# Shri Satish Chandra & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2019) 2 ILRA 2058
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 68295 of 2009
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sunita Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shri-satish-chandra-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-44696
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

A. U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 -
Sections 2(a), 2(b), 2(d), 7(3), 7(4), U.P.
High School and Intermediate Colleges
(Payment of Salaries of Teachers and
Other Employees) Act, 1971 - Sections
2(b), U.P. Board of Basic Education Act,
1972-Sections 2(1)(d-1), 2(1)(d-2), 2(b),
2(d), 3, 4, 19, U.P. Recognized Basic
Schools (Recruitment and Conditions of
Service of Teachers and other Conditions)
Rules, 1975 - Rule 2(c), 2(e), 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9, 10, U.P. Junior High School (Payment
of
Salaries
of
Teachers
and
Other
Employees) Act, 1978 - Section 2(b), 2(d),
2(e), 2(2)(e-e), 2(f), 2(j), 10, U.P. State
Universities Act, 1973 - Section 37(2) -
Statute
of
Sampurnanand
Sanskrit
University-Statute 12.01 and U.P. Board of
Sanskrit Education, 2000 -Sections 2(e),
2(f), 3, 9, 13 - Mere recognition by the
Board does not entitle the institution to
seek maintenance grant from the State.

B. Whether the primary institution in
question can be said to be attached
institution
or
integral
part
of
the
institution which is imparting Sanskrit
Education from "Prathama" to "Acharya"
(Junior High Schools to Post Graduate
Level) and that whether recognition by
District
Basic
Education
Officer
for
running Classes I to V by itself put
obligation on the State to pay to the
teachers of the primary institution -
Answering the questions in negative and
dismissing this petition, the High Court
held - As far as the primary institution
(Class I to V), neither there was any
provision in the Statute of the erstwhile
University (Varanasi Sanskrit Vidyalaya
Act, 1956) or in the Sampurnanand
Sanskrit University first Statute, 1978 to
regulate the same. There was, thus, no
question of affiliation with the said
Universities. Mere permission by the
University
to
run
classes
I
to
V,
therefore, is of no relevance. (Para 28)

C. After referring to all the relevant
statutes, it was observed that at the
best, the part of the institution- in-
question running classes I to V can be
said to be recognized by the Board of
Basic Education pursuant to the order
dated 10.01.1973. Maintenance grant
provided to the institution in question for
imparting
Sanskrit
education
from
"Prathama" (Junior High School) to
"Shashtri" (Graduation) would not ipsofacto extend the said grant to the
primary institution (Classes I to V),
treating it as an integral part of the
Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya. (Para 29)

D. State is under no obligation to provide
maintenance
grant
to
each
private
institution imparting primary education
or free education to children from age (6
to 14 years). At the same time, it is
necessary for a primary institution to
seek recognition by the Board of Basic
Education- Mere recognition by the
Board, however, does not entitle the
institution to seek maintenance grant
from the State- Further, even in a
recognized
institution,
not
receiving
maintenance grant, the appointment of
teachers has to be made

## Text

2058 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(ii) Vacancies were not notified
to the Employment Exchange, however,
selected candidates (petitioners) were
registered at Employment Exchange.

(iii) No record or detail of
Constitution of Selection Committee is
available on record.

(iv) 7 candidates appeared for
interview.

(v) A letter dated 8.4.2001 was
issued under the signature of Principal,
Government Girls' Inter College, Mainpuri,
Principal Government Girls' Inter College,
Karhet Mainupri and Assistant Basic Shiksha
Adhikari, Mainpuri (member of Selection
Committee) declaring the petitioners as
selected as Class IV employee in pursuance of
interview.

(vi) Appointment letters were
issued to the petitioners and the same has
been placed on record to show the
numbers
given
by
the
Selection
Committee to the candidates.

10. From the above, it is clear that
procedure adopted was defective so much as
no record is submitted to show how the
Selection Committee was formed as per Rule
16 of the Rule of 1985. Only document to
show composition of Selection Committee is
a letter communicating about selection of
petitioners which is signed by three persons,
however, there is no nomination on behalf of
District Magistrate regarding persons from
S.C./S.T., Minority and B.C. Commonly as
prescribed in Rule 16 of the Rules of 1985.
Vacancies
were
not
notified
from
Employment
Exchange,
therefore,
the
provisions of the Rules of 1985 were not
strictly complied with for the selection process
under taken for appointment of petitioners.

