AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard.
This Appeal under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalay (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, is directed against the order
dated 08/02/2018 passed in Writ Petition No.4978/2014.
The grievance raised by the petitioner was against the action of State in not releasing grant-in-aid for additionally appointed teaching staff.
Petitioner society is running a school for imparting education to the members of Scheduled Caste category at village Siddhpura, District Bhind. The
petitioner sought permission to start a new school at village Daboh for imparting education to the students of Scheduled Caste. The State Government
granted the permission on 18/01/1999 in the following terms :
e/;izn's k 'kkluÂ
vkfne tkfr rFkk vuqlwfpr tkfr dY;k.k foHkkx ea=ky;
dzekad @,Q 18&20@97@25@4Â Â Â Â Hkksiky fnukad
izfr]
vk;qDr]
vuqlwfpr tkfr fodkl]
e-iz- Hkksiky
fo""k;& vuqlwfpr tkfr mPPkrj ek/;fed fo/kky;] fl)iqjk ¼nqxkZiqjk½ dh bZdkbZ vuqlwfpr tkfr mPprj ek/;fed fo/kky;] ncksg dzekad 2 ds lapkyu dh
vuqefr iznku djus laca/kh A
d`i;k mi;qZDr fo""k; esa eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh] insu vij vk;qDr] vfnoklh fodkl] ftyk fHk.M dk Kkiu dzekad@vk-g-d-@98@5368 fnukad 17-11-98 tks
fd vkidks Hkh i`""Bkafdr gS dk voyksdu gks A
2- eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh ds mDr izLrkokuqlkj vuqlwfpr tkfr f'k{kk lfefr fl)iqjk ¼nqxkZiqjk½ fHk.M }kjk lapkfyr vuqlwfpr tkfr mPprj ek/efed
fo/kky; fl)iqjk esa ncksg ls vkus okys fo/kkfFkZ;ksa dh dfBukbZ;ksa dks n`f""Vxr j[krs gq;s jkT; 'kklu }kjk v'kkldh; lLa Fkk lapkyu ds fy;s fuEu 'kkrksZ
ij vuqefr iznku dh tkrh gS&
¼1½ ncksg esa i`Fkd bZdkbZ ds fy;s vfrfjDr dksbZ veyk Lohd`r ugha fn;k tkosxk A iwoZ esa Lohd`r veys ls gh nkuks bdkbZ;ksa dk lapkyu fd;k
tkosxk A izpk;Z dk in Hkh i`Fkd ls Lohd`r ugha fd;k tkosxk A orZeku izkpk;Z }kjk nksuksa bdkbZ;ksa
dh iz'kkldh; O;oLFkk dh tkosxh A
¼2½ ncksg ds bdkbZ ds fy;s veys dh O;oLFkk izkpk;Z dh vuq'kalk ij dh tk; ftldh lwpuk foHkkxh; ftyk vf/kdkjh dks vko';d :i ls nh tk;A
¼3½ lLa Fkk }kjk izo`fRr vuqlwfpr tkfr mPprj ek/;fed fo/kky;] fl)iqjk ¼nqxkZiqjk½ ,oa vuqlwfpr tkfr mPprj ek/;fed fo/kky; dzekad 2 ncksg dh
bZdkbZ dh 'kS{kf.kd O;oLFkk dk eYw ;kadu i`Fkd i`Fkd fd;k tkosxk fdUrq nksuksa bZdkbZ;ksa dh Nk= la[;k dh lwpuk vLFkkbZ :i ls nh tkosxh] ftlls
vuqnku laca/kh dk;Zokgh esa dksbZ ck/kk mRiUu u gks A
¼4½ ncksg esa i`Fkd bdkbZ lapkyu gsrq vkxkeh f'k{kk o izkjaHk gksus ls iwoZ f'k{kk foHkkx ls ekU;rk izkIr djuk gksxh A
¼5½ ncksg esa bZdkbZ lapkyu gsrq bZdkbZ ds Nk=ksa dh la[;k ds vuqikr vuqlkj Hkou O;oLFkk ds vfrfjDr dksbZ Hkh vU; O;;
Lohd`r ugha fd;k tkosxk A
Ek/;izns'k ds jkT; iky ds uke ls rFkk vkns'kkuqlkj
¼,MoMZ flXek½ vij lfpo
e/;izns'k 'kklu
vkfne tkfr rFkk vuqlwfpr tkfr dY;k.k foHkkx
Evidently, the State Government treating it to be a separate unit sanctioned only the building grant. The petitioner went on to operate the unit by
appointing additional staff. These staff filed a Writ Petition No.3815/2008 for direction to the State to release grant in aid in lieu of the staff in favour
of this unit which was nomenclatured as Anusuchit Jaati Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya No.2, Daboh. Present petitioner was impleaded as
respondent No.5. The writ petition was dismissed on 23/11/2010 on the finding that the approval having been cancelled by the Collector by his order
on 13/09/2005 and sanction of 36 additional post of teachers being refused by the State and that providing of grant-in-aid to any institution is a
discretion of the State, the Writ Court declined any interference. In an Appeal W.A. No.714/2010, however, limited indulgence was caused, wherein
by order dated 07/09/2012, the State and Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department was directed to place the matter before the Expenditure and
Finance Committee (EFC) who was directed to take decision within 60 days. Evident it is from the order that the Division Bench did not notice the
stipulations contained in the letter dated 18/01/1999 whereby limited permission was granted. Be that as it may. As the matter stood thus, Additional
Secretary, Schedule Tribe Welfare Department, State of Madhya Pradesh in response to the proposal by the Commissioner, Tribal Welfare No.
f'k{kk&4/vuqnku/2007-
08/7658  dated  28/12/2007  informed  vide communication No. F23-5/2008/25-4 dated 09/07/2014 which spelt out the following:-
   e/;izns'k 'kklu]
vuqlwfpr tkfr dY;k.k foHkkx
ea=ky;] oYyHk Hkou] Hkksiky
dza ,Q 23&5@2008@25&4 Hkksiky] fn- 09 tqykbZ] 2014 izfr] vk;qDr]
vuqlwfpr tkfr fodkl]
Hkksiky
fo""k;% v'kkldh; lal~Fkk vuqlwfpr tkfr f'k{kk izlkj lfefr fl)iqjk ¼nqxkZiqjk½] rglhy ygkj] ftyk fHk.M n~okjk lapkfyr izo`fRr mPprj ek/;fed fon~;ky;
d-2] ncksg dks 36 vfrfjDr inksa dh
Lohd`fr dk izLrko A
 lanHkZ % vkidk  izLrko  dz-
f'k{kk&4@vuqnku@2007&08@7658 fn-28-12-2007
d`i;k mijksDr fo""k; esa lanfHkZr Kki dk voyksdu gks A
2- jkT; 'kklu ds vkns'k dz- ,Q 18&28@97@25&4] fn18-1-99 n~okjk v'kkldh; laLFkk vuqnku fu;e dh dafMdk 30 ^v^ ,oa ^c^ ds rgr vuqlwfpr tkfr f'k{kk
izlkj lfefr fl)iqjk ¼nqxkZiqjk½] ftyk fHk.M n~okjk lapkfyr vuqlwfpr tkfr mPprj ek/;fed fon~;ky; fl)iqjk esa ncksg ls vkus okys fon~;kfFkZ;ksa dh
dfBukbZ;kWa dks n`f""Vxr j[krs gq, i`Fkd bZdkbZ lapkyu ds fy, fuEuqlkj l'krZ vuqefr iznku dh x;h
Fkh%
¼1½ ncksg esa i`Fkd bZdkbZ ds fy, dksbZ vfrfjDr veyk Lohd`r ugha fd;k tk;sxk A iwoZ esa Lohd`r veys ls gh nksuks bZdkbZ;ksa dk lapkyu fd;k
tk;sxk A izpk;Z dk in Hkh i`Fkd ls Lohd`r ugha fd;k tk;sxk A orZeku izpk;ZÂ n~okjk nksuks bZdkbZ;ksa dh iz'kkldh; O;oLFkk dh tk;sxh A
¼2½ ncksg dh bZdkbZ ds fy, veys dh O;oLFkk izpk;Z dh vuq'kalk ij dh tk;s ftldh lwpuk foHkkxh; ftyk vf/kdkjha dks vko';d :i ls nh tk;sA
¼3½ ncksg esa bZdkbZ lapkyu gsrq Nk=ksa dh la[;k ds vuqikr vuqlkj Hkou O;oLFkk ds vfrfjDr dksbZ Hkh vU; O;; Lohd`r ugha fd;k tk;sxk A
3- laLFkk n~okjk 'kklu funsZ'k fn- 18-1-99 ds foijhr tkdj 32 inksa ij Lohd`r fcuk fu;qfDr dh x;h gS A 4- jkT; 'kklu dh uhfr gS fd izR;sd 5 fd-eh- dh ifjf/k
esa gkbZ Ldwy [kksyk tk;sxk A ncksg esa nks 'kkldh; m-ekfon~;ky; o""kZ 1960 rFkk 1999 ls iwoZ ls lapkfyr gSA vr% 'kkldh; fon~;ky;ksa dh lqfo/kk
miyC/k gksus ls vU; xSj 'kkldh; laLFkku dks 'kS{kf.kd xfrfof/k;ksa ds fy, vuqnku ls 'kklu dh 'kkldh; fon;ky;ksa esa izos'k dks izksRlkfgr djus dh e'a
kk ij foijhr izHkko iM+ ldrk gS A
5- vr% v'kkldh; laLFkk vuqlwfpr tkfr f'k{kk izlkj lfefr fl)iqjk ¼nqxZiqjk½] rglhy ygkj] ftyk fHk.M n~okjk lapkfyr izo`fRr mPprj ek/;fed fon~;ky; dz-
2] ncksg ds 36 vfrfjDr inksa dh Lohd`fr dk izLrko mijksDr djk.kksa ls vekU; fd;k tkrk gS A
¼lfpUnz jko½ voj lfpo vuqlwfpr tkfr dY;k.k foHkkx
This communication came to be challenged on many a grounds including that unless the Expenditure and Finance Committee had deliberated pursuant
to the direction in Civil Appeal No.714/2010, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Department to have turned down the claim. It may be mentioned at
this stage that the Expenditure and Finance Committee is not an autonomous body but is a functionary within the Tribal Welfare Department entrusted
with the job of estimating the expenditure and finances in respect of the subject respectively having entitlement.
