Allowed

C/M Pashupatinath Junior High School and Another v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC6 Dec 2019SPLAD/982/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This intra-Court appeal challenged a Single Judge's order dismissing a writ petition regarding a school's rejection for grant-in-aid. The High Court set aside the lower order because the Judge decided on teacher qualifications, which were not disputed grounds, remitting the matter to the State Government.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the order dated 6.10.2009 and the State Government order dated 6.7.2007; remitted matter to State Government for reconsideration within two months.

C/M Pashupatinath Junior High School and Another… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 982 of 2011

¶3

Appellant :- C/M Pashupatinath Junior High School And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Appellant :- S.P. Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,G.S. Maurya

¶4

Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶5

Re: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.1 of 2019

¶6

This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

¶7

The delay condonation application is supported by an affidavit of one Kripa Narayan Dwivedi.

¶8

Cause shown in affidavit accompanying the delay condonation application for non-appearance is sufficient.

¶9

The delay condonation application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶10

Office is directed to allot regular number to the appeal.

¶11

Order Date :- 6.12.2019 AKJ

¶12

Court No. - 4

¶13

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 982 of 2011

¶14

Appellant :- C/M Pashupatinath Junior High School And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Appellant :- S.P. Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,G.S. Maurya

¶15

Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶16

Heard Sri S.P.Pandey, learned counsel for appellants, learned standing counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 and Sri G.S.Maurya, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 and 4.

¶17

This intra-Court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules has been filed assailing order dated 6.10.2009, passed by learned Single Judge in WritC No.47657 of 2007 dismissing writ petition filed by appellant challenging order dated 6.7.2007, passed by State Government.

¶18

Facts in brief are that there is an institution known as Pashupatinath Poorva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Dubepur, Khajurgawan, District Gorakhpur (hereinafter called as “institution”). The institution is a recognized Junior High School imparting education to children of Class VI, VII and VIII. The Society, which had established the institution is Pashupathi Nath Sanskrit Sansthan, Dubepur, Khajurgawan, District Gorakhpur. Permanent recognition was granted to the institution by Deputy Director of Education, VII Region, Gorakhpur on

¶19

29.3.1985. According to appellant, on 19.11.1985 post of teachers and employees were created by the competent authority.

¶20

The State Government, in the year 2006 came out with a policy providing grant-in-aid to 1000 Junior High School of State Government. The institutions were required to make application on prescribed proforma. The institution in question also applied for the same. However, two objections were raised by State Government, firstly, that there were two recognition orders dated 13.9.1985 and 29.3.1985 and second objection was that there was no document to show that the institution had land and building of it's own. Appellant replied the said objection and stated that there was only one recognition dated 29.3.1985 and there was no recognition order like 13.9.1985. Further, documents relating to second objection were also submitted to the parties concerned on 16.11.2006.

¶21

As State authorities failed to take any decision in regard to the institution being included in grant-in-aid list, a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.68364 of 2006 was filed, which was disposed of by order dated 14.12.2006 with a direction to decide the appellant's representation. Thereafter, appellant filed a detailed representation on 9.3.2007. The said representation was rejected by State Government on 6.7.2007, which was the order impugned in Writ-C No.47657 of 2007. The reason assigned in rejection order of the State Government was that the order of recognition dated 29.3.1985 appears to be suspicious and further no documents were placed on record in regard to registration of the Society along with the manager's return. It was also

¶22

stated that teachers and employees working in the institution are not approved by the authorities.

¶23

Sri S.P.Pandey, learned counsel appearing for appellant submitted that learned Single Judge without deciding the real issue involved in writ petition proceeded to decide the same on the basis of qualification of Assistant Teachers of the institution in question, which was not the issue in the order of respondent no.1. It was contended that learned Single Judge should have considered the ground on which the claim of the institution was rejected which was based on non-existing ground, as all the material was placed by the institution before State Government for considering the claim for bringing the institution in grantin-aid list.

¶24

It was submitted that institution was recognized in the year 1985 and recognition granted by the State Government has not been recalled and was continuing and teachers and employees working are duly approved by the competent authority and no objections were ever raised on the qualification of teachers. He further submitted that it was Committee of Management before the Court and not teachers, who had challenged the decision of State Government and the learned Single Judge was not correct to decide the issue regarding bringing the institution in grant-in-aid list on the basis of the qualification of the teachers.