11. Next issue which require
consideration is regarding ban imposed on
recruitment by Government Order dated
3.11.1997, the said G.O. had imposed ban
on
fresh
recruitment,
however,
by
subsequent G.O. dated 6.9.2000, said ban
was removed sofar as appointment on the
posts which are reserved for Schedule
Castes/Schedule Tribes, specifically in
Class III and Class IV. Therefore, the
recruitment of petitioners was not barred
according to G.O. dated 3.11.1997 as
petitioners were appointed in the year
2001
when
subsequent
G.O.
dated
6.9.2000 has lifted the ban.

12. As discussed above, the
procedure undertaken for the recruitment
of petitioners was not correct and there
was no strict compliance of provisions of
the Rules of 1985. The entire impugned
selection is irregular, and therefore, there
is no illegality in the impugned order
whereby financial approval was not
granted. Accordingly, the writ petition
lacks merit, hence dismissed.
----------

(2019)10ILR A 2058

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.08.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SUNITA AGARWAL, J.

Writ A No. 68295 of 2009

Shri Satish Chandra & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri A.B. Singh, Sri Anand Prakash Pandey,
Sri Manish Singh.

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
2 All. Shri Satish Chandra & Ors. Vs State of U.P. & Ors.
2059
A. U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 -
Sections 2(a), 2(b), 2(d), 7(3), 7(4), U.P.
High School and Intermediate Colleges
(Payment of Salaries of Teachers and
Other Employees) Act, 1971 - Sections
2(b), U.P. Board of Basic Education Act,
1972-Sections 2(1)(d-1), 2(1)(d-2), 2(b),
2(d), 3, 4, 19, U.P. Recognized Basic
Schools (Recruitment and Conditions of
Service of Teachers and other Conditions)
Rules, 1975 - Rule 2(c), 2(e), 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9, 10, U.P. Junior High School (Payment
of
Salaries
of
Teachers
and
Other
Employees) Act, 1978 - Section 2(b), 2(d),
2(e), 2(2)(e-e), 2(f), 2(j), 10, U.P. State
Universities Act, 1973 - Section 37(2) -
Statute
of
Sampurnanand
Sanskrit
University-Statute 12.01 and U.P. Board of
Sanskrit Education, 2000 -Sections 2(e),
2(f), 3, 9, 13 - Mere recognition by the
Board does not entitle the institution to
seek maintenance grant from the State.

B. Whether the primary institution in
question can be said to be attached
institution
or
integral
part
of
the
institution which is imparting Sanskrit
Education from "Prathama" to "Acharya"
(Junior High Schools to Post Graduate
Level) and that whether recognition by
District
Basic
Education
Officer
for
running Classes I to V by itself put
obligation on the State to pay to the
teachers of the primary institution -
Answering the questions in negative and
dismissing this petition, the High Court
held - As far as the primary institution
(Class I to V), neither there was any
provision in the Statute of the erstwhile
University (Varanasi Sanskrit Vidyalaya
Act, 1956) or in the Sampurnanand
Sanskrit University first Statute, 1978 to
regulate the same. There was, thus, no
question of affiliation with the said
Universities. Mere permission by the
University
to
run
classes
I
to
V,
therefore, is of no relevance. (Para 28)

C. After referring to all the relevant
statutes, it was observed that at the
best, the part of the institution- in-
question running classes I to V can be
said to be recognized by the Board of
Basic Education pursuant to the order
dated 10.01.1973. Maintenance grant
provided to the institution in question for
imparting
Sanskrit
education
from
"Prathama" (Junior High School) to
"Shashtri" (Graduation) would not ipsofacto extend the said grant to the
primary institution (Classes I to V),
treating it as an integral part of the
Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya. (Para 29)

D. State is under no obligation to provide
maintenance
grant
to
each
private
institution imparting primary education
or free education to children from age (6
to 14 years). At the same time, it is
necessary for a primary institution to
seek recognition by the Board of Basic
Education- Mere recognition by the
Board, however, does not entitle the
institution to seek maintenance grant
from the State- Further, even in a
recognized
institution,
not
receiving
maintenance grant, the appointment of
teachers has to be made with the
approval
of
the
Basic
Education
Officer.(Para 33)

E.
The
recognition
granted
on
10.01.1973
is
a
permanent
valid
recognition within the meaning of the
Basic Education Act, 1972 read with the
Rules, 1975. The primary section of the
institution in question is, thus, to be
treated as a separate entity being a
"recognized school" within the meaning
of Rules, 1975 and shall be governed by
the Act 1972 read with Rules 1975 as a
"Junior Basic School" within the meaning
of
Section
2(1)(d-1)
of
the
Basic
Education Act, 1972 for all other relevant
purposes. (Para 36)

Writ
petition
challenges
order
dated
21.08.2009, passed by UP Shiksha Nideshak
(Sanskrit) Shiksha Nideshalya U.P. at Lucknow.

Writ Petition dismissed (E-4)

Precedent referred: -
2060 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1. Unni Krishnan J.P. & ors. Vs St. of A.P. &
ors., (1993) 1 SCC 645 (Para 31, 32)
2. T.M.A. Pai Foundation & ors. Vs St. of
Karnataka & ors., (2002) 8 SCC 481 (Para 32)
Precedent distinguished: -

1. St. of U.P. & ors. Vs Pawan Kumar Dwivedi
& ors., (2014) 9 SCC 692 (Para 29)
2. Ramesh Upadhaya Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
1193 AWC 847 (Para 2, 4, 6, 34)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita
Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri A.B.Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vishal
Tandon, learned brief holder appearing on
behalf of the State.

2. The petitioners (seven in number)
claimed to be working as Assistant
Teachers in the Primary School attached
to
Jhauwa
Dharma
Nagar
Sanskrit
Mahavidyalaya Shikriganj, Gorakhpur,
seek to challenge the order dated
21.08.2009 passed by the respondent no.4
rejecting their claim for payment of salary
from the State Exchequer in the light of
the judgement of this Court in Ramesh
Upadhya Vs. State of U.P. & others
reported in 1193 AWC 847.

3. The facts in brief relevant to
decide the controversy at hand are that the
institution namely Jhauwa Dharma Nagar
Sanskrit
Mahavidyalaya
Shikriganj,
Gorakhpur
is
affiliated
to
the
Sampurnanand
Sanskrit
University,
Varanasi
which
imparts
Sanskrit
education. It is contended that the said
institution is aided and recognized and the
salary of teachers of the college is being
paid from the State fund but the teachers
of the attached primary school section are
not getting their salary from the State
Exchequer.

4. It is contended that the primary
institution, attached to the Sanskrit
Mahavidyalaya was duly recognized by
the District Basic Education Officer,
Gorakhpur vide letter dated 10.01.1973
and permission to run the primary classes
(Classes I to V) was duly accorded by the
Sampurnanand Sanskrit University. Both
the letters of recognition and permission
to run the classes are appended as
Annexure no.'1' & '2' to the writ petition.
It is contended that the Government order
was issued in the year 1989 providing for
payment of salary to the attached primary
section of the Intermediate College but
the teachers working in the Sanskrit
institutions recognized and affiliated from
Junior High School to the Post Graduate
level were not being paid salary from the
State exchequer. Pleading protection of
doctrine of equality under Article 14 of
the Constitution, few teachers of the
primary section of a Sanskrit University
approached this Court in "Ramesh
Upadhya" (Supra). This Court had
issued directions to the State-respondents
to pay salary to the primary section
teachers in the Sanskrit institution in the
same line as has been done in the case of
primary sections/ institution attached to
the
High
School
and
Intermediate
Colleges. The primary teachers were also
held entitled to other consequential
benefits like Group Insurance, General
Provident fund, retiral benefits etc. as was
being paid to the primary section teachers
in the High School and Intermediate
colleges.
Submission
is
that
only
requirement was that the secondary or
degree
college/institution
must
be
affiliated with the Sampurnanand Sanskrit
University and the primary section should
2 All. Shri Satish Chandra & Ors. Vs State of U.P. & Ors.
2061
be attached to the parent institution,
which is aided and recognized. It is
contended that the primary section of the
institution-in-question is having the same
status as that of the institution in
"Ramesh
Upadhya"
(supra),
the
teachers working therein are, therefore,
entitled to the same relief.

5. The petitioners claim to have been
appointed in the year 1971-77, 1980-89
on different dates in the institution in
question for teaching primary classes
(class I to V). The submission is that they
are entitled to salary and other allowances
being teachers working in a recognized
primary institution. Aggrieved by nonconsideration
of
their
claim,
the
petitioners filed a Writ Petition No.24514
of 2009 which was disposed of with the
direction to consider their prayer and pass
appropriate order. The Deputy Director
(Sanskrit) for the Director of Education,
U.P. Allahabad had passed the order dated
21.08.2009 rejecting their representation
and hence this writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
vehemently
urged
that
with
the
permission
being
granted
to
the
institution-in-question to run primary
classes (from Class I to V) and the
recognition given by the District Basic
Education Officer, it cannot be said that
the petitioners are not entitled to salary
from the State fund. The plea taken by the
Deputy Director that the decision in
"Ramesh Upadhyaya" (supra) is not
binding on him in as much as, in a similar
matter a reference has been made to the
Larger Bench of the Apex Court, is
contemptuous. Mere reference to the
Larger Bench of an issue would not take
away the binding effect of the decision of
a Court passed on merits.

7. As far as the merit of the order
impugned, nothing much could be urged
by learned counsel for the petitioners
apart from the assertions noted herein
above.

8. Learned Standing Counsel in
rebuttal submits that mere recognition of
the institution-in-question to run primary
classes (I to V) would not bring any
obligation on the State to pay salary of the
teachers from the State fund, in much as,
the
institutions
imparting
Sanskrit
education are not governed by the U.P.
Basic Education Act' 1972 (in short Act'
1972). In order to regulate Sanskrit
Education in the State of U.P. and for
establishing the Board of Secondary
Sanskrit Education, the U.P. Board of
Secondary Sanskrit Education Act' 2000
(in short Act' 2000) had been enacted. The
said Act provides for establishment of the
U.P.
Board
of
Secondary
Sanskrit
Education established under Section 3
thereof. The Government Sanskrit School
and other institutions imparting Sanskrit
Education upto Uttar Madhyama (Senior
Secondary
School)
(Intermediate),
affiliated
to
or
recognized
by
the
Government Sanskrit College, Varanasi or
Sampurnanand
Sanskrit
University,
Varanasi, running in the State of U.P.
immediately before the commencement of
the Act' 2000 are now deemed to have
been recognized by the Board of Sanskrit
Education from the date of commencement
of the said Act and shall be governed by
the provision of the Act' 2000. The
examination of the persons pursuing
"Prathama" (Junior High School), "Purva
Madhyama" (High School) or "Uttar
Madhyama" (Intermediate), courses of
study in said institution are now being
conducted by the Board of Sanskrit
Education established under the Act' 2000.
2062 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

9. Pertinent is to note that the
institution-in-question is being run by a
private committee of management which
has not been impleaded in the present
petition.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
was
though
permitted
to
implead
Sampurnanand
Sanskrit
University as respondent no.5 in the array
of parties, but there is no proper
incorporation in the writ petition. No
counter affidavit has been filed on behalf
of Sampurnanand Sanskrit University.
The Board of Sanskrit Education has not
been impleaded as respondent though the
District Inspector of School, Inspector of
Sanskrit Pathshala has been impleded as
respondent no.3.

10. The question before this Court is
as to whether the primary institution in
question can be said to be attached
institution
or
integral
part
of
the
institution which is imparting Sanskrit
Education from "Prathama" to "Acharya"
(Junior High Schools to Post Graduate
Level) and that whether recognition by
the District Basic Education Officer for
running Classes I to V by itself put
obligation on the State to pay to the
teachers of the primary institution.

11.

To
appreciate
the
said
controversy, it would be apt to go through
the relevant provisions of a few statutory
enactments and the rules framed by the
Government from time to time. In 1921,
the U.P. Intermediate Education Act' 1921
(in short Act' 1921) was enacted to
establish the Board of High School and
Intermediate Education, which took place
of the Allahabad University in regulating
and supervising the System of High
School and Intermediate Education in
U.P. and prescribed courses therefor.
Section 2 (a) of the Act' 1921 as amended
in 1975 defines "Board" means the Board
of
High
School
and
Intermediate
Education and "Institution" defines in
Section 2 (b) means a recognized
Intermediate College, Higher Secondary
School or High School and includes,
where the context so requires, a part of an
institution. "Recognition" in Section 2 (d)
means recognition for the purpose of
preparing candidates for admission to the
Board's Examinations.

