GNANAJYOTHI VIDHYA SAMSTHE REGISTERED YELLADAKERE HIRIYUR TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India and the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the Order No. Ed 592 ses 92, dated 10-7-1992, Annexure-J. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to be issued to respondent 1 to recognise the school run by the petitioner-institution as a grant-in-aid school with retrospective effect from 8-7-1985 including the consequential benefits viz. , arrears of grant-in-aid from 8-7-1985 till date. The petitioner has further prayed for grant of any further relief as this court deems fit.

(2.) THE petitioner's case 'is that petitioner is an educational institution registered under the Karnataka societies Registration Act, 1960 and it was so registered on 27-10-1980. It has been asserted that the object of the petitioner's-society has been to run educational institutions in hiriyur taluk. No doubt the petitioner has stated that the institution is managed by sc/st managements for uplifting of the poor children. Petitioner's case is that petitioner is already running a high school at yelladakere in hiriyur taluk in the district of chirtradurga. According to petitioner, the petitioner had applied for the grant of high school at dindawara village in hiriyur taluk on 10-11-1982, 10-11-1983 and 10-11-1984 respectively as there was need for such a school. The petitioner has further alleged that respondents 3 and 4 had recommended the sanction of high school in dindawara. The petitioner has annexed the copy of the application dated 14-11-1984 as annexure-b. Petitioner's further case is that the applications filed in the year 1982 and 1983 were not considered by the respondents. Further, the petitioner's application filed in 1984 was considered and on the basis of the recommendations of respondents 2 to 4 the government by its letter dated 2-7-1985 sanctioned the private high school at dindawara to the petitioner-society. On the basis of that letter dated 2-7-1985 passed by the government the second respondent i. e. , the commissioner for public instructions passed an Order dated 8-7-1985 granting permission to the petitioner to run the high school at dindawara from the year 1985-86. The petitioner has annexed the copies of the letter and the Order as annexures- c and d. Petitioner's case is that he complied with the conditions imposed by the second respondent including as to the deposit of amount and inpursuance of the above i. e. , Order dated 8-7-1985 petitioner made appointments of staff and admitted 28 children to the school for the year 1985-86 and intimated to the respondent 4 on 17-7-1985. The petitioner further asserts that petitioner has been running the high school since 12-7-1985. The petitioner's further case is that the government has issued a corrigendum dated 19-7-1985, in respect of the government Order dated 2-7-1985 which is at Annexure-C to the writ petition and in accordance with that the petitioner's high school's name was directed to be deleted.- the petitioner has asserted that this has been done without notice to the petitioner and without any opportunity of hearing being given to the petitioner. The Order dated 19-7-1985 has been annexed as Annexure-E to the writ petition. According to the petitioner, petitioner filed writ petition No. 11399 of 1985 in this Hon'ble court challenging the Order Annexure-E to the present writ petition and this court was pleased to issue rule nisi and had granted at interim stay staying the operation of the Order dated 25-7-1985. The petitioner's further case is that the said writ petition was dismissed with certain observations by Order dated 11-2-1991. The petitioner has further averred that on 1-3-1991 this court modified the Order dated 11-2-1991 and observed that since the petitioner is running a school for over 6 years question of filing a fresh application is not required. The application filed in the year 1984 is already with the respondents and the respondents have to consider the case of the petitioner favourably. The copies of the orders dated 11-2-1991 and 1-3-1991 have been annexed as annexures-f and f1 to the writ petition. The petitioner's case is that after the orders of this court, the education officer, on the directions issued by the superior authority, inspected the school and submitted a detailed report on 24-1-1992 to the respondent 4 along with the documents given by the head master of the said school with the statement of villagers and on the basis of the report respondent 4 i. e. , the deputy director of public instructions and recommended the sanctioning of a high sch'ool with effect from 1985-86 on the ground that there is need for establishment of a high school in the locality. The petitioner's further case is that the government thereafter granted non grant high school at dindawara vide communication dated 10- 7-1992. But while granting that non-grant high school the government did not taken into consideration either the observations of this court or the report which had been submitted by the education officer to respondent 4. The communication dated 10-7-1992 has annexed as Annexure-J to the writ petition. The petitioner's case is that petitioner's institution is being run since 1985-86 and that in view of the observations