Allowed

S.M.R.M. High School, Nagaram, Guntur District, v. The State of A.P. Rep. by it's Secretary to

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Feb 2024WP/1010/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An aided school sought unpaid maintenance grants withheld for three academic years despite a government order struck down as unconstitutional. Following an earlier single-judge order confirmed by writ appeal and upheld by Supreme Court dismissal of SLP, the court allowed the petition directing release of maintenance grant at 6%.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to work out maintenance grant @ 6% and pay it within three months to the petitioner school, on par with other schools; miscellaneous petitions closed.

S.M.R.M. High School, Nagaram, Guntur… — Education and Admissions | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY. THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY ^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

o 2
rv

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 1010 OF 2014_

¶7

Between:

¶8

S.M.R.M. High School. Nagaram. Guntur District, Represented by its Secretary& Correspondent, Nagaram, Guntur District. ...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 The State of A.P. Rep. by it's Secretary to. Government,^Education

¶11

Department, A.P. Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Commissioner & Director of School Education, A.P., Hyderabad.

¶13

The District Educational Officer, Guntur, Guntur^District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India^{prayingthatin} the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,^{theHighCourtmay} be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ. Order or direction^{especiallyinthe} nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of^{therespondentsin} not paying the maintenance grants to the G O Ms No. 320 Education (PS.2), Department dated 13-09-1994 for 20072008 2010-2011 2011-2012 and 2012 -2013 as illegal, arbitrary, and issue a consequential direction to the respondents to pay maintenance the G.O.Ms. No. 320 grants forthwith to the petitioner school as per Education (PS.2) Department dated 13-09-1994.

¶16

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP. NO: 1150 OF 2014)

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,^{theHighCourtmaybe} the maintenance grants to the pleased to direct the respondents to pay 320 Education (PS.2), nptitinnpr srhool in terms of G.O.Ms.No. Department dated 13-09-1994 for 2010-2011, 2011-2012^and2012-2013 forthwith, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶18

counsel for the Petitioner; SRI. N SRIRANI MURTHY

¶19

; GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No. 1010 of 2014

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:“....to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction especially in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying the maintenance grants to the petitioner school in terms^of G.O.Ms.No.320 Education (PS.2), Department dated 13.09.1994 for 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 as illegal, arbitrary and issue a consequential direction^tothe respondents to pay maintenance grants forthwith to the petitioner school as per the G.O.Ms.No.320 Education (PS.2) Department dated 13.09.1994....”

¶24

When the matter is taken up for hearing, it is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the^issuein the present Writ Petition is squarely covered by the^ordersof the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, dated 30.09.2016 passed in W.P. No.3449 of 2003, wherein a learned single Judge allowed the writ petition. A copy^ofthe said order is placed on record as a material paper. The relevant Paragraphs of the Judgment read thus:

¶25

¶26

“21. In any view of the matter, the contention of the^learned Government Pleader is that the petitioner is not entitled to maintenance grant in view of G.O.Ms.No.320, which was struck down by this Court in the judgments referred supra. Even otherwise, the discriminatory attitude of the Government giving concession to one educational institution and denying benefit to the petitioner’s educational institution cannot be encouraged by the Courts, since it is arbitrary^and discriminatory in not releasing grant-in-aid to the petitioner’s association whose object is to provide free education. In those circumstances, this Court has no option except^tohold that the inaction of the respondents is arbitrary in not releasing the maintenance grant-in-aid to the petitioner’s educational institution and consequently, I hold that the petitioner is entitled to all the benefits as decided in Recognised Schools Managements Associations case. Hence, the respondents are directed to work out maintenance grant @ 6% and arrange to pay the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order to the petitioner’s educational institution, on par with other schools. 3. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the matter is carried in appeal in W.A. No. 1296 of 2016 and the Division Bench dismissed the same by order dated 03.08.2018 confirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.3449 of 2003. A copy of the same is placed on record as a material paper. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the Special Leave to Appeal (C)^No.31292of 2018 preferred before the Hon^ble Apex Court against^the order dated 03.08.2018 in WA.No.l296 of 2016 is also

¶27

¶28

¶29

dismissed by order dated 14.12.2018. A copy of the said order is also placed on record as a material paper.

