C/M Janta Viddyalaya Junior High School Arobar Block Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Basic Education ANUBHAG-6 andORS

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:49211

Court No. - 7

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1006836 of 2011 Petitioner :- C/M Janta Viddyalaya Junior High School Arobar Block

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Basic Education Anubhag-6 Andors Counsel for Petitioner :- J.N. Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,P.R. Kanuajia,Shivam Sharma

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Sri J.N. Misra, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel and Sri Shivam Sharma, learned for respondents.

¶7

The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to noninclusion of the petitioner's institution under the grant in aid scheme under the State Government. It is in this regard the petitioner on the previous occasion had also filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 2264(MS) of 2010 which was disposed of by this Court on 16.04.2011 with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner within three weeks.

¶8

It is in compliance of the order dated 16.04.2011 that the representation of the petitioner has been duly considered by the Secretary, Basic Education, Government of Uttar Pradesh in light of the various government orders providing for inclusion of the institution under the grant in aid and the same has been rejected. The reason for rejection of the petitioner's institution under the grant in aid as per the impugned order is that most of the teachers appointed in the petitioner institution have not been approved nor the procedure prescribed had been followed and accordingly their appointment itself are de hors the statutory provisions.

¶9

Further, it has been stated that even the approval neither has been sought nor has been granted to them apart from the fact that the institution of the petitioner falls in category-B of the list of institution which cannot be considered for being included in the grant in aid scheme. In this regard, the Government Order dated 07.10.2010 has been annexed along with writ petition where it has been provided that all the employees/teachers who are working on the sanctioned posts and their appointments are duly approved are the institutions which are included in 'A' category and such of the institutions can be considered for being included in the grant in aid scheme.

¶10

The list of teachers given in the impugned order, it has specifically been stated that the appointments of most of them are irregular and no approval has been granted by the statutory authorities and even otherwise the petitioner is included in the 'B' category of institution and hence the representation has been rejected.

¶11

Learned counsel for petitioner while assailing the said order has submitted that the petitioner institution was granted permanent recognition in 1970 and even otherwise challenges the ground that the institution of the petitioner placed in category 'B'. There is no denial of the fact in the entire writ petition with regard to the procedure adopted for appointment of most of the teachers as has been stated in the impugned order and consequently he could not even assail or show any order with regard to the petitioner institution has been included in the category 'A' list of institutions.

¶12

In absence of the aforesaid necessary documents, this Court finds that there is no infirmity in passing of the impugned order dated 12.08.2011 wherein the petitioner institution has been denied the benefit of grant in aid.

¶13

Lastly it has been submitted that after coming into force of the Right to Education Act, 2009, the petitioner can be reimbursed the salary given to its teachers. It seems that the contention of the petitioner are not raised before the authority concerned and accordingly was not considered.

¶14

In light of the above, this Court does not find any merits in the challenged made to the impugned order dated 12.08.2011 and accordingly the writ petition being bereft of merits and is accordingly dismissed .

¶15

Further, it shall be open for the petitioner to move appropriate application in the institution prescribed under the Right to Education Act for grant of any benefit as provided therein and in case such an application is moved, the prescribed authority shall decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶16

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶17

Order Date :- 22.7.2024/Ravi/

¶18

Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

C/M Janta Viddyalaya Junior High School Arobar Block v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Basic Education ANUBHAG-6 andORS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C/M Janta Viddyalaya Junior High School Arobar Block v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Basic Education ANUBHAG-6 andORS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner Commercial Tax Commercial Tax Bhawan Vs M/S Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Transport Nagar

Pavanesh Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Civil Secrt. Lko. and 4 Others

Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. through Its G.M. Vs Commissioner Commercial Taxes Lko.

M/S Lavi Industries Hardoi Thru Proprietor Vs Commissioner of Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow

M/S Dhaniram Mannilal Hardoi Thru Partner Vs Commissioner of Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow

M/S Balaji Oil Mills Hardoi Thru Proprietor Vs Commissioner of Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow