# Committee of Management v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2004) 1 ILRA 133
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-10-22
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21214 of 1996
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/committee-of-management-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40242
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] State of U.P. and others V. U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and others
133

46. The regular clerks were
appointed after facing a selection which
was held after advertising the posts and
after following the rules. The daily
wagers were not appointed in that manner
at all. In fact the respondents appear to be
purely ad hoc appointees appointed when
there was heavier load of work e.g. during
the
examination
time,
but
without
undergoing any selection in accordance
with the rules. Hence they cannot claim
parity
with
the
regularly
selected
employees.

47. In view of the above we are of
the opinion that the impugned judgement
of the Tribunal dated 15.6.1987 cannot be
sustained and it is hereby quashed. The
petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.10.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21214 of 1996

Committee of Management ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Amit Saxena
Sri P.N. Saxena

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Educational Institution-grant-in-aid to
Junior High School by State Governmentclaimed by committee of Managementbut
failed
to
produce
statutory
provisions in its support cannot claim, as
of
right-even
though
institution
is
recongnised one.

Held- Para 3

In this view of the matter, in my opinion,
the petitioner has miserably failed to
demonstrate either the malafides or
breach of any statutory provision, which
might affect the petitioner's statutory
right, which can be enforced by means of
this writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
Case Law discussed-
C.M.W.P. No. 6090 of 1992
CMWP No. 4112 of 1992

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.)

1. The petitioner, committee of
management, has approached this Court
by means of present writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
with the following prayers:-

"(a) issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of Mandamus commanding
the respondents to sanction grant-in-aid
to the petitioner Institution with effect
from 1.3.1991 and pay arrears of salary
of teachers and other employees of the
Institution under U.P. Act No. 6 of 1978
with effect from 1.3.1991.
(b)
issue any other and further
suitable writ, order or direction that this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in
the circumstances of the case.
(c)
Allow this writ petition with cost
in favour of the petitioner."

2. A perusal of the relief prayed for
by the petitioner clearly demonstrate that
petitioner's institution claims sanction for
grants-in-aid for the institution with effect
from 1st March, 1991.
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
134
3. Heard Sri P.N. Saksena, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and the learned Standing
Counsel for the Respondents.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner argued that in view of the
decisions
appended
along
with
the
supplementary affidavit passed in writ
petition no. 6090 of 1992 (Committee of
Management,
Sarvodaya
Madhyamik
Vidyalaya, Sawaipur Dharna Buzurg,
District
Kanpur
Dehat,
through
its
Manager Versus The State of UP and
others), decided on 25th November, 1992
and the writ petition no. 4112 of 1992
(Committee
of
Management,
Ashok
Vidya
mandir
Junior
High
School,
Rastpur, district Kanpur Dehat Versus
State
of
U.P.
through
Secretary
Department
of
Education
(Basic),
Secretariate,
Lucknow
and
others),
decided on 2nd February, 1993, the
petitioner's institution is also entitled for
the grant of the grants-in-aid. Learned
counsel for the petitioner though relied
upon the provision of U.P. Act No. 6 of
1978, but according to my reading no
provision of U.P. Act No. 6 of 1978
provides that an institution is, in law,
entitled to receive the grants-in-aid from
the
State
Government.
The
State
Government from time to time has issued
Government
orders
prescribing
the
standard and norms of allowing g rantsin-aid to the recognised institution, but
learned counsel for the petitioner has not
referred to, nor brought to my notice any
statutory provisions under which the
petitioner can claim, as of right, the
grants-in-aid. In this view of the matter, in
my opinion, the petitioner has no right,
much less statutory right for which a
mandamus has been sought for, nor there
is any corresponding statutory duty cast
upon the State Government that it must
provide grants-in-aid to the institution
even though the same may be a
recognised institution. So far as two
judgements referred to above, relied upon
by learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner, though the facts of the
aforesaid two judgements, do not apply to
the facts of the present case. In this view
of the matter, in my opinion, the
petitioner
has
miserably
failed
to
demonstrate either the malafides or
breach of any statutory provision, which
might affect the petitioner's statutory
right, which can be enforced by means of
this writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.

4. For the reasons stated above, this
writ petition has no force and is
accordingly dismissed. The interim order,
if any, stands vacated. However, on the
facts and circumstances of the case, there
will be no order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.9.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE D.P. GUPTA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43597 of 2003

Sanjay Kumar

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri V.P. Srivastava
Sri Divyesh Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.