¶30

In view of the same, the Writ Petition is allowed by directing the respondents to work out maintenance grant @ 6% and arrange to pay the same within a period of three (3) months from the. date of receipt of a copy of this^ordertothe petitioner school, on par with other schools. No costs.

¶31

V. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶32

Registry is directed to enclose a copy of the order^dated 30.09.2016 passed in W.P. No.3449 of 2003 and a copy^ofthe order dated 03.08.2018 passed in W.A. No.1296 of 2016.

¶33

Sd/- U. SRIDEVl ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTI ON OFFICER

¶34

¶35

To,

¶36

The Secretary to, Government, Education Department,^{StateofAndhra} Pradesh Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur^District.

¶37

The Commissioner & Director of School Education, 4^*^ Floor, B-Block, VTPS Rd, Bhimaraju Gutta, Ibrahimpatnam, Andhra Pradesh^521456.

¶38

The District Educational Officer, Guntur, Guntur District., -

¶39

One CC to Sri. N. Shram Murthy, Advocate [OPUC]

¶40

Two CCs to GP for School Education, High Court of^{AndhraPradesh.} [OUT]

¶41

Three CD Copies.

¶42

( Along with the Copy of the Order in WP.No.3449 of^2003,dated 03.08.2018 and WA.No.1296 of 2016, dated 03.08.2018)

¶43

¶44

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶45

WRIT PETITION NO.3449 OF 2003

¶46

ORDER:

¶47

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution^of India is filed by the petitioner, challenging the inaction of the respondents in not paying the maintenance grant at^therateof6% of the basic pay of the Teaching Grant as arbitrary, illegal. discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the respondents to pay the Maintenance Grant af. the rate of 6% of the teaching grant.

¶48

The brief facts of the case are that, tire petitioner is an Educational and Rural Development Academy est:abli,shedⁱⁿ¹⁹⁷³ and registered under the Societies Act. The petitioner started Telugu medium in 19/3, whereas, it started English^Mediumat Yemmiganur in the year 1982. The avowed object of the petitioner is to impart free education to the children in rural^{areas.Grant-in-} aid to Telugu medium and English medium sections was^admitted in the years 1978 and 1993 respectively. Further, the schools admitted to grant-in-aid have been receiving grant-in-aid^infullto the teaching and non-teaching eligible staff members^andalso6% of the amount paid to the staff for the maintenance of the schools. called the maintenance grant. The maintenance grant is for meeting expenditure relating to expenditure on menial staff, rent. taxes, repairs, maintenance of buildings, furniture, equipment,

¶49

MSM,J WP 3449 2003

¶50

¶51

postage, stationary, audit charges, travelling expenditure, chalks, blackboards, maps, teaching aids, electricity & water charges and other day to day miscellaneous expenditure. The schools^admitted to grant-in-aid either in full or part are prohibited from charging any fee or donations from the students, as such the education is being imparted at free of cost.

¶52

It is the petitioner’s case that, under the relevant rules, though the schools are entitled to receive the maintenance grant at 10%, the government reduced the same to 6% of 1974 pay scales. This Court in W.A.No.953 of 1991 directed the Government to release the grant at 6% ol' the basic pay of the teaching gi-ant that is being drawn from year to ^year. However, the Government has reduced the maintenance g]-ant fj-oin 6%. to 2% by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.320 Education {PS.2) Depaidment dated 16.09.1994 , on the ground tliat payment of maintenance grant as a percentage of teaching grant results in an unintended hike in Ore maintenance grant as and when the pay scales aj-e I'evised. In normal situation, hike in pay revision talces place once in every five years for uniformity in fixing maintenance grants at a particular percentage of teaching, in order to meet the inflationary tendencies in the market. It is the case that the schools are not being paid the entire expenditure incurred, but it is restricted to 6% of teaching grant and if actual expenditure is below 6% than the amount actually expended is being paid and not 6%. To avoid further implications

