# C/M, Sukhdeo Singh Kanya Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya Jamuee, Deoria & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 589
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-10-27
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 14888 of 2017
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/c-m-sukhdeo-singh-kanya-laghu-madhyamik-vidyalaya-jamuee-deoria-anr-v-state-of-46638
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Girls High School - Claim for
Grant-in-aid - Not giving place in the list of
200 institutions, though it came at Serial no.
197 after ousting of four enlisted institution -
Malicious exercise - Legality challenged - Held,
the petitioner-institution was entitled to be
included in the list of 200 institutions which
was published on 2.12.2006 - It was also
entitled for getting the grant-in-aid on the date
2.12.2006 - Maliciously it had been deprived of
grant-in-aid since then. (Para 5)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-

## Text

11 All. C/M, Sukhdeo Singh Kanya Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya Jamuee, Deoria & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
& Ors.
589
considered opinion, the conviction of the
appellant from this angle too, is unsustainable.

62. In view of the discussion made above,
we are unable to accept the reasons given by the
trial court in convicting the appellant in the
present case. On the contrary, we are of the
considered view that the prosecution has failed
to prove the guilt of appellant (Sarwari) beyond
reasonable doubt. The incident does not appear
to have happened in the manner stated by the
prosecution and the appellant is entitled to the
benefit of doubt. Consequently, the appellant is
entitled to be acquitted of all the charges for
which she was tried.

63. As a result, the appeal is allowed and
the conviction order is hereby set-aside. The
judgement and order of conviction as well as
sentence recorded by the trial court is set aside.
The appellant is acquitted of all the charges for
which she has been tried. The appellant
(Sarwari) is said to be in Jail, she shall be set at
liberty forthwith, if not wanted in any other
criminal case. The appellant (Sarwari) will fulfill
the requirement of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. to the
satisfaction of the trial court at the earliest.

64. Let a copy of this order/judgement and
the original record of the lower court be
transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith
for necessary information and compliance. The
office is further directed to enter the judgement
in compliance register maintained for the
purpose of the Court.
----------
(2021)11ILR A589
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.

Writ C No. 14888 of 2017
C/M, Sukhdeo Singh Kanya Laghu Madhyamik
Vidyalaya Jamuee, Deoria & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri A.D. Saunders, Sri Amresh Tripathi, Ms.
Mahima Joseph

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Shyam Krishna Gupta

A. Civil Law - Girls High School - Claim for
Grant-in-aid - Not giving place in the list of
200 institutions, though it came at Serial no.
197 after ousting of four enlisted institution -
Malicious exercise - Legality challenged - Held,
the petitioner-institution was entitled to be
included in the list of 200 institutions which
was published on 2.12.2006 - It was also
entitled for getting the grant-in-aid on the date
2.12.2006 - Maliciously it had been deprived of
grant-in-aid since then. (Para 5)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. Writ C No. 51176 of 2007; C/M Adarsh Balika
Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya & anr. Vs St. of U.P. &
ors. decided on 4.9.2014
(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J.)

