AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Shri J.K. Matale, Advocate holding for Shri
Parsodkar, Shri Agrawal and Shri Karode, Advocate holding for
Madkholkar, learned counsel for the petitioners in respective
writ petitions and Ms. T. Khan, learned counsel for the
respondents - government authorities.
The petitioners approached this Court for a
direction to the State Government to consider their proposals
for opening of a new School without insisting for an
undertaking that they would not claim any grants from State.
The State Government then as per its policy, wanted an
undertaking that the petitioners would run School on
"permanent no grant basis".
This Court has passed some interim orders and it is
not in dispute that accordingly the Schools have been set up by
the petitioners and are functioning.
On 20.07.2009, the State Government has taken a
policy decision and decided to delete the word "permanent"
from the orders of recognition granted to such Schools. This is
in the back drop of the constitutional obligation upon it and the
provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
Eduction Act, 2009.
The learned counsel for the petitioners also wish to
rely upon another Government Resolution dated 15.11.2011.
By said Government Resolution, they claimed that after
removal of the word "permanent", a scheme has been
formulated to extend grants in stages to the subject Schools.
We do not wish to comment on Government Resolution dated
15.11.2011 as it is not the subject matter of the petitions.
During arguments, the learned AGP has invited our
attention to a Division Bench judgment dated 08.04.2005 in
Writ Petition No. 138 of 2003 and other connected petition,
delivered at Bombay. In that judgment in paras 5 and 6, the
Division Bench has considered the impact of the word
"permanent" in the order granting recognition or approval to
the Schools. The Division Bench has found that it does not
imply denial of grants permanently and contemplates and
envisages review at regular intervals as per policy that may be
formulated by the State Government when its financial
condition improves. The Division Bench, therefore, observes
that request of the petitioners at Bombay for extending grant-
in-aid is open for consideration as and when financial position
improves and it formulates policy to grant-in-aid to such un-
aided Schools. This decision, therefore, reveals that the word
"permanent" against which grievance has been made by the
petitioners does not have any significance after said Division
Bench judgment and after Government Resolution dated
20.07.2009.
Accordingly, we direct the respondents to delete
that word "permanent" from the Order of Recognition given to
the respective petitioners. Writ Petitions are accordingly
allowed and disposed of. However, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.