¶53

MSM,J WP 3449 2003

¶54

¶55

of law, the Government has enacted Act. 11 of 1995 to nullify the judgment of this Court and directed the institutions to send proposals for the maintenance grant at prescribed rate. In Recognised Schools Managements Associations, A.P. V. Government of A.P., Education Department and another the Court held that Act No. 11 of 1995 is no more applicable and declared the Act as unconstitutional. Therefore, it is urged that the petitioner is entitled to claim maintenance grant-in-aid^attherate of 6% in terms of the judgment referred supra. 4. It is specifically contended that the. petitioner was^admitted to grant-in-aid, but on fulfilment of certain conditions laid down by the Government. According to Article 45 of the Constitution of India, the State is under an obligation to provide free and compulsory education for aU the children utrtil they complete the age of fourteen years. The Apex Court in Unni Krtshnan^J.P& others v. State of Andhra Pradesh. & others^ held that a childhood has a fundamental right to free education up to the age of 14 years.

¶56

As the aided schools are imparting free education in regional languages, the State is under a constitutional obligation for proper, healthy and smooth running of the schools, apart from teaching and non-teaching staff, for meeting expenditure relating to expenditure on menial staff, rents, taxes, repairs,^maintenance

¶57

1997 (3).-\I.Dpage40 1993 AIR 2179

¶58

MSM,J WP 3449 2003

¶59

¶60

of buildings, furniture, equipment, postage, stationary, audit charges, travelling expenditure, chalks, blackboards. maps. teaching aids, electricity 8s water charges and other day-to-day miscellaneous expenditure, which are sine quo non for running a school. The grant-in-aid is only to meet the contingencies^andthe teaching grant is only to meet the above contingencies. Therefore, it is contended that the respondents are liable to pay grant-in-aid to the petitioner.

¶61

It is the case that, the petitioner has been sending proposals for maintenance grant, as required by tire respondents, but the respondents have not released the maintenance grant, despite the directions given by this Court in different writ petitions. As per G.O.Ms.No.320 dated 16.09.1994, the petitioner is entitled to the maintenaiice grant of Rs.36,481/-. Out of tire entitled amount, an amount of Rs. 10,048/was alrcady paid and balance of Rs.26,4o3/- is yet to be paid. But, on account of failure to release the maintenance girant, the petitioner is not in a position to meet necessary expenditure to maintain the school. Despite repeated requests arrd demand, tire respondents did not release the maintenance grant and withhold the amount for the reasons best known to them. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ petition praying for the above said reliefs.

¶62

The respondents filed counter affidavit den3ring material allegations and raised several contentions which are as follows:

¶63

MSM,J WP 3449 2003

¶64

¶65

a) It is contended that the Government is the competent authority to prescribe percentage of teaching grant as maintenance grant payable to the private educational institutions for receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government. Accordingly, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.320 Dated 16.09.1994 and based on the said G.O, the Government fixed the percentage of teaching grant as maintenance grant payable to private educational institutions. The percentage of Maintenance Grant fixed for different yjeriods mentioned in the^G.O. reads as follows:

¶66

From 01.04.1978 to 31.0.3.1986 4.5% From 01.04.1986 to 31.03.1992 3% and From 01.04.1992 onwards 2%

¶67

It is contended by the re.spondents that, though the

¶68

maintenance grant is fixed at 2% from 01.04.1992 onwards, the petitioner is claiming grant-in-aid at^therate of 6% and that tlie same is against the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.320 dated 16.09.1994.

