DUHETA KUSHWAHA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Ashok Mehta learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. As the counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have already been filed, therefore, the present writ petition is being finally decided with the consent of the parties. The challenge in the present writ petition is of the order dated 3.1.2007 passed by Regional Deputy Director (Basic), annexure-6 to the writ petition. This order has been passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner for the purpose of bringing the institution under grant in aid. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner fulfils the requisite requirement for the said purpose and all the relevant papers were sent to that effect but the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the authority concerned vide its order dated 3.1.2007 only on the ground that in the application form the names of the teachers mentioned at Sl. nos. 1 to 5 appear to be not approved and, therefore, if any approval has been granted, that appears to be forged. Sri Ashok Mehta learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this order has been passed on 3.1.2007. Upon the query made by the petitioner from the authorities concerned, a letter has been sent by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Meerut dated 20.1.2007 stating therein that the teachers mentioned at Sl. nos.1 to 5 in the list has been approved under his signature and their names have been approved accordingly. In view of the aforesaid fact and letter sent by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Meerut, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the basis of the order impugned has gone and now the matter can be reconsidered in the light of the letter dated 20.1.2007, Annexure-8 to the writ petition. Learned Standing counsel filed a counter affidavit stating other various grounds rejecting the claim of the petitioner stating therein that as the petitioner does not fulfil the requisite requirement in accordance with the Government Order dated 7.9.2006, therefore, the claim of the petitioner for bringing the institution under the grand in aid has been rejected. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have perused the record. From the perusal of the impugned order dated 3.1.2007, Annexure-6 to the writ petition passed by respondent no.2 it clearly appears that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected only on the ground that the teachers mentioned at Sl. nos.1 to 5, their appointments have not been approved. Subsequent to this order a letter has been issued by respondent no.3 to the Manager of the Institution dated 20.1.2007 stating therein that the teachers mentioned at Sl. nos.1 to 5 has been approved by his signature. Therefore, in my opinion the foundation laid by respondent no.2 rejecting the claim of the petitioner has vanished in view of the letter dated 20.1.2007. In view of the aforesaid fact after setting aside the order dated 3.1.2007, it will be appropriate that the matter be sent back to respondent no.2 to reconsider the matter as a fresh in view of the letter of respondent no.3. As regards the contention of the learned Standing Counsel regarding mentioning various other factors and grounds in the counter affidavit, in my opinion, that cannot be taken into consideration being a settled principle of law of the Apex Court judgement reported in AIR 1978 S.C. 851 M.S. Gill Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others that the order impugned has to be seen only in the facts and circumstances of the order and nothing can be substituted by filing an affidavit. In view of the aforesaid fact, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 3.1.2007 passed by respondent no. 2 Annexure-6 to the writ petition is set aside and the matter is remanded back to respondent no.2 to pass appropriate detailed and reasoned orders taking into consideration the letter of Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Meerut dated 20.1.2007 in accordance with law if possible after affording opportunity to the petitioner within two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order before him. No order is passed as to costs.