Arya Shiksha Prasar Samiti vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Application for Leave To Appeal No. 9500 of 2019

In and AND

Special Appeal No. 685 of 2019

The present application is filed seeking leave to prefer an appeal. Since the appellant-Society, which runs the College, was not arrayed as a respondent in the writ petition, and as the order under appeal undoubtedly affects their pending claim to be removed from the ambit of the grant-in-aid provisions of the Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006, we see no reason not to grant them leave to appeal. The application seeking leave to appeal is allowed.

While the applicant has also filed Delay Condonation Application No. 9499 of 2019 to condone the delay of 10 days in preferring the Special Appeal, the question of delay would only arise if a party to the writ proceedings had failed to prefer an appeal, against the order passed in the writ petition, within the stipulated time. As noted hereinabove the applicant, who seeks leave to appeal, was not a party to the writ petition. Since the question of delay is wholly immaterial, Delay Condonation Application No. 9499 of 2019 is closed.

Heard Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, Mr. Xitij Kaushik, learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners and Mr. Anil Kumar Bisht, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and, with their consent, the Special Appeal is disposed of at the stage of admission.

The respondents-writ petitioners herein are, admittedly, employees of the Arya Kanya Inter College, Rudrapur which was hitherto administered by a Committee of Management under the control of the appellant-Society. While the earlier Committee of Management is said to have sought approval of the State Government for admission of the said College into grant-in-aid, and approval appears to have been accorded, the subsequent Committee of Management appears to have, on the directions of the appellant-Society, made a request that they be excluded from the grant-in-aid provisions of the Act. It is also the case of the appellant-Society that its Committee of Management had erred in seeking admission of the College into grant-in-aid, since that involved compliance with several obligations which may affect the status of the College as an Arya Samaj institution.

It is not in dispute that the subject College was admitted into grant-in-aid on 27.02.2014 and, while there appears to be several disputes regarding admission of the College into grant-in-aid, the said Institute continues to be governed by the grant-in-aid provisions of the Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006 even till date.

Viewed in this context, we see no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge directing the Chief Education Officer, Udham Singh Nagar to examine the matter, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, and ensure that the salary of the respondents-writ petitioners is released as early as possible, but not later than four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. As long as the grant-in-aid provisions of the Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006 continue to apply to the College established by the appellant-Society, the respondents-writ petitioners are undoubtedly entitled to be paid salaries which are applicable to an Institution which has been admitted to grant-in-aid.

While we see no reason to interfere with the aforesaid part of the order under appeal, we are satisfied that the last limb of the order, whereby it was left open to the respondents-writ petitioners to invoke the powers available to them, including the power to appoint an Authorised Controller, could not have been passed without putting the appellant-Society on notice, and without giving them an opportunity of being heard.

Mr. Xitij Kaushik, learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners, would submit that the respondents-writ petitioners are primarily aggrieved with the failure of the respondents to pay them salary in terms of the grant-in-aid provisions of the Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006; and, as long as that part of the order whereby the learned Single Judge has directed the Chief Education Officer, Udham Singh Nagar to examine the matter, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and ensure that the salary of the respondents-writ petitioners is released as early as possible, is not interfered with, they have no objection for the second limb of the order under appeal, whereby it was left open to the respondents-writ petitioners to invoke the powers available to them, including the power to appoint an Authorised Controller, to be set aside.

Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellant-Society, would submit that this Court may consider making it clear that the order under appeal shall not disable the appellant-Society from agitating their claim that the subject College should be released from the grant-in-aid provisions of the Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006.

Suffice it, therefore, to delete the last limb of the order under appeal, whereby it was left open to the respondents-writ petitioners to invoke the powers available to them, including the power to appoint an Authorised Controller. We see no reason to interfere with the remaining part of the order under appeal. We also make it clear that the order under appeal shall not come in the way of the appellant-Society agitating their claim, to be released from the grant-in-aid provisions of the Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006, in appropriate legal proceedings.

With the aforesaid observations, the Special Appeal is disposed of. No costs.