Government Order,
which has been violated. He places reliance
on the judgment of this Court in Writ - C
No.4735 of 2017 (C/M Ram Daun Ram
Raj Pre - Secondary School and another)
wherein in similar circumstances this court
had passed the order dated 27.02.2019
which was affirmed in the Special Appeal
Defective No.975 of 2020 and further in
Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.3359 of
202. He further places reliance on the
judgment of this Court in the case of C/M
Sri Satya Narain Junior High School and
others vs. State of U.P. and others in
Writ-C No.24767 of 2018 decided on
16.11.2021
wherein
in
similar
circumstances, the court had considered the
rights of the petitioner and have granted the
relief to the petitioner therein. He also
placed reliance on a similar matter being
decided
by
this
Court
in
Writ-C
No.1000923 of 2011 (C/M Chandra
Shekhar Azad Junior High School
Lucknow vs. State of U.P. and others)
decided on 15.07.2022. In the light of the
said, he argues that the writ petition
deserves to be allowed and the impugned
order is liable to be set aside.

23. On the other hand, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel has
vehemently
opposed
the
submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the
petitioner and has drawn attention of this
Court to the order dated 16.01.2008,
wherein the decision was taken in respect
of the certain institution, which were
brought under grant in aid on 27.12.2006
on the ground that adequate budget could
not be sanctioned by the State Government.
She further argues that this Court in the
judgment reported in 2019 (6) ADJ 255 has
given certain directions to the State
Government for framing a policy in respect
of the said institutions and in terms of the
said order, the State Government has
framed a policy on 14.07.2020 whereby a
decision has been taken for not taking the
institution under the grant in aid list for the
reasons contained in paragraph Nos.7(7),
570 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
7(8) and 8 of the Government Order dated
14.07.2020. The said condition as specified
in the Government Order dated 14.07.2020
is basically based on the ground that the
State Government is concentrating on
improving the standard of the education in
the institution which are already on the
grant in aid list. In the light of the said, she
argues that the present petition is liable to
be dismissed.

24. In the light of the arguments as
recorded above, this court is to see whether
the
impugned
order
rejecting
the
application of the petitioner vide order
dated 16.06.2008 is justified or not. It bears
from the record that the State Government
had issued a Government Order dated
07.09.2006
for
bringing
the
certain
institutions
under
grant
in
aid,
the
application filed by the petitioner in
pursuance to the Government Order was
duly recommended by the District Level
Committee as well as by the Regional
Level Committee as bears from the perusal
of Annexure No.18 wherein the name of
the petitioner had appeared at serial No.10.

25. It also bears from the record that
the institutions similarly situated but
granted recognition subsequent to the date
of recognition granted to the petitioner
institution have been taken under grant in
aid. In view of the said, the order dated
16.06.2008 is clearly not sustainable firstly
because the same is in violation of the
principles of natural justice as it places
reliance on a report dated 10.06.2008,
which was obtained subsequent to the date
of hearing which happened on 31.12.2007
without giving the said report to the
petitioner or permitting him to rebut the
same, the order impugned could not have
been passed which has occasioned in
violation of the principles of natural justice.

26. In normal circumstances, the
matter deserves to be remanded, however
considering the stand taken by the State
Government in the impugned order of
rejecting the application of the petitioner on
the
two
grounds
mentioned
in
the
impugned order, this Court proposes to deal
the same as sufficient time has elapsed and
no useful purpose would be served in
remanding the matter. The grounds based
upon which the impugned order has been
passed denying the benefit of grant in aid to
the petitioner are;

i) the approval to the appointment of
Clerk was not mentioned in the dispatch
register, and

ii) the ownership documents of the
land is not included in the certificate.

27. With regard to the second ground
which has led to the passing of the
impugned order, the same does not merit
any acceptance for the reason that the
District Basic Education Officer himself in
his order dated 01.12.2006 had recorded
that all the actions with regard to the
approval of the appointment of the Clerk
was duly made (Annexure No.12) and with
regard to the first ground, which is the
foundation of passing the order, that the
ownership of the land documents have not
been annexed is also not acceptable for the
reason that in the report of the District
Basic Education Officer dated 01.12.2006
(Annexure No.12), he has himself recorded
that all the documents with regard to the
ownership have been provided and further
more that the said condition has already
been set aside by this Court in Writ-C
No.66100 of 2006 [C/M Adarsh Janta
Junior High School vs. State of U.P. and
others] decided on 13.02.2013. Even
otherwise, the order impugned cannot be
sustained as being without jurisdiction as
9 All. Shiv Kumar Patel Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
571
the decision has to be taken by the State
Government
based
upon
the
recommendation
of
the
committees
constituted under the Government Order.
The State Government could not have gone
beyond the said recommendations in
accepting or rejecting the claim made by
various institutions which has precisely
been done in the present case wherein the
request has been rejected despite there
being a recommendation in favour of the
petitioner. Even otherwise, the case of the
petitioner is squarely covered by the
judgment of this Court in the case of C/M
Ram Daun Ram Raj Pre - Secondary
School and another (supra) decided on
27.02.2019.

28. Thus, for all the reasons recorded
above,
the
impugned
order
dated
16.06.2008 is clearly not sustainable and is
liable to be quashed.

29. Accordingly, the order dated
16.06.2008
is
set-aside.
The
State
Government is directed to take the
petitioner's institution under grant-in-aid in
pursuance to the Government Order dated
07.09.2006 as has been done in the case of
the other eligible institutions who were
applied for being taken under grant-in-aid
in pursuance to the Government Order
dated 07.09.2006. The decision in that
regard shall be taken without fail within a
period of four months from today.

30. The Additional Chief Standing
Counsel is directed to communicate a copy
of this order to the State Government for its
compliance and in accordance with law.

31. With the aforesaid observations
and directions, the writ petition succeeds
and stands allowed.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 571
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Special Appeal No. 216 of 2022

Shiv Kumar Patel ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, Sri Ajai Kumar
Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Hare Ram Tripathi (S.C.), Sri A.P. Paul(State
Law Officer), Sri Gyan Bahadur Singh

A. Civil Law - Misdemeanour in Office -
Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 -
Sections 95(1)(g) & 27 - Uttar Pradesh
Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhan, UpPradhan and Members) Inquiry Rules,
1997 - Rule 3 - Uttar Pradesh Panchayat
Raj Rules, 1947- Rule 256, 257 - The
purpose and scope of the provisions of
Sections 95(1)(g) & 27 of the Act of 1947
are distinct and different. Whilst S.95(1)(g)
is directed to ensure removal from office of an
elected Pradhan on one or the other ground
mentioned in sub-clauses (i) to (v) of Clause (g)
of S.95(1). S.27 is designed to recover money
occasioned on account of loss, waste or
misapplication of money or property belonging
to a Gram Panchayat by a Pradhan, if that loss,
waste, etc. is the direct consequence of the
Pradhan's neglect or misconduct. (Para 9)

It is true that upon the Pradhan demitting
office, proceedings u/s 95(1)(g), if not initiated,
cannot continue as the entire purpose of those
proceedings is to oust the incumbent Pradhan
from office. These proceedings certainly cannot
commence after the Pradhan has already
demitted office. But, the purpose of Section
27 of the Act of 1947 is to recover money