Disposed

R.B.S. Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC16 Jan 2019WRIA/17001/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner society sought mandamus directing the State Government to consider its grievances regarding salary and benefits for teachers at its aided primary school. The court issued a direction to the State to consider the grievance and pass an order within three months if a fresh representation is filed.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to the State Government to consider the petitioner's grievances and pass an appropriate order within three months if a fresh representation is submitted.

R.B.S. Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya Vs State of U.P… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17001 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- R.B.S. Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ghanshyam Das Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Awadhesh Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶5

Heard Sri G. D. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Amit Manohar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 and Sri Awadhesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no.4.

¶6

The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs:-

¶7

" (i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus of commanding the respondent to consider the grievances of the petitioner as contended in his last representation dated 16.1.2018.

¶8

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus of commanding the respondents to pay the salary and other consequential benefits to the teachers of the attached primary school of R.B.S. Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Laxmanpur Sariya, District Basti."

¶9

The petitioner is a society registered under the Society of Registration Act, 1860, which runs a institution R.B.S. Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Laxmanpur Sariya, District Basti, which is stated to be a recognized and aided institution. The aforesaid society was renewed time to time.

¶10

Vide order dated 27.8.2018, learned Standing Counsel was granted two weeks' time to file counter affidavit but till date no counter affidavit has been filed.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the controversy involved in the present case is identical as has been decided by this Court in Writ A No.30224 of 2017 Sri Babu Singh Smarak Vidyalaya Vs. State of U. P. and others decided on 14.7.2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in Paripurna Nand Tripathi and another Vs. State of U.P. and others, Special Appeal Defective No. 994 of 2014, decided on 5.12.2014, wherein a Division Bench of this Court has considered the issue and after considering the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. Pawan Kumar Divedi and others, (2014) 9 SCC 692 , and the effect of the Constitution (Eighty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 2002 inserting Article 21-A, which enjoins the State Government to

¶12

provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may. The Division Bench has also considered the object of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and has issued a direction to the State Government to take appropriate decision and to re-visit its policy decision in respect of the grant-in-aid to the unaided institutions, which are providing education, in terms of Article 21-A of the Constitution.

¶13

Having due regard to the facts of the present case, the present writ petition is being finally disposed of by issuing a direction upon the State Government to consider the grievance of the petitioner. The petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh representation along-with certified copy of this order before the State Government within two weeks. In the event, any such representation is made, respondent no.1 shall pass appropriate order thereon in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months thereafter.

¶14

With the aforesaid directions, present writ petition is disposed of finally.

¶15

It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the case and thus it is for authority concerned to take a decision independently in accordance with law.

¶16

Order Date :- 16.1.2019 Pramod Tripathi

R.B.S. Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.B.S. Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Minakshi Rajpoot Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Buddhiram Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sushama Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shambhavi Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Km. Ranjana Singh and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dayanand Ram Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others