1. When a Government Order was issued
on 7.9.2006 to include 200 junior girls high
schools in the list of grant-in-aid, the petitionerinstitution
which
was
granted
permanent
recognition on 23.4.1999 considering itself to be
an eligible institution, applied for the grant-inaid. Three committees were formed; one at the
District Level; second at the State Level and
thereafter
at
the
Directorate
Level.
On
28.11.2006 the Directorate Level Committee
upon getting all the names of the institutions
which were desirous of getting grant-in-aid,
prepared a list of 204 institutions. When the
petitioner-institution was, however, not granted
the aid, the then Manager Smt. Nand Kumari
590 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Tiwari
on
9.12.2006
represented
to
the
Secretary, Basic Education that the petitionerinstitution be also included in the list of
institutions which were to be granted aid. When
no heed was paid to the application of the
petitioner-institution, a writ petition being Writ
Petition No.51152 of 2007 (Committee of
Management, Sukhdeo Singh Kanya Laghu
Madhyamik Vidyalaya & Anr. vs. State of U.P.
& Ors.) was filed. This writ petition was
disposed of on 28.7.2009 with a direction to the
Secretary, Basic Education to decide the
representation of the petitioner by a reasoned
and speaking order within a period of three
months from the date of presentation of a
certified copy of the order dated 28.7.2009. The
Manager of the petitioner-institution represented
along with the judgment of the High Court dated
28.7.2009. On 23.4.2010, the Secretary, Basic
Education upon considering the representation
of the petitioner held that since the petitionerinstitution stood at Serial No.201 and only 200
girls institutions were to be granted the aid, the
petitioner-institution could not be granted the
aid. Upon getting knowledge of the fact that
certain institutions which were contained in the
list of 200 institutions had been squeezed out on
account of their production of forged papers etc.,
the Manager of the petitioner-institution on
21.4.2011 again applied for being included in
the list of grant-in-aid. When no action was
taken on the petitioners' application, the
petitioners again filed a writ petition being WritC No.37211 of 2011 (C/M Sukhdeo Singh
Kanya Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya & Anr. vs.
State of U.P. & Ors.). In this writ petition,
categorically in paragraph nos.18 to 20, it was
stated that the grant given to four institutions in
the list of 200 institutions had been withdrawn
as they had placed certain forged documents. On
31.3.2014, Writ-C No.37211 of 2011 was
disposed of holding that the institutions which
were eligible on 7.9.2006 i.e. the date when the
Government Order was issued, alone were to be
considered as eligible institutions and thereafter
a further direction was also issued that the
petitioners' representation be decided in the light
of the observations made in the judgment dated
31.3.2014.
On
27.3.2015,
the
petitioners'
representation was rejected. Amongst other
grounds on the basis of which the rejection order
was passed a ground was taken that within three
kilometers of the petitioner-institution, there
were Parishadiya Schools/private schools which
were aided, were running and, therefore, the
petitioner-institution could not be granted the
aid. It was also stated in the order dated
27.3.2015 that since 1000 schools already had
been taken for the grant-in-aid as per the
Government Order dated 7.9.2006, no further
inclusion could be done. The petitioner again
filed a writ petition being Writ-C No.26241 of
2015 (C/M Sukhdeo Singh Kanya Laghu
Madhyamik Vidyalaya & Anr. vs. State of U.P.
& Ors.) and submitted that the order dated
27.3.2015 was not sustainable as the grounds
which had been taken in the impugned order
were not available to the State when the
Government Order dated 7.9.2006 was issued.
The Writ Petition No.26241 of 2015 was
allowed by the order dated 18.7.2016 and it was
observed that the only issue which had to be
decided by the respondents was as to whether
when the institutions which had been taken in
the grant-in-aid on 2.12.2006 were ousted from
the said list on account of their ineligibility then
would not the petitioner-institution be taken into
that list by which the aid was granted. The order
dated 27.3.2015 was quashed and the matter was
again sent back for a fresh decision. The
petitioners
again
approached
the
State
Government.
However,
when
the
State
Government once again rejected the petitioners'
representation on 8.2.2017, the instant writ
petition was filed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has
submitted that the action of the Staterespondents in not granting the petitionerinstitution the grant-in-aid was malicious.
11 All. C/M, Sukhdeo Singh Kanya Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya Jamuee, Deoria & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
& Ors.
591
Initially when the State Authorities had stated
that since the petitioner-institution was at Serial
No.201 and only 200 institutions had to be taken
in the grant-in-aid list, then the petitioners had
informed that when actually four institutions had
been ousted from the list, then the petitionerinstitution which was at Serial No.201, ought to
have been treated as having been at Serial
No.197 and, therefore, under no circumstance
could the petitioner-institution be deprived of
the grant-in-aid. Learned counsel for the
petitioners further submitted that malice is writ
large if one reads the order dated 8.2.2017 and
the order dated 27.3.2015. The subsequent order
is a verbatim reproduction of the earlier order
which was set-aside by the High Court by the
order dated 18.7.2016 passed in Writ Petition
No.26241 of 2015. Learned counsel for the
petitioners also submitted that the Acts and the
Rules which had been promulgated after the
issuance of the Government Order dated
7.9.2006 would not be taken into account for
ousting the petitioner-institution from the grantin-aid list.