Taking into consideration these facts in cumulation, learned Single Judge observed:-
“............In pursuance to the order of the Division Bench, impugned order has been passed by the State Government and it appears that opinion
has been taken from the concerned authority which appears in the note sheet dated 01-01-2013 written by the Commissioner, Tribal Welfare placed
vide Annexure P/10. From perusal of note sheet, it appears that case had to be decided at the level of State Government and the reason appears to be
justified in view of the order dated 18-011999 passed by the State Government. Therefore, the order of the Writ Appellate
Court was complied with by the respondents and after considering the fact situation, passed the impugned order. The order of Writ Appellate Court
suggests that Court never intended for disbursement of grant automatically. Direction was in respect of consideration on merits.
Another interesting feature in the earlier litigation is that petitioners have never disclosed before the Writ Appellate Court about the order dated 18-01-
1999 in specific terms. A tangential reference was made.
As long as the order dated 18-011999 exists, petitioners have to comply the said provision.
Another ground raised by the petitioners, is in respect of rule 30 of Rules of 1985. Rule 30 is regulatory measure which contemplates permission of
competent authority before commencement of course, class etc. Rules of 1985 provide the definition of competent authority (Saksham Adhikari) in
rule 3(2) and it connotes Commissioner/Additional Commissioner, Tribal Welfare and director Harijan Vikas, Madhya Pradesh. This regulatory
measure by way of rule 30 of the Rules of 1985 cannot come to the aid of petitioners to contend that once permission has been granted by the
Collector or Additional Commissioner, Tribal Welfare regarding appointment of faculty then, grant -in -aid for teaching faculties is automatic. In fact, it
is not so and grant -in- aid cannot lie at the mercy of rule 30 of Rules of 1985. It depends on other relevant and substantial considerations. Judgment
relied upon by the petitioners is of no avail to the petitioner as binding precedent. Here, petitioner could not establish its fundamental or legal rights to
claim grant overlooking order dated 18.01.1999.
It may be true that lack of resources cannot be a ground for denial of legitimate claim of a person/entity but the claim should be legitimate. Here, in
the present case, petitioners could not establish their legitimate claim. The order dated 18-011999 and conditions contained therein are staring at them.
One more ground needs elaboration to substantiate the conclusion is, availability of two Government Schools in village Daboh as referred in the
impugned order. Therefore, dire need of running another unit at village Daboh by the petitioners society gets diluted because fundamental rights of
students for primary education (under Article 21-A of Constitution of India) is being taken care by the State Government. Gesture of the petitioner
society in running the school is a welcome step but they cannot claim grant in aid as a matter of right. Petitioners could not point out any legal duty of
the respondents which they are otherwise obliged to perform, but failed to do so. Therefore, petition sans merits.
Even otherwise the order dated 1801-1999 is policy decision taken by the respondents in respect of case of petitioner society for establishment of new
school. Petitioners have nowhere and never challenged the conditions of Policy dated 18.01.1999. Once, they have accepted the policy conditions with
open eyes, then they are estopped to interpret the policy conditions on the ground of implied incorporation or implied acquiescence or waiver.
Respondents were ready to bear expenses of building construction and categorically refused to bear the expenses of teaching faculties. Thus, policy
condition cannot be interfered with under the limited scope of judicial review in the present litigation. [See: Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Union of India
and another, (2013) 6 SCC 616].
Thus, in view of cumulative analysis, no case for interference is made out. Petition stands dismissed.â€
When these findings are adjudged on the anvil of the cogent material on record and more particularly the order dated 18/01/1999 referred (supra),
learned Single Judge, in our considered opinion did not err in nonsuiting the claim by the petitioner. For an entitlement of a claim there must be valid
title inhere in the claimant. The expression title “in the general proposition that when equities are equal, he that has the legal title will be preferred,
includes in its broadest sense all rights capable of being enjoyed and served under the law (law lexicon) what is secured in favour of the petitioner is
the right created vide decision dated 18/01/1999 whereby permission was granted to the petitioner to open another school with limited grant confining
to building alone and not the staff and infrastructures. The petitioner having accepted the same cannot now turn around and claim grant-in-aid for the
teachers who were appointed without any sanction by the State.
In view whereof, we perceive no illegality in the impugned order, as would warrant an indulgence.
Consequently, appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.