Dismissed

Pankaj Kumar and 15 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC25 Apr 2022WRIA/6035/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition sought direction for grant-in-aid to a primary school section. Court dismissed direct writ relief, directing parties to approach the Principal Secretary via fresh representation within two weeks for substantive consideration by the State.

What did the court decide?

Rejection of direct writ petition; direction to file fresh representation with documents before Principal Secretary within two weeks for subsequent decision.

Pankaj Kumar and 15 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6035 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar And 15 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3.

¶6

The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been field for direction to the respondent no.2 to extend the benefit of grant-in-aid to the primary section of the Institution where the petitioners are working as Assistant Teacher in Primary Section of the Institution namely Shri Prannath Junior High School, Ratanpur, District- Muzaffaragar.

¶7

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the primary section of the Institution and junior high school of the Institution are one unit, which was taken in grant-in-aid list of the junior high school in the year 1984.

¶8

Learned Standing counsel for submits that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment Division Bench Judgment of this Court in c/m Adarsh Gramin Vidyalaya Sonakpur, Harthala & Ors Vs. State of 11 Ors reported in 2022 LawSuit (All) 291 . The challenge and relief in the writ petition has been made in paragraph no. 5 and 201 which are quoted as under:-

¶9

"[5] The petitioners herein are recognized institutions imparting education from Classes I to VIII. They have been categorized in four categories in view of the submissions of the learned Advocate General:-

¶10

Category A- Unaided Junior High Schools

¶11

Category B- Primary Sections recognized first and Junior High School.

¶12

Category C- Junior High School recognized first and attached primary sections later.

¶13

Category D- Recognized primary and junior High Schools receiving grant-in-aid by wrong orders.

¶14

201. For the reasoning as aforesaid, we dispose of the present bunch of

¶15

Relief:-

¶16

writ petitions in the following manner:-

¶17

(i). The petitioners' institutions falling in group 'A' cannot sustain the challenge to the validity of the Amendment to the 1978' Act by U.P. Act No.3 of 2018, being unaided Junior High Schools.

¶18

(ii). The petitioners institutions falling in Group 'B' & 'C' are held to be covered under the provisions of the Payment of Salaries Act' 1978, as amended by 2017 Amendment namely the U.P. Act No.3 of 2018.

¶19

Consequently, the State shall reconsider their claims for providing grantin-aid in light of the principle of 'composite integrality' or "oneness of the institution" evolved in Jai Ram Singh (Supra) as approved above.

¶20

(iii). The petitioners institutions falling in group 'D' may lay their claim before the appropriate authority, if they incidentally fall in Group 'B' & 'C'. However, such institutions which do not fall in Group 'B' & 'C' would not be entitled to the benefit of this decision.

¶21

(iv). As we have not examined the validity of the individual orders for rejection of the claim of each petitioner, the petitioners in Group 'D' which do not fall in Group 'B' or 'C' may draw proceeding before the appropriate authority to sustain their challenge.

¶22

(v) All rights and contentions of the parties on the validity of the individual findings recorded by the State in respect of each institution are left open."

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no.4 Committee of Management has already been filed representation in this regard before the Additional Chief Secretary, Basic Siksha Anubhag- 3 Lucknow, U.P. which remain pending till date.

¶24

In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of by providing that the petitioners may make a fresh representation, ventilating all their grievances supported by such documents as may be advised, before the Principal Secretary, Basic Education Lucknow, U.P. within two weeks from today alongwith a certified copy of this order. On such representation being made, the respondent no.3 shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law by means of a reasoned speaking order, preferably within three months from the date the representation is made.

¶25

Order Date :- 25.4.2022 Akbar

¶26

Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AKBAR Date: 2022.04.26 10:31:10 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pankaj Kumar and 15 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Kumar and 15 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yogendra Nath Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Anju Rathore Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rinki Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Smt. Chandra Bahan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Anita Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others