Allowed

C/M Sadar Patel Primary School and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2020WRIC/11695/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition quashing an order rejecting two primary schools from the grant-in-aid list. The court directed the State of U.P. to reconsider the claim for aid in light of Article 21-A of the Constitution and Supreme Court precedents, ordering a fresh examination within three months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; Respondent No. 1 directed to examine petitioners' claim for grant-in-aid list within three months.

C/M Sadar Patel Primary School and 2 Others Vs… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11695 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- C/M Sadar Patel Primary School And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogendra Kumar Mishra,Dinesh Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Dinesh Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Nimla Prasad, learned Standing counsel for the State.

¶6

The present writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 28.11.2018 passed by respondent no. 1, State of U.P. through its Secretary, Social Welfare State of U.P. Lucknow which was served upon the petitioner though letter dated 16.1.2019 and further direction to the respondents to provide grant-in-aid to the petitioner's School namely Sardar Patel Primary School, Newada, District- Kaushambi and Kaushambi Saraswati Primary School Kothi Kanaili, District- Kaushambi as early as possible so that the teachers and employees may get salary from the State Exchequer.

¶7

Record reflects that the petitioners are the managing affairs of the Primary School known as Sardar Patel Primary School, Newada, District- Kaushambi and Kaushambi Saraswati Primary School Kothi Kanaili, District- Kaushambi. By the impugned order, the petitioner Institutions' for being taken on the grant-in-aid list has been rejected on the ground that the scheme of the State itself discontinued w.e.f. 5.10.2006.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised various grounds to contend that the order is unsustainable in law and on facts. It is also stated that a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment in Civil Appeal No.3989 of 2006 (State of U.P. and others Vs. Pawan Kumar Divedi and others), dated 2nd September, 2014, reported in 2014 (9) SCC 692, has taken note of the subsequent amendments incorporated in the constitution for ensuring right of education as a fundamental right upto age of 14 years. Relying upon the provisions as well as subsequent statutory enactments, State has been directed to examine such matters afresh, in view of the positive obligation created upon the State by way of such constitutional amendment. Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No.994 of 2014 (Paripurna Nand Tripathi and another Vs. State of U.P. and 20 others) has also been pleased

¶9

to direct the State Government to re-visit the issue in view of constitutional amendment, whereby Article 21-A of the Constitution of India has been added. The relevant part of the order reads as under:-

¶10

"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 others, 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.

¶11

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.

¶12

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."

¶13

Learned Counsel submits that in such circumstances, the order impugned cannot be sustained, and the matter be directed to be reconsidered.

¶14

Faced with the aforesaid contention, learned Standing Counsel states that the authorities of the State shall re-visit the issue.

¶15

In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. the impugned order dated 28.11.2018 passed by respondent no. 1 State of U.P. through its Secretary, Social Welfare, State of U.P. Lucknow is set aside. The respondent no.1 is directed to examine the petitioners' claim for being taken on list of aid, keeping in view the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. and others Vs. Pawan Kumar Dwivedi and others (supra), as well as the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Paripurna Nand Tripathi (supra), afresh. The required exercise shall be made within a period of three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.

¶16

Order Date :- 8.1.2020/Akbar

C/M Sadar Patel Primary School and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C/M Sadar Patel Primary School and 2 Others 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

Uma Shankar Singh and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

C/M Bhartiya Vidyalay Sabha Sultanpur and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

C/M Smt Neetu Devi Bind Mahavidyalya and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Zafar Mohammad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shailesh Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Satendra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others