3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for
respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 and the learned
counsel, who represented respondent no. 4, on
the basis of separate counter affidavits filed by
them, argued that the petitioner-institution when
was placed at Serial No.201 could not be
considered for being included in the grant-in-aid
list as the petitioners' right to get included in the
list exhausted the day the first list was declared.
In this connection, learned counsel appearing for
the State and the respondent no.4 relied upon a
judgment of this Court dated 4.9.2014 which
was passed in Writ-C No.51176 of 2007 (C/M
Adarsh Balika Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya
& Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) and submitted
that when the petitioner-institution had been
ousted from the list of selected institutions
which
was
issued
on
2.12.2006,
then
subsequently if the petitioner-institution was
eligible, it could not be included in the list.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the
parties, this Court is of the view that when the
list of 200 institutions was published on
2.12.2006, on that date had the four institutions
which had been ousted from the list, not been
put in the list, then the petitioner-institution
would have definitely been at Serial No.197.
Here the case of the petitioners is not that the
petitioner-institution had attained eligibility on a
subsequent date. In fact the case of the
petitioners is that on 2.12.2006 if the four
institutions which had been subsequently ousted
were not there, then the petitioner-institution
would have definitely been in the list of
institutions which were to be granted the aid.
The way the orders are being passed, especially
the last order dated 8.2.2017 which is a verbatim
of the order dated 27.3.2015, shows that the
State Authorities had made up their mind not to
include the petitioner-institution in the list of
grant-in-aid. The Court also finds that the
reasons given in the orders dated 27.3.2015 and
8.2.2017 were not available to the State
Authorities for ousting the petitioner-institution
from the list by which the grant-in-aid was to be
granted. The Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and the U.P.
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education Rules, 2011 were not in operation in
the year 2006 when the list was prepared.

5. The Court definitely holds that the
petitioner-institution was entitled to be included
in the list of 200 institutions which was
published on 2.12.2006 and was also entitled for
getting the grant-in-aid on the date 2.12.2006.
The Court also finds that maliciously the
petitioner-institution had been deprived of grantin-aid since 2.12.2006.

6. Under such circumstances, a writ of
mandamus is being issued to grant the aid to the
petitioner-institution with effect from the date
when the institutions which were included in the
list on 2.12.2006 were granted the aid. All
592 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
arrears be granted to the petitioner-institution
within a period of two months. A cost of
Rs.25,000/- is also imposed on the Joint
Secretary who has passed the order dated
8.2.2017 which is a verbatim reproduction of the
order dated 27.3.2015 and which had been setaside by this Court on 18.7.2016 in Writ-C
No.26241 of 2015.

7. In view of what has been stated above,
the writ petition stands allowed
----------
(2021)11ILR A592
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.

Writ C No. 16186 of 2021

Bipin ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Raghawendra Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.s.G.I., Sri Annapurna Singh, Sri Taniya Pandey

A. Labour Law - Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 -
Sections 25FF, 25H, 25O, 25T & 25U -
Workmen employed for particular project -
Reinstatement with back wages, claimed -
Award - Legality challenged - Held, when a
workman is employed for a particular project,
the services of that employee came to an end
when the project was over and, therefore,
could not be given a permanent status - Lal
Mohammad's case followed. (Para 14)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. Lal Mohammad Vs Indian Railway Construction
Co. Ltd. & ors.; 2004(5)AWC 3955All
2. Lal Mohammad & ors.. Vs Indian Railway
Construction Co. Ltd. and Ors.; AIR 2007 SC 2230
3. Mineral Exploration Corp. Employees' Union Vs
Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd. & anr.; 2000
AIR SCW 3865
4.Secretary, St. of Karn. Vs Uma Devi'2006 (4) SCC
1
(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
challenging the award dated 23.11.2020 which
has been passed by the Presiding Officer,
Central
Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Court,
Kendiry Bhawan, 8th Floor Hall No. 1, Sector
- H, Aliganj, Lucknow. Further the writ
petition has also challenged the notice/order
dated 04.02.1998 which was issued by the
Joint General Manager, IRCON International
Ltd, Anpara, District - Sonbhadra. The writ
petition was finally heard after the parties
exchanged their affidavits.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are
that the petitioner was employed by the Indian
Railway
Construction
International
Ltd.
(hereinafter referred to as the ''Company')
initially as a peon on casual basis for a period of
six months by the order of the Project Manager
Vindhyay Nagar, District - Sithi (M.P.) on
19.4.1984. This was an employment under the
grade "D" category. After the completion of six
months of continuous service, the petitioner was
re-employed
on
monthly
basis
with
a
consolidated wage of Rs. 196/- plus dearness
allowance by an order dated 09.05.1985 and,
thereafter, he was attached with Anpara Project,
District - Mirzapur, U.P. His attachment there
necessitated a training and on the completion of
it, he was employed on the scale of pay which
was in the grade pay of Rs. 196-237/-. This was
done by an order dated 29.05.1998 issued by the
Regional Manager IRCON - Anpara. In this
arrangement, the petitioner continued for a
period of four years and was thereafter by an
order dated 28.4.1989 brought in the regular