12. Section 7 sub sections (3) & (4)
confer power on the Board to conduct
examination at the level of the High
School and Intermediate courses and to
recognize institutions for the purpose of
its examination; respectively. The U.P.
High School and Intermediate Colleges
(Payment of Salaries of Teachers and
Other Employees) Act' 1971 (U.P. Act
No.24 of 1971) was enacted to regulate
the payment of salaries to teachers and
other employees of the High School and
Intermediate Colleges receiving aid out of
the State fund and to provide for matters
connected therewith. Section 2 (b) of the
Act' 1971 defines "Institution" which
means a recognized institution receiving
maintenance
grant
from
the
State
Government and includes a Sanskrit
Mahavidyalaya or a Sanskrit Vidayalaya
receiving maintenance grant from the
State Government. It provides power to
the Inspector of School namely District
Inspector of Schools to make supervision
in the matter of payment of salary to the
teachers and other employees of the
institution receiving maintenance grant
and take action against such management
which failed to disburse salary and post
retiral benefits within time.

13. The U.P. Board of Basic
Education Act' 1972 (in short as the Act'
2 All. Shri Satish Chandra & Ors. Vs State of U.P. & Ors.
2063
1972) provides for the establishment of
the Board of Basic Education and for
matters connected therewith. The object
of the Act is to strengthen the Basic
Education (Primary and Junior High
School) by reorganizing, reforming and
expanding elementary education and to
increase their usefulness by taking control
and
management
of
the
primary
education-institution, which were earlier
managed by the Local Bodies (such as
Zila Parishad and Municipal Board and
Mahapalika in the State of U.P.). The said
Act came into being from the academic
session 1972-73. The expression "Basic
Education" defined in Act' 1972 means :-

"Education upto the eight class
imparted in schools other than high
schools or intermediate college, and the
expression "basic schools" shall be
construed accordingly"

14. The definition of "Junior Basic
School" and "Junior High School" in
clauses (d-1) & (d-2) of sub section (1) of
Section 2 inserted by U.P. Act No.2 of
2018, deemed to have come into force in
August, 1972, provides the definition of
the said expressions as follows:-

2(d-1)-"Junior Basic School"
means a basic school in which education
in imparted upto class fifth."

2(d-2)-"Junior High School"
means a basic school in which education
is imparted to boys or girls or to both
from class sixth to class eighth."

15. One of the important functions
of the Board as provided in Section 4 of
Act' 1972 is to organize, co-ordinate and
control the imparting of Basic Education.
On coming into force of the said Act, the
power of management, supervision and
control over the Basic Schools defined in
clauses (d-1) & (d-2) of sub Section (2),
which before the appointed day was with
the local bodies, stood transferred in
respect of such school to the Board.

16. In exercise of powers under Sub
Section (1) of Section 19 of the Act' 1972,
the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools
(Recruitment and Conditions of Service
of Teachers and other Conditions) Rules'
1975 were framed. The "Junior Basic
School" defined therein is an institution
other
than
the
High
Schools
or
Intermediate
Colleges
imparting
education upto Class V. "Recognized
School" defined in Rule 2 (e) of Rules'
1975 means any "Junior Basic School",
not being an institution belonging to or
wholly maintained by the Board or any
local body, recognized by the Board
before the commencement of the Rules'
1975 for imparting education from
Classes I to V. The "Board" in Rule 2 (c)
of the Rules' 1975 means the U.P. Board
of Basic Education constituted under
Section 3 of the Act and the "District
Basic Education Officer" in Section 2 (d)
means the District Basic Education
Officer
appointed
by
the
State
Government.

17. For the applicability of the
Rules' 1975, Rule 3 provides that every
"recognized institution" shall be bound by
the conditions and restriction specified
therein.
Rule
4
says
that
every
"recognized school" must posses adequate
financial
resources
for
its
efficient
working
and
adequate
facilities
in
accordance with the standard specified by
the Board for teaching the subjects in
respect
of
which
such
school
is
recognized. Rule 5 to 8 of the Rules' 1975
regulate the requirement of building and
equipment to run the school, tuition fee
2064 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and text books needed as per the
curriculum prescribed by the Board. Rule
9 deals with the appointment of teachers
in a recognized school and provides that
no person shall be appointed as teacher or
other employee in any recognized school
unless he possess such qualifications as
specified in this behalf by the Board and
for whose appointment the previous
approval of the Basic Education Officer
has been obtained in writing. The
procedure for appointment as provided
therein is by publication of vacancy in
daily newspaper and approval of selection
by the Basic Education Officer. As far as
the salary of teachers is concerned, Rule
10 provides that every recognized school
shall pay the same scale of pay, dearness
allowance etc. as are being paid to the
teachers and employees of the Board
possessing similar qualification and the
payment shall be disbursed through
cheque.

