AUDHOOT V NAIK Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions gave rise to common questions and, as such, it is proposed to dispose of the same by common Judgment. The petitioners are three different schools which are in existence for long and had classes upto xth Standard. The petitioners started High Secondary stage in the existing Schools in June, 1988 after due permission from the Directorate of Education. Respondent No. 2 directorate of Education released grants in favour of the petitioners vide Orders dated 10-6-1988, 29-7-1988, 29-9-1988 and 15-3-1989. Subsequently, the respondents sought to recover the said grants from the petitioners on the ground that they are not entitled to the said grants during the first year of the start of Higher Secondary stage in the schools. The grants which were released to the petitioners are as under : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_315_MHLJ3_1999Html1.htm</FRM> Out of the total grant of Rs. 4,10,000/- to the petitioner school in Writ Petition 460/93, Rs. 60,000/- was given as grant for acquiring Science equipments. From the total grant of Rs. 4,10,000/-, the respondents had already recovered a sum of Rs. 86,913/- from the petitioner School in Writ petition 460/93, prior to filing of the writ petition. Likewise, in the case of the petitioner School in Writ petition 559/93, out of the total grant of Rs. 4,90,000/-, a sum of Rs. 40,000/- was grant for acquiring Science equipments. In Writ Petition 559/93, the petitioner School had, in fact, offered for the recovery of the said grants by way of 12 annual instalments. On filing of the writ petitions, further recoveries from the petitioners were stayed. These recoveries which are sought to be made by the respondents of the aforesaid grants to the petitioners schools, are now sought to be challenged in these petitions.

(2.) LEARNED Advocate Shri A. N. S. Nadkarni, argued on behalf of the petitioners and took us through various provisions of the Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) and the goa, Daman and Diu School Education Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules.) He drew our attention to section 7 of the said Act which provides for aid to recognised Schools. He then took us through Chapter VI of the said Rules which deals with Grant-in-Aid. Rule 47 of the said Rules provides that every aided School shall, so long as it fulfils the conditions for receiving aid, continue, subject to the provisions of these rules to receive such aid. Rule 52 provides for conditions for Grant-in-Aid and it is specifically pointed out by learned Advocate Shri nadkarni that the said Rule does not restrict the release of grant even during the first year of introduction of additional stage in the existing Schools as one of the conditions for grant-in-aid. Rule 61 deals with categories of aid, which includes maintenance grant, equipment grant, building grant and such other grants as may be sanctioned by government from time to time. Rule 62 deals with maintenance grants and, in fact, the controversy in these petitions revolves around the interpretation to be put on Rule 62 of the said Rules. The relevant portion of Rule 62 reads as under :-

(3.) ACCORDING to learned Advocate Shri Nadkarni, Rule 62 cannot be interpreted to suggest that no maintenance grant is permissible in the first year of start of any stage of the School since the maintenance grant to be sanctioned is based on the total admitted expenditure of the previous year, which would include the expenditure incurred in respect of the existing School even though at that time additional stage for which grant is sought was not in existence. According to him, the grant is to be given on the pattern of assistance approved by the Government and there are no restrictions either under the said Act or under the said Rules that no maintenance grant is permissible during the first year of the start of the School/start of additional stage. He has further pointed out that part of the grant given to the petitioner School in Writ Petition no. 460/93 and Writ Petition No. 559/93 relates to acquiring of scientific equipments which, according to Rule 63, is payable even during the first year on the basis of the actual expenditure incurred by the School. On the other hand, it is canvassed by learned Government Advocate Shri bharne in Writ Petitions 460/93 and 559/93 and learned government Advocate Shri A. P. Lawande in Writ Petition 575/93 that Rule 62 is crystal clear and the new Schools or the Schools in which additional stage is added, are not entitled to maintenance grants during the first year since the basis on which maintenance grant has to be paid is the previous official year s expenditure for the said purpose. They have pointed out that even though the petitioners schools and some other Schools were not entitled to release of grants, grants were released and it was understood by the schools that the said grants would be recoverable. They had candidly conceded that in the years releasing grants, it was neither specified that the grant was being issued as a special case nor that it would be liable to recovery subsequently. It is pointed out that the petitioner School in Writ Petition 559/93 had agreed that the grant which was released may be recovered in 12 annual instalments. According to the learned Government Advocates since there is no provision for releasing maintenance grant during the first year, it is but natural that if any grant is made as a special case or otherwise, it is liable to recovery from the said Schools.