¶25

Reliance has been placed on a judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No.994 of 2014, Paripurna Nand Tripathi and another vs. State of U.P. and others, wherein claim for payment of salary from the State fund to an Assistant Teacher in a Primary

¶26

School was rejected, on the ground, that it did not fulfill the eligibility criteria for grant-in-aid by the State. This Court on 5.12.2014 while allowing the Special Appeal held as under:

¶27

"In the State of Uttar Pradesh, most of the institutions providing basic education have been established by societies registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 by private managements. The State Government has framed policy guidelines and has issued executive orders/circulars/administrative orders from time to time laying down standards/norms for providing grant-in-aid to unaided institutions. Unless those conditions are fulfilled by private institutions, the State Government does not take liability for the payment of salaries of the teachers and other employees of such institutions.

¶28

After the enactment of the Act, 2009 and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan (supra), Bhartiya Seva Samaj Trust (supra) and State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Pawan Kumar Divedi and others10, we are of the view that the State Government may revisit its age old policy in the light of the constitutional amendment and the law laid down by the Supreme Court on the subject.

¶29

Undoubtedly, now it is the State's responsibility to provide free and compulsory education to the children of the age of six to fourteen years. Private institutions, which are imparting education to children of the said age group, in fact, are performing and sharing the obligations of the State. Therefore, an obligation is cast upon the State Government not only to provide the grant-in-aid to such institutions but to provide infrastructure also subject to reasonable conditions laid down by it. Providing education to the children of the age of six to fourteen years shall be a mirage unless qualitative education is provided to them.

¶30

In the State of Uttar Pradesh, the large majority of children of the said age group come from the marginalized sections of the society. Most of the institutions providing primary and basic education are situated in rural and semi-urban areas. To provide quality education it is necessary that trained and competent teachers are appointed and necessary infrastructure is also made available to such institutions. The teachers in private unaided institutions are working in pitiable conditions. No good teacher would like to work in such institutions. Thus, the students will be deprived of quality education.

¶31

In view of the supervening events, we are of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge dated 29 August 2014 and the order of the State Government dated 10 January 2002 need to be set aside and are, accordingly, set aside. The matter is remitted to the State Government to reconsider it in the light of the law referred to above. The State Government may reconsider its policy of 1989 in respect of the grant of aid to the unaided institutions in the light of the constitutional amendment, the Act of 2009 and the law laid down in the judgments referred above.

¶32

The special appeal is, accordingly, allowed. Consequently, Writ-A No. 39886 of 2004 also stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶33

There shall be no order as to costs."

¶34

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent State functionaries defended the order passed by learned Single Judge and submitted that as Assistant Teachers of the institutions were mere B.Ed. and did not possess the requisite educational qualification, there was no question of bring the institution in grant-in-aid list and the denial by the State Government cannot be faulted.

¶35

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶36

It is not in dispute that appellant, which is a Committee of Management, had approached this Court in Writ-C No.47657 of 2007 assailing the order passed by respondent no.1, dated 6.7.2007 whereby the claim of the institution for bringing in the list of grant-in-aid was rejected on various grounds, but not on the ground that teachers were not having requisite qualifications.

¶37

From the reading of the order impugned in writ petition, it is clear, that claim of the institution was rejected on the ground that recognition order dated 29.3.1985 appears to be suspicious, secondly, that there was no document with regard to registration of Society along with manager’s returns and further that teachers and employees of the institution were not approved by the authority. However, learned Single Judge proceeded to decide the writ petition on the ground that teachers so appointed did not possess requisite qualification, which was not an issue before learned Single Judge nor State Government had rejected claim on the said ground.

¶38

We find that order of learned Single Judge, dated 6.10.2009, cannot be sustained on the ground that he

¶39

proceeded to decide writ petition, on the ground, which was not before him for consideration. Further, according to appellant, State Government had overlooked the fact that all the documents regarding grant of approval for bringing the institution in grant-in-aid were available before it and the claim was rejected solely on baseless grounds, which did not exist.

¶40

The co-ordinate Bench of this Court while dealing in the case of Paripurna Nand Tripathi and another (supra) had decided the issue in regard to institutions providing the basic education established by Society by private management, and State Government having framed policy guidelines for providing grant-in-aid to these unaided institutions cannot resile from its obligation to provide grant-in-aid to such institution.

¶41

Thus, in view of the law laid down in the case of Paripurna Nand Tripathi and another(supra), the order dated 6.10.2009, passed by learned Single Judge, in Writ-C No.47657 of 2007 and also order of State Government dated 6.7.2007 needs to be set aside and are accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted to the State Government to reconsider the claim of appellant in the light of the law referred above, within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order by reasoned and speaking order.

¶42

The special appeal is, accordingly, allowed.

¶43

Order Date :- 6.12.2019 AKJ

C/M Pashupatinath Junior High School and Another v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C/M Pashupatinath Junior High School and Another v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Jareena Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharmendra Pratap Shahi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sachin Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mukesh Kumar Sharma Vs Dios and Others

Abhishek Bhardwaj Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Indrawati Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others