Remanded

C/M Madanpal Singh Smarak Purva Madhyamik School Sadarpur and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Jan 2020WRIC/867/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner schools sought affiliation under the grant-in-aid scheme. The court dismissed the original 2006 claim due to delay but remitted the matter for reconsideration under the 2014 Government Order, directing authorities to assess eligibility and conduct due diligence on staff and infrastructure within six months.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of; the matter was remitted to the respondent for reconsideration of the application for grant-in-aid under the 2014 Order with specific directions.

C/M Madanpal Singh Smarak Purva Madhyamik School… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 54 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 867 of 2020 Petitioner :- C/M Madanpal Singh Smarak Purva Madhyamik School Sadarpur And 3 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Singh,Raj Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶2

Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.

¶4

The petitioners applied for bringing the Institutions under the grant-in-aid in pursuance to an advertisement dated 09.09.2006. Certain conditionalities in the aforesaid advertisement were challenged by various Institutions before this Court. The controversy relating to the offending clause in the advertisement travelled up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. A Special Leave Petition was instituted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Special Leave Petition was registered as S.L.P. (C) No. 4630 of 2008, State of U.P. and Others v. Committee of Management Mata Tapeshwari Saraswati Vidya Mandir and Others. The petitioners claim that they were impleaded as party respondents in the aforesaid Special Leave Petition. The said SLP was finally decided on 02.12.2009. Admittedly, the petitioners did not take any further action pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioners are approaching this Court after nine years of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. No satisfactory explanation for the delay in approaching this Court has been explained in the instant writ petition.

¶5

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Sunil Kumar Singh submits that he does not wish to press his claim on the foot of the application submitted in the year, 2006 and the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 02.12.2009. He, however, submits that the petitioners Institution are liable to be brought under the grant-in-aid under the Government Order dated 17.01.2014.

¶6

Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the judgements rendered by this Court in the case of Paripurna Nand Tripathi Vs. State of U.P., reported at (2015) 3 ADJ 567 (DB) and rendered by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Pawan Kumar Divedi, reported at (2014) 9 SCC 692.

¶7

Learned Standing Counsel on the contrary, submits that the grant of affiliation is subject to satisfaction of eligibility criteria

¶8

of such Institutions. These aspects which have to be enquired into and verified by the competent authority.

¶9

This Court in the case of Paripurna Nand Tripathi (supra) while considering the Rights of Children to Free and Compulsory Education and the obligations of the State Government in this regard held thus:

¶10

"20. 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.

¶11

21. 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.

¶12

22. 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."

¶13

The Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Divedi (supra) distilled the responsibilities of the State Government in regard to imparting education to children as follows:

¶14

"36. The statement by the five-Judge Constitution Bench in Unni Krishnan [Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of A.P., (1993) 1 SCC 645 : 1 SCEC 523] that primary education is a fundamental right is echoed in H.P. State Recognised & Aided Schools Managing Committees [State of H.P. v. H.P. State Recognised and Aided Schools Managing Committees, (1995) 4 SCC 507 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 1049] as well. The three-Judge Bench in paras 16 and 17 reiterated the constitutional mandate to the State to provide free education to the children up to the age of 14. The three-Judge Bench said: (H.P. State Recognised & Aided Schools Managing Committees case[State of H.P. v.

¶15

H.P. State Recognised and Aided Schools Managing Committees, (1995) 4 SCC 507 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 1049] , SCC pp. 514-15)

¶16

"16. The constitutional mandate to the State, as upheld by this Court in Unni Krishnan case [Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of A.P., (1993) 1 SCC 645 : 1 SCEC 523] ?to provide free education to the children up to the age of fourteen?cannot be permitted to be circumvented on the ground of lack of economic capacity or financial incapacity.

¶17

17. It is high time that the State must accept its responsibility to extend free education to the children up to the age of fourteen. Right to education is equally guaranteed to the children who are above the age of fourteen, but they cannot enforce the same unless the economic capacity and development of the State permits the enforcement of the same. The State must endeavour to review and increase the budget allocation under the head 'Education'. The Union of India must also consider to increase the percentage of allocation of funds for 'Education' out of the Gross National Product."

¶18

In the light of the submissions made at the Bar, no useful purpose would be served by keeping this writ petition pending. The writ petition is disposed of finally with the consent of parties.

¶19

The matter is remitted back to the respondent no. 1. A mandamus is issued to the respondent no. 1 to execute the following directions:

¶20

(i). It is open to the petitioners to approach the competent authority for brought under the grant-in-aid. In case such application is submitted the same shall be decided by the competent authority in the light of the law laid down by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Paripurna Nand Tripathi (supra) and Pawan Kumar Divedi (supra) respectively, the terms of the Government Order dated 17.01.2014 and other provisions of law as applicable.

¶21

(ii). The respondent no. 1 shall ensure that the due diligence exercise is conducted into the credentials of the staff and teachers, infrastructure and all other relevant criteria. Upon consideration of relevant criteria, the respondent no. 1 shall pass appropriate orders in the matter in accordance with law.

¶22

(iii). This exercise shall be completed expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order along with a copy of the representation.

¶23

The writ petition is disposed of finally.

¶24

Order Date :- 13.1.2020/Akbar

C/M Madanpal Singh Smarak Purva Madhyamik School Sadarpur and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C/M Madanpal Singh Smarak Purva Madhyamik School Sadarpur and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Saraswati Devi Inter College Vs State of U P and Another

Principal, Sarvodaya Vidyapeeth Inter College Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Suhail Ahmad Siddiqui Vs Registrar/Examination Controller Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj University Kanpur and Another

C/M Kisan Inter College Rasoolaha and Another Vs District Inspector of Schools Jaunpur and 6 Others

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

Mohd. Farooq Deceased and 8 Others Vs Bahajuddin