Shahid Baba Singh Public High School, H.P. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 1356 of 1999
Petitioner: Shahid Baba Singh Public High School, H.P.
Respondent: State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 1356 of 1999
Judges: S. RAJENDRA BABU & BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Aug 21, 2001
Head Note:
CONSTITUTION
Articles 226, 136 – Grant-in-aid to private schools – Refusal – School receiving aid till 1991-92 under orders dated 24.11.94. Held that in this situation, grant-in-aid should have been continued. Question of repeal of grant-in-aid rules and effect thereof not gone into. Grant to be continued subject to rules. (Paras 3,4)
Cases Reffered:
1. State of Himachal Pradesh v. H.P. State Recognised & Aided Schools Managing Committees & Ors. (JT 1995 (8) SC 406) (Para 1)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The appellant before us is an educational institution which sought for grant -in-aid in the light of the decision of this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. H.P. State Recognised & Aided Schools Managing Committees & Ors.1 (1995 (4) SCC 507). However, the Government rejected this claim on the ground that this was not one of those schools which had been granted aid in the list disclosed to this Court.
2. On rejection of that claim, a writ petition was filed before the High Court. The High Court, however, sought to distinguish the said decision stating that the question which fell for consideration in the said decision was whether the teachers of the private schools who were receiving grant-in-aid were entitled to claim salary on parity with the government school teachers and while deciding that question, certain aspects were referred to in that case. Careful reading of the decision will make it clear that the question posed for consideration before the Court was whether the teachers working in the aided schools were entitled to pay scales which are being paid to their counterparts in the government schools and whether they were entitled to receive grant-in-aid to meet 95 per cent of the net approved expenditure. When that was the position, the High Court could not have made a distinction between that decision and the issue arising in the present case.
3. Even assuming that position to be correct there is one special feature in this case. The school was receiving aid for the year 1991-92 by the order made by the government on 24-11-1994. If the school was entitled to such aid, we fail to see as to why the aid could not have been continued thereafter. The aid should have been continued and particularly in the light of the decision of this Court. Therefore, we think in the special features of this case the order made by the High Court should be set aside and the aid granted to the school pursuant to the order made on 24-11-1994 should be continued.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, pointed out that the grant-in-aid