PT JANARDAN MANI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As per the Government Orders dated 7.2.2014 and 11.2.2014, the petitioner applied for grant-in-aid. After the applications were received by the State Level Committee, the Deputy Director of Education (Sanskrit), Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad referred the matter on 19.1.2015 to the Registrar of Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi for the verification of the recognition etc. of the petitioner-institution. It may be noted that the Government Orders dated 7.2.2014 and 11.2.2014 were with regard to such institutions which were involved in the teaching of Sanskrit and were approved by their relevant Universities. On 24.3.2015, the State Level Committee after getting the certificates of the approval from the University forwarded the list of such institutions which according to it were qualified for getting grant-in-aid. This list was published on 1.4.2015 but the name of the petitioner-institution did not find place in it. On 1.4.2015 itself another list was published which displayed the names of such institutions which had though been recommended had to provide certain further data and the list was called a "restricted recognition list". The petitioner had throughout been under the impression that it had fulfilled all the conditions which were required by the Government Orders dated 7.2.2014 and 11.2.2014 and, therefore, it represented its case to the Member Secretary, Secondary Education, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. When no action was taken on the representation, the petitioner filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No.45483 of 2015 which was disposed of on 13.8.2015 with a direction that the representation filed by the petitioner be decided. Ultimately in compliance of the order of the High Court dated 13.8.2015, the representation of the petitioner was rejected after a decision was taken on 4.3.2016. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that if the impugned order dated 4.3.2016 is perused, it showed that as per the Government Order dated 7.2.2014 : (i) the applicant-institution had to be a recognised institution; (ii) it had to see that the endowment fund with the recognising University was there; and (iii) the Committee of Management which was running the institution had given its consent that the college be included in grant-in-aid. As per the order dated 4.3.2016 the endowment fund was not to be found and also the consent of the Committee of Management was not on record. The order also discloses, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the institution was informed before the "Restricted List" was published on 1.5.2015 that the deficiencies had to be rectified by 31.1.2015. However, he stated that as the communication by which the deficiencies were informed to the petitioner itself reached the petitioner-institution on 12.2.2015, the deficiencies could not have been cured by the fixed cut-off date of 31.1.2015.

(3.) So far as the recognition part is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the University had in its verification informed the State Government that the petitioner-institution was recognised and this was clear from the list which the University had sent on 12.3.2015. The name of the petitioner-institution was found at Serial No.39.