¶69

b) Further, it is asserted that, According to Section^41and46 of A.P. Education Act, 1982, private educational institutions cannot claim grant-in-aid as a matter of right. Section 45 of the Education Act further prescribed^that the order passed by the Government refusing to sanction

¶70

MSM,J WP 3449 2003

¶71

¶72

grant shall be final and shall not be questioned in any Court of law. Therefore, the Government has power to withhold, reduce or withdraw any grant under Section⁴⁶ of the Act.

¶73

c) The respondents contended further that, an amount of Rs.51,494/- and Rs.33,665/- towards maintenance grant was released on 21.07.2006 to the to the petitioner’s schools for the years 1978 to 2005 vide proceedings Rc.No.l836/A.IV72006-07 dated 02.06.2006 by the Director of School Education A.P., Hyderabad, duly implementing t.lre ordens of this Court issued in WPMP.Nu.4525 of 2003. Thus. as, the respondents released graji t-in-aid to the petitioner’s institutions in terms of G.O.Ms.No.320 dated 16.09.1994, tliey are^not entitled to claim, any grant-in-aid in excess of the amount fixed by the Government in Ct.O.Ms.No.320.

¶74

d) It is contended in the counter affidavit that the Government has issued Ordinance No.9/2007 dated 19.09.2007 which has become an Act No.34 of 2007 bringing amendments to Andhra Pradesh Private Educational Institutions Maintenance Grant (Regulation) Act, 1995, by which, in Section 3(1) the amendment^has been made which states that, provided that no arrear claim for Maintenance Grant shah, be allowed beyond a

¶75

MSMJ \VP_3449 2003

¶76

¶77

period of 3 years from the date on which it has become due and all such arrear claims shall lapse.

¶78

Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any arrears for the earlier periods and prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶79

During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy contended that when G.O.Ms.No.320 was struck down by this Court, the petitioner is not entitled to claim benefit under G.O.Ms.No.320. That apart, a direction was issued by this Court in W.A.No.963 of 1991, di directing the respondent to pay grant-in-aid at 6%. Similarly in W.P.No.20160 of 2014 i.e. Recognised Schools Managements Association’s case (referred supra) Act No. 11 of 1995 was declared uncon-stihitional, and consequently, G.O.Ms.No.320 was held to lie illegal and inoperative and the same was struck down and directed to pay grant-in-aid at the rate of 6'K, on the basic pay of teaching stafl' grant. Aggrieved by the said judgment, W.A.No.526 of 1997 - - / was preferred and the Division Bench of this Court confirmed the order passed by in the writ petition by the learned Single Judge and held that G.O.Ms.No.320 ISi no

¶80

more m operation and thereby, the respondents are not entitled to take shelter under the said G.O.Ms.No.320. Further, it i IS contended that Act N0.ll/ig95 wass also declared as unconstitutional and thereby the respondents are not entitled to deny grant-in-aid at the rate of 6%. It is aUeged that, Amendment to Section 3(1) of A.P. Educational

¶81

MSM,J WP 3449 2003

¶82

¶83

Institutional Maintenance Grant (Regulation) Act, 1995^asonthe date of filing the writ petition, was not in existence and no limitation was prescribed, but the amendment which brought the Act on 19.09.2007 will have no retrospective effect, thereby, the right of the petitioner to claim arrears of grant-in-aid^cannotbe taken away on account of such amendment and therefore, prayed to declare inaction of the respondents in not releasing the grant-inaid as illegal and arbitrary and directed to issue a consequential direction to release grant-in-aid at the rate of 6% to the petitioner on the pay scale of the teaching staff.

¶84

Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Education would contend that, as per G.O.Ms.No..320. it is not possible to pay grant-in-aid at the rate of 6%, as it was reduced from 4.5% to 3% and then to 2 % for different periods commencing from^01.04.1978 to 31.03.1986, 01.04.1986 to 31.0.3.1992 & 01.04.1992 to onwards respectively by G.O.Ms.No.320. Even otherwise, the respondents released grant-in-aid to the petitioner by proceedings dated 14.07.2006 and receipt of the same has been acknowledged while accepting to furnish certificate of utilization in due course, as per letter dated 30.08.2006 issued by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner having accepted release of grant-in-aid at the rate of 2%, based on the percentage fixed in G.O.Ms.No.320, the petitioner is now cannot go back and claim grant-in-aid at the rate of 6%. Even otherwise, as per the amended Act 11/1995, the petitioner^isnot

¶85

MSMJ WP 3449 2003

¶86

¶87

entitled to recover arrears at the rate of 6%, as claimed by the petitioner and prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶88

Considering rival contentions and perusing the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration^is “whether the petitioner is entitled to claim arrears of grant-in-aid of the pay scales of teaching staff at the rate of 6% on the pay scales of teaching staff. If so, the inaction of the respondents in releasing grant-in-aid at the rate of 6% amounts to violation of fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution of India and the same be declared as arbitrary and illegal and consequential direction be issued to the respondents for release of grant-in-aid at the rate of 6%, as claimed by the petitioner. 3}

¶89

POINT

¶90

Undisputedly, the petitioner was admitted into grant-in-aid, both for Telugu and English medium in grant-in-aid^scheme in different years and they have received grant-in-aid prior to filing of the writ petition at the rate of 6% and by G.O.Ms.No.320, the Government refused gi'ant-in-aid, assigning its own reasons and fixed the rates of teaching grant as maintenance grant payable to private educational institutions for the following financial years. which are as follows:'

¶91

Period	Percentage
From 01.04.1978 to 31.03.1986	4.5%
From 01.04.1986 to 31.03.1992	3%
From 01.04.1992 onwards	2$

¶92

msm,j WP_3449_2003

¶93

¶94

But G.O.Ms.No.320 was challenged by the Recognised Management Schools Association (referred supra) in W.P.No.20160 of 1994 this Court by its order dated 19.03.1997, struck down the said G.O. declaring the same as unconstitutional and the sante was afflnned by a Division Bench of this Court i • m W.A.No.526 of 1997, while directing the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Education Department and others to release grant-in-aid at the rate of 6% on the pay teaching staff grant. Therefore, G.O.Ms.No.320 ISi no more in existence and the

¶95

respondents cannot take advantage of the G O and reduce the grant-in-aid to 2% - ” to the petitioner, However, it is brought to the notice of titis Court by the learnetl Government Pleader for the reapondents tltai in the judgment i m writ appeal the order was passed on the concession of the then Government Pleader to the effect that the provision of the i impugned and shall not apply to the case of tire Peiitioner and in so far as money already paid or required to be paid to the respective claim.s for the period before enactment. But, that does not make any difference regarding appHcabilityoftheG.Oto the present petitioner. A Division Bench of this Court also adverted to the provisions of A.P. Private Educational Instituti ions Maintenance (Regulation) Act, 1995 (Act 11/1995) and upheld the judgment of the si - single Judge declaring the action of respondent as arbitrary in view of the concession, the nulHiy of Act 11/1995 was not decided in the writ appeal at all. But, ultimately, the Divisio n Bench held that the declaration in the

¶96

MSM,J WP_3449 2003

¶97

¶98

impugned judgment that Act No. 11 of 1995 i IS not ultra vires, but ai-firmed the direction that the appellants would carry out the orders of W.P.No.1159 of 1991 which were affirmed in W.A.No.963 of 1991. Thusffi in view of the law declared by the Division Bench of this Court, the respondents are liable to release grant-in-aid at the rate of 6% in view of the declaration of G.O.Ms.No.320 as unconstitutional. Therefore, the respondents are bound to pay grant-in-aid at such rate to tlie petitioner. 13. Lear-ned Government Pleader for Education drawn attention of this Court to .Sections 43,45 A. 46 of (lie A.P. Education Act, 1982, and would contenrl that the order passed by the Government to deny gi-ant-i in-aid is final, arrd the same cannot be questioned. 14. According to .Section as they think fit, bv d-S, the Governrament may in such cases '.V Order, sanction grant t o any recognised local authority educational i mstihuion or private educational institution subject to such conditions as they may impose in the to such order relating grant;’ 01^013'’ grant sanctioned under subsection (1) shall be disbursed by u,e Director or such other officer subordinate to the Director as the Government may, by a general or special order. authorise i ui this behalf, in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed; the manager of every recognised mstitution which ISi receiving any grant out of State Funds shall be rasponsible for the fulfitaent of all the conditions subject to which such grant has been given.ei Thus Section 43 deals with the power

¶99

MSM,J W_3449_2003

¶100

¶101

of the Government to the present facts of the case. Therefore, taking advantage of Section 46 of A.P. Education Act, the petitioner cannot be denied payment of grant-in-aid at the rale of 6%.

¶102

^et, the learned Government Pleader for Education for the State of Andhra Pradesh would contend that, in view of the amendment made to Section 3(1) by Act 34 of 2007, A.P. Educational Institutions Maintenance (Regulation) Act, 1995, with effect from 19.09.2007, the petitioner i s disentitled to recover arrears of grant-in-aid. By the date on wJiich tlie Act came into force, the Wit petition is fopcl challenging Ure inaction' of the respondents and. the subsequen, ch aage m la.w mil have no effect on Ute c^m mat. hy tha,«,tmaar. a.„ra, the respoadanta denied ~.aidattherate„fh,t,„i„t..,ra3„fao:Ma..„. 320, despite declaring the G.O. a.s unconstitutional bv this Court in the judgments referred -ptarntditisnotthectmeofutepeutioner to recover arrears of grant-in-aid and he i - seeking a dwecti on against the respondents for release of grant-in-aid at the rate of 6%, as ordered by this Court ini the judgments referred supra. In such a case. Amendment to Act 34 of 2007 will have no effect on the claim of the petitioner. Accordingly, this contention of the learned gnicemment pleader for education i IS rejected. 16. beamed Government Pleader further contended that the respondents released grant-in-aid for the financial year 2005-2006 by proceedings dated 14.07.2006 and the petitioner acknowledged

¶103

MSMJ WP_3449_2003

¶104

¶105

the receipt of maintenance grant arrears of Rs.51,494/. and while accepting the amount, the petitioner obligated to submit utilization certificate i m due course. But, that does not . mean that e Pe.,fo„e. rate of 6%, since it does not amount

¶106

to reserving right to claim maintenance grant at the rate of 6%. Therefore, the subsequent

¶107

events accepting maintenance grant at the rate of 2% by letter dated 30.08.2006 by the petitioner would not take away the right to claim maintenance grant at the rate of 6%.

¶108

Tile pefititmer is an cduciilienal i institution established with an objective of imparting free ed ucation to ifie children and the Government is tuider an „,:„igati„„ to provide maintenance grant to meet the contingencies. But. suddenly, the Goveemment reduced maintenance grant to a minimum exrent of 2% by issuing G.O.Ms.No.320 wh ich wa.s shnck down by this Court declaring^as unconstitutional by tlfis Conn. Tlieretbre, it is the obligation of the government under Article of the Constituti-ion of India to make every effort to provide early child care and education for the children until they complete age of 6 yeai-s. But denial of grant-inaid at the agreed rate of 6% on the pay scales of teaching staff would deprive the petitioner an opportunity to provide free education to the children i in the rural areas and that apart, in judgment in Unni Krlshnan s case (referred supra), the Supreme Court upheld the obligation of the government to provide free

¶109

MSM,J \VP_3449_2003

¶110

¶111

education. Article 45 i IS only a directive principle. The Constitution of India i IS amended by Eighty Sixth Amendment Act, 2002, and by amending Article 21-A, recognising the right to education as a fundamental right and it ISi as follows:

¶112

The State shall provide free and education to all children compulsory fourteen of the age of six to years in such manner as the State may, by law, determine.

¶113

Similarly, Article 45 ISi also suitably amended, Article 51-A is also amended Clause (J), which obligates that who i IS a parent or guardian to provide opportunities for education to his child or, as the case may be, ward between ( he age of six and fourteen years. The amendments to various provisions of Constilulion of India was brought only with a avowed object to provide free and compulsory education to all th e children up to the age of 14 years. As the State could not achieve the goal even after 50 years of adoption of the provision, tire task of providin g education to all children ini this age group gained momentum after the National Poll cy of Education (NPE) was annorrnced in 1986. The Gorrernment of India, in partnership with the State Governments, has made strenuous efforts to fulfil this mandate and, though significant i improvements were seen in various educational indicators, the ultimate goal of providing universal and quality education still remains unfulfilled, That would not fulfil this goal and declaring the right to education

¶114

as a fundamental right to free and compulsory education as a

¶115

MSMJ WP 3449 2003

¶116

¶117

fundamental right by incorporating Article 21-A of^{theConstitution} of India for the children between 6 to 14 years for their upliftment and similarly, enacted the Right to Free Education Act, to achieve the same objective, in view of the amendment to Constitution^of India. But the respondents instead of allowing the petitioner to provide such free education incurring minimum expenditure^of6% as grant-in-aid on the pay scales of the teaching staff^anddenied the opportunities to the petitioners to provide free^{educationinthe} rural areas like Yemmiganur and the action of the respondents^is contrary'- to Article 21-A, which is a fundamental right.

¶118

Tlie earlier order in writ appeal was passed on the concession of the learned Govenmrent Pleadei'. Even otherwise. W.P.No.20160 of 1994 was filed by Recognised Schools Managements Associations, in which, most of the committees of the schools are the members. Even assuming for a moment^that the order in W.A.No.526 of 1997 was by concession, if the benefit is extended to one aided school and denied to another school, it amounts to discriminating the equals and the Government^isnot supposed to give concession to one and deny tlie benefit^toothers. Such approach of the Government would amount to discrimination of equals.

¶119

As the judgment of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.20160 of 1994 was not set-aside by the Division^Benchof this Court in W.A.No.526 of 1997 Appellate Court, still it holds

¶120

MSM.J WP 3449 2003

¶121

¶122

good. Therefore, the contention of the learned Government Pleader for the respondents is without any substance and it is nothing but 3-Pplying to one yardstick to the association in the writ appeal and different yardstick to the petitioner herein in releasing grant-in-aid. Therefore, the act of the respondents is discriminatory and violative of the order passed by this Court in Recognised^Schools Managements Associations case (referred supra). Hence, the inaction of the respondents is declared as illegal and arbitrary. 21. In an}^ view of tJie matter-, the contention of the learned Government Plecider is that the petitioner is not entitled to maintenance grarnt in view ot C.i,O.Ms.No.320, which was struck down by this Cuur-t in the judgments rel'erred supra. Even otherwise, the discriminatory attitude of tire Government giving concession to one educaiional institution and denying^benefitto the petitioner’s educational institution cannot be encouraged by the Courts, since it is arbitrary and discriminatory in not releasing grant-in-aid to the petitioners association whose object is to provide free education. In those circumstances, this Court has no option except to hold that the inaction of the respondents i~rs arbitrary in not releasing the maintenance grant-in-aid to the petitioner’s educational institution and consequently, I hold that the petitioner is entitled to all the benefits as decided in Recognised Schools Managements Associations case. Hence, the respondents are directed to work out maintenance grant @ 6%

¶123

MSM.J WP_3449_2003

¶124

¶125

and arrange to pay the same witliin a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order to the petitioner’s educational institution, on par with other schools.

¶126