of the court as quoted in para 10 that sanctioning of a non-grant high school at dindawara village is nothing but based on the present rules which come into force subsequent to the starting of petitioner's school whereas the petitioner-institution is running from the year 1985-86. The petitioner was illegal and unjust and needs to be set aside. The counter-affidavit and the statement of objections to the above writ petition has been filed on behalf of the opposite parties on 1-9-1995. As per the allegations in the statement of objections the case of the respondents is that the present writ petition is wholly misconceived and it does not call for interference under article 226 of the constitution. The case of the opposite parties is that no doubt by the Order No. E7 (h) ons 28/84-85, dated 8-7-1985, Annexure-D the state government had accorded permission to start private high school to the petitioner, but since the name of the petitioner's management was included by mistake such error was corrected by state government by issuing a corrigendum bearing No. Ed 51 mhs 85, dated 19-7-1985 Annexure-E, to the writ petition whereby the high school sanctioned in favour of the petitioner was deleted. The respondent has admitted that petitioner had filed writ petition No. 11399 of 1985 challenging the validity of the corrigendum Annexure-E dated 19-7-1985 and that writ petition was dismissed and lateron on 1-3-1991 the court modified the Order in which it observed that the authorities may consider the case of the petitioner favourably and however it is open to the authorities to consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with the law and to pass orders according to law. The court ordered that when applications are fresh application. The opposite parties have averred in the statement of objections that from the orders passed by the court in writ petition No. 11399 of 1985 it is clear that the validity of the corrigendum dated 19-7-1985 was upheld wherein the name of the petitioner's institution or petitioner's high school was deleted from the list of names of management which had been accorded permission to start private high school in the year 1985-86. The case of the respondents are that the Order of this court dated 1-3-1991 by no stretch of imagination directs the authorities to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of permission with effect from 8-7-1985. The opposite parties further case is that as per rule 16 of the grant-in-aid code for secondary schools grant-in-aid is permissible only to be secured by institutions which have been recognised by the department and that the petitioner's-institution is not recognised by the department. Hence, the petitioner is not eligible to claim grant-in-aid for the said institution. The opposite parties have contested the petitioner's claim for grant-in-aid prior to the recognition being granted to the institution and they have pressed the claim for period before it was recognised. It is nothing but putting the horse before the cart. The case of the opposite parties is that the petitioners have no vested rights to claim grant-in-aid nor the state government has got a statutory duty to grant financial aid to the educational institution and the petitioner is not entitled to the grant-in-aid. The respondents have admitted that after the Order of this court a communication copy of which is Annexure-J had been issued with reference to the granting of permission to open a new high school and in that connection petitioner was called upon to submit an affidavit on Rs. 10 non-judicial stamp in the prescribed form as enclosed in the letter and to declare that in case the petitioner is granted permission to start the institution in question he will run the institution in accordance with the rules and regulations framed by the government and the department and the petitioner will not claim grant permanently from the government. The case of the opposite parties is that the said requirement is in consonance with the policy decision taken by the government not to grant aid to the institution to be started in accordance with the grant-in-aid code, from the academic year 1985-86. The respondent has submitted in the statement of objections which is supported by affidavit that the writ petitioner did not comply with that requirement of the department that is furnishing an affidavit making declaration to the effect that the petitioner's-institution will comply with the orders and circulars issued by government from time to time and with the provisions of grant-in-aid code and further making declaration to the effect that he will permanently not claim any grant-in-aid from the government. As he did not comply with this requirement the petitioner is at fault in not getting the permission. If he would have filed these declarations the permission of grant could have been granted. But the petitioner did not comply. No Order could be passed granting him the permission to start the institution. That being the own default of the petitioner the present petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. No rejoinder affidavit has been filed.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner at length and I have also heard the learned government pleader Smt. L. y. premavathi.