18. The recognition is granted with
the object to supervise the working of the
management of the recognized school to
meet the standards of primary education.

19. The U.P. Junior High School
(Payment of Salaries of Teachers and
Other Employees) Act' 1978 came to be
enacted by the U.P. Legislature to
regulate the payment of salaries to the
teachers and other employees of the junior
high school receiving aid out of State
fund and to provide for matters connected
therewith. Clauses (b) & (d) of Section 2
of the Act' 1978 defines "Education
Officer" as District Basic Education
Officer appointed under the U.P. Basic
Education Act' 1972 and "Inspector"
means the District Inspector of Schools.
Section 2 (e) defines "institution" means a
recognized Junior High School for the
time being receiving maintenance grant
from the State Government. Sub section
(2) (e-e) inserted by U.P. Act No.3 of
2018 provides for definition of "Junior
High School" to mean as an institution
which is different from the High School
or
Intermediate
College
in
which
education is imparted to boys or girls or to
both from class VI to VIII.

20. "Maintenance grant" as defined
in clause (f) of Section 2 means grant-inaid of an institution provided by the State
Government, by general or special order
in that behalf to the level of the institution
directed in the order. "Salary" of teachers
means the aggregate of the emoluments
including
dearness
or
any
other
allowance, for the time being payable to a
teacher or employee at the rate approved
for
the
purpose
of
payment
of
maintenance grant. Section 2 (j) in the
definition clause says :-

"(j)
Other
words
and
expressions defined in the Uttar Pradesh
Basic Education Act, 1972 and not herein
defined shall have the meanings assigned
to them in that Act."

21. Section 10 of Act' 1978 makes
State Government liable for payment of
salaries of teachers and employees of
every institution receiving maintenance
grant due in respect of any period after the
appointed day.

22. A cumulative reading of the
aforesaid enactments indicates that though
in Section 2(b) of the Act' 1971,
expression
"institution"
includes
a
Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya or a Sanskrit
Vidyalaya receiving maintenance grant
from the State Government but neither the
Basic Education Act' 1972 nor the
2 All. Shri Satish Chandra & Ors. Vs State of U.P. & Ors.
2065
Payment of Salaries Act' 1978 includes
schools imparting Sanskrit education at junior
high school level i.e. "Prathama". The
Sanskrit
Vidyalaya
or
Sanskrit
Mahavidyalaya were initially maintained
under the Varanasi Sanskrit Vidyalaya Act'
1956 which was renamed as Sampurnanand
Sanskrit University, Varanasi. During the
course of time, Sampurnanand Sanskrit
University, Varanasi first Statute 1978 was
framed under the U.P. State Universities Act'
1973 to regulate the affiliation of the
institutions imparting Sanskrit Education. In
Statute 12.01 of the Statute of the
Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, framed
under Section 37 (2) of the U.P. State
Universities Act' 1973, four categories of
institutions have been provided which were
affiliated by the Sampurnanand Sanskrit
University to conduct the examination for the
courses imparted by them.

1.
स्नाकोत्तर
उपाजध
महाजवद्यालय
(Post
Graduate
Degree
College)
for
imparing
courses
from
"Prathama"
upto
"Acharya" and Post
Graduate
examination.

2.
उपाजध
महाजवद्यालय
(Degree
Colleges)
affiliated
for
"Shastri"
(Graduate)
examination (which
may
include
courses
from
Prathama
to
Shashtri).
3.
उत्तर
माध्यजमक
महाजवद्यालय

(Senior
Secondary
affiliated
for
imparting education
upto
"Uttar
Madhyama"
(Intermediate)
examination
(may
School)
include
such
institutions
imparting
courses
from Prathama to
Uttar Madhyama)
4.
पूवच माध्यजमक
जवद्यालय

(High
School)
affiliated
for
imparting education
upto
"Purva
Madhyama" (High
School) which may
include
courses
from Prathama to
Madhyama.

23 Thus, under the Statute of the
Sampurnanand
Sanskrit
University,
affiliation
could
be
granted
from
"Prathama" (junior High School) to
"Shashtri" (Post Graduate). There was no
provision for grant of recognition or
affiliation for the purpose of running a
primary education Classes (I to V)
institution
in
the
Statute
of
the
Sampurnanand Sanskrit University.

