Remanded

Inter Silli College Silli Through The Its Lecturer Namely Mr Harish Chandra Mahto And Anr. v. Human Resources Department

Jharkhand HC17 Jun 2019WPC/1755/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging non-consideration of student strength exceeding 1500 for grant-in-aid computation. Court held alternative remedy inapplicable and remitted matter for fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition remanded to competent authority to take fresh decision verifying student strength after calling upon petitioner within two weeks and deciding within eight weeks.

Inter Silli College Silli Through The Its… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C) No.1755 of 2016

¶3

¶4

Inter Silli College Silli

¶5

BSNL Bohra Inter College Rajmahal ……… Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Secretary Finance, Govt. of Jharkhand Project Building

¶9

Director Primary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building

¶10

Dy. Director, Primary Education Govt. of Jharkhand Project ……….

¶11

Building Respondents

¶12

¶13

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶14

--------For the Petitioner : Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Gautam Kumar, S.C.-Mines-I : Mr. D.K. Malityar, A.C. to S.C. Mines-I

¶15

¶16

06/17.06.2019 The writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorari by quashing the order dated 17.03.2015 as contained under Annexure-3, whereby and whereunder the claim of the petitioner for disbursement of benefit of grant-in-aid in pursuance to the provision of Jharkhand State Unaided Educational Institution (Grant) Rules, 2004 which has not properly been considered by not considering the amount of grant-in-aid taking the applicability of the number of students which is more than 1,500, studying, therefore the amount of grant ought to have been made for Rs.2,50,000/- per month.

¶17

According to the petitioner the Rule, 2004 stipulates for grantin-aid for which certain condition has been formulated for its compliance wherein, provision has been made for which Women’s College/College situated in an area having population less than twenty thousand (C)/situated in area having predominantly a Schedule caste/Tribes population or colleges for disabled and the amounts having been reflected to be disbursed by way of monthly grant-in-aid depending upon the number of students.

¶18

The petitioners specific case is that their cases have been considered by taking number of students in the category no.3 which pertains to number of students from 801 to 1500 for which the amount

¶19

liable to be disbursed is Rs.1,50,000/- while according to the petitioner, the number of students is more than 1501 and as per the criteria reflected in Column No.IV the admissibility of grant-in-aid would be Rs.2,50,000/-.

¶20

It is the further grievance of the petitioner that the number of students have been examined by the respondent authority and they have come out with the strength which is more than 1500 which would be evident from the Annexure-4 to the writ petition.

¶21

Mr. Shresth Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the State has filed the counter affidavit but no averment has been made disputing annexure-4 save and except the issue of alternative remedy of appeal has been raised. He further submits that it is not in dispute that the provision of alternative remedy is available but the same is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case as because it has been provided in the said provision that the appeal would only lie against the decision taken by the authority and if there is any reduction in the quantum of amount or suspension but that is not the case herein rather here is the case is for non-consideration on the basis of the strength of the student and as such stand has been taken by the respondent regarding applicability of alternative remedy, is not proper and further there is no decision taken as yet.

¶22

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions, this Court deem fit and proper first to deal with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the State in the counter affidavit regarding the alternative remedy, before entering into the merit of the issue for which the provision of Section 12 of the Rule, 2004 needs to refer hereinbelow:-

¶23

¶24

Section 12 of the Rule, 2004 stipulates that the application is to be made before the State Government within a period of three weeks’

¶25

from the date of order if passed by the competent authority stopping the payment of grant or for its reduction or suspension.

¶26

This Court, after going across the pleading made in the writ petition, has found that no decision has been taken by the authority and further it is not a case where the benefit of grant-in-aid has ever been suspended or it is not a case of reduction in the quantum of the amount of grant-in-aid, rather it is a case where the issue has been raised for non-consideration of the factual aspect more particularly the number of students upon which the quantum of grant-in-aid depends, therefore, provision of alternative remedy of appeal as provided under Section 12 of the Act, 2004, is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case.

¶27

This Court, therefore, has entered into the merit of the issue involved in this writ petition and has found that the provision of Rule, 2004 has been enacted for providing of benefit of grant-in-aid to the private unaided institute which is not getting any financial aid.

¶28

Under the provision, it has been provided that the Managing Committee would make an application for getting the benefit for grant-in-aid.

¶29

Apart from other condition, the quantum of amount would depend upon the number of students i.e. for the purpose to maintain People Teacher Ratio in the school.

¶30

The institution in question has made an application before the competent authority but no such decision has been taken, therefore, this writ petition has been filed.

¶31

The grievance of the petitioner is that the Departmental Committee has convened its meeting wherein the consideration about the claim of the petitioner, institution has been taken but the petitioner is very much surprised to know even though the number of students studying in the said institution is more than 1500 but the consideration about the quantum of grant-in-aid has been made by considering the number of students as less than 1500.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to demonstrate by putting reliance upon Annexure-4 wherefrom it is found mentioned in

¶33

the column pertaining to the number of students reflecting therein that their numbers are more than 1500.

¶34

In view of such factual aspect, this Court deem it fit and proper to remit this matter before the competent authority for taking decision afresh in accordance with law, by calling upon the record pertaining to the institution in question including the number of students and verifying the attendance/admission register of concerned school duly been corroborated by the District Superintendent of Education and to take decision within a period of eight weeks’ from the date of receipt of copy of the order which shall be represented by the petitioner within a period of two weeks’ from the date of its receipt.

¶35

The authority while taking such decision would consider the admissibility of benefit as per Law applicable.

¶36

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶37

It goes without saying that if any decision will be taken in favour of the petitioner consequential benefit shall be granted without any delay.

¶38

However, in case of any adverse decision, the same shall be communicated to the petitioner within the period aforesaid by assigning the reason.

¶39

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶40

Rohit/-

Inter Silli College Silli Through The Its Lecturer Namely Mr Harish Chandra Mahto And Anr. v. Human Resources Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Inter Silli College Silli Through The Its Lecturer Namely Mr Harish Chandra Mahto And Anr. v. Human Resources Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Aviral Parwati Bhagwati Minerals Alias Ms Shri Aviral Parwatey Bhagwati Minerals Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dukhmani Devi And Ors. Vs Rural Works Department

Ashok Kumar Das Vs State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Amit Kumar Jha Vs Jharkhand State Housing Board Through Its Managing Director And Ors.

Anup Kumar Singh And Ors. Vs Union Of India Through Secretary Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare And Ors.

Ayodhya Kumar Vs Health