24. With the enactment of the U.P.
Board of Sanskrit Education' 2000 w.e.f
01.11.2000, (deemed to have come into
force on 30.09.2000) enacted to regulate
the Sanskrit education in the State of U.P.,
the
institution
imparting
Sanskrit
education
upto
"Uttar
Madhyama
(Intermediate)" are now recognized by the
U.P.
Board
of
Secondary
Sanskrit
Education established under Section 3 of
the said Act. The "institution" as defined
in Section 2 (f) of the Act' 2000 means:-

"Institution" means a sanskrit
school imparting sanskrit education upto
Uttar Madhayama recognized by the
Board".
2066 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

25. Section 2 (e) provides that the
District
Inspector
of
School
shall
discharge the functions of "Inspector"
under the Act. Under Section 9 of the Act'
2000, the Board is to prescribe courses of
instructions,
text
books
etc.
for
"Prathama",
"Madhyama",
"Uttar
Madhyama" (Junior High School to
Intermediate)
courses
in
Sanskrit
Education and to conduct examination of
the said courses and to grant diploma or
certificate to the persons pursuing the
same.

26. Section 13 of the Act' 2000 states
that
all
institutions
imparting
Sanskrit
Education
upto
"Uttar
Madhyama",
constituted in the State of U.P., immediately
before the commencement of this Act,
affiliated to or recognized by the Government
Sanskrit College, Varanasi or Sampurnanand
Sanskrit University, Varanasi shall be deemed
to have been recognized by the Sanskrit
Education Board under the Act' 2000 and
shall cease to be affiliated to or recognized by
the said college or University and shall be
governed by the provisions of the Act' 2000.

27.

Meaning
thereby
since
September 30, 2000, the part of the
institution-in-question
for
imparting
Sanskrit education from "Prathama to
Uttar Madhyama" is governed by the
provisions of the Act' 2000 and is deemed
to be recognized by the U.P. Board of
Sanskrit Education. For the purposes of
higher
Sanskrit
education
such
as
"Shashtri" & "Acharya" course, the
institution continue to be affiliated with
the Sampurnanand Sanskrit University
which shall conduct the said examination.

28. As far as the primary institution
(class I to V), neither there was any
provision in the Statute of the erstwhile
University or in the Sampurnanand
Sanskrit University first Statute' 1978 to
regulate the same. There was, thus, no
question of affiliation with the said
Universities. Mere permission by the
University to run classes I to V, therefore,
is of no relevance.

29. At the best, the part of the
institution in question running classes I to
V can be said to be recognized by the
Board of Basic Education pursuant to the
order dated 10.01.1973 (Annexure No.'1'
to the writ petition.). Maintenance grant
provided to the institution-in-question for
imparting
Sanskrit
education
from
"Prathama" (Junior High School) to
"Shashtri" (Graduation) would not ipsofacto extend the said grant to the primary
institution (classes I to V), treating it as an
integral
part
of
the
Sanskrit
Mahavidyalaya. The law laid down by the
Supreme Court in the case of State of
U.P. and others Vs. Pawan Kumar
Dwivedi & others reported in 2014 (9)
SCC 692 would not be attracted in the
above noted facts and circumstances of
the present case, in as much as, in the said
case question was of payment of salary to
the
teachers
and
employees
of
a
recognized "basic school" running classes
from primary to junior high school i.e.
classes I to VIII. By reading of the
expression "Junior High School" for the
purposes of Act' 1978 having the same
meaning as that of the "Basic Education"
in Section 2(b) of Act' 1972, it was held
therein that the expression "Junior High
School" in the Act' 1978 is intended to
refer to the schools imparting "Basic
Education" i.e. education upto class VIII.
It was held that the fact that the legislature
used expression "Junior High School" in
the Act' 1978 and not the "basic school"
as used and defined in Act' 1972 is
2 All. Shri Satish Chandra & Ors. Vs State of U.P. & Ors.
2067
insignificant. It was concluded that if a
"junior basic school" (classes I to V) is
added
after
obtaining
necessary
recognition to the recognized and aided
Senior basic school (class VI to VIII),
then such "junior basic school" became
integral part of one school i.e. the basic
school having classes I to VIII.

30. The said analogy drawn by the
Apex Court, in the opinion of this Court,
cannot be imported here to bring a
primary institution/[classes (I to V)]
added to an institution imparting Sanskrit
education from junior High School level
"(Prathama)" to the higher level of
education "(Shahstri or Acharya)".

31. As regards the obligation of the
State of imparting free education to the
children upto the age of 14 years, a
constitutional guarantee under Article 21A of the Constitution brought by 86th
Amendment' 2002, suffice it to note that
even prior to the insertion of the said
Article,
the
Apex
Court
in
Unni
Krishnan, J.P. and others Vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh and others reported in
1993 (1) SCC 645 had observed that
children upto the age of 14 years have a
fundamental right to free education
stipulated in Article 45 of the Constitution
of India. However, at the same time, it
observed that the said obligation cannot
be said to be performed only through the
State school but it can also be done by
permitting,
recognising
and
aiding
voluntary
non-governmental
organisations, who are prepared to impart
free
education
to
children..
The
observation in paragraph no.176 in Unni
Krishnan (supra) read as follows:-

"176. This does not however
mean
that
this
obligation
can
be
performed only through the State Schools.
It can also be done by permitting,
recognising and aiding voluntary nongovernmental organisations, who are
prepared to impart free education to
children. This does not also mean that
unaided private schools cannot continue.
They can, indeed, they too have a role to
play. They meet the demand of that
segment of population who may not wish
to have their children educated in Staterun schools. They have necessarily to
charge fees from the students. In this
judgment, however, we do not wish to say
anything about such schools or for that
matter
other
private
educational
institutions except ''professional colleges'.
This discussion is really necessitated on
account of the principles enunciated in
Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992)
3 SCC 666 and the challenge mounted
against those principles in these writ
petitions."

32. In T.M.A. Pai Foundation and
Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.
reported in 2002 (8) SCC 481, the eleven
judges Constitutional bench of the Apex
Court had approved the view of Unni
Krishnan's (supra) to the extent that it
had held that primary education is a
fundamental right, though it did not agree
with
the
scheme
framed
in
Unni
Krishnan (supra) case and the direction
to impose the same in respect of the fee
charged by private institutions.

33. Thus, under the scheme of the
legal
Enactments
and
the
judicial
pronouncement of the Apex Court noted
above, at least this much is clear that the
State is under no obligation to provide
maintenance
grant
to
each
private
institution imparting primary education or
free education to children from age (6 to
2068 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
14 years). At the same time, it is
necessary for a primary institution to seek
recognition by the Board of Basic
Education. Mere recognition by the
Board, however, does not entitle the
institution to seek maintenance grant from
the State. Further, even in a recognized
institution, not receiving maintenance
grant, the appointment of teachers has to
be made with the approval of the Basic
Education Officer.

34. The decision in "Ramesh
Upadhaya" (supra) by the co-ordinate
bench of this Court does not consider any
of the above legal aspect of the matter and
as such is not binding on this Court being
per-incurium.

35. It must, therefore, be held that
the petitioners are not entitled to get
salary from the State exchequer for the
mere fact that the primary institution was
recognized by the Board of Basic
Schools. In so far as the plea that it was
an attached institution to the Sanskrit
Degree College, the same is found
misconceived for the above noted reasons.

36. At the same time, this Court
does not agree with the conclusion of the
Deputy Director of Education (Sanskrit)
that the Board of Basic Education was not
having power to grant recognition to the
institution-in-question to run primary
classes. The recognition granted on
10.01.1973
is
a
permanent
valid
recognition within the meaning of the
Basic Education Act' 1972 read with the
Rules' 1975. The primary section of the
institution-in-question is, thus, to be
treated as a separate entity being a
"recognized school" within the meaning
of Rules' 1975 and shall be governed by
the Act' 1972 read with Rules' 1975 as a
"Junior Basic School" within the meaning
of Section 2(1) (d-1) of the Basic
Education Act' 1972 for all other relevant
purposes.

37. It shall not open for the Basic
Education
Officer
or
any
other
educational authority to interfere in the
running of the said "junior basic school"
except in a case of contravention of the
Act' 1972 or the Rules' 1975. However, it
will be open for the management to make
a request to the State Government for
bringing this institution in its grant-in-aid
list, in accordance with law.

38.

Subject
to
the
above
observations and directions, the writ
petition is dismissed.
----------

(2019)10ILR A 2068

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.08.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Writ A No. 11208 of 2004

Bijendra Pal ...Petitioner
Versus
The Chairman Parivahan Nigam Mukhyalaya
Lucknow & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri V.D. Dubey, Sri Mool Chandra Maurya,
Sri S.K. Rao.

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C., Sri P.N. Rai, Sri Ramanuj Pandey, Sri V.C. Dixit.

When certain facts in the document,
admitted as evidence are disputed - onus
is
on
the
employee
to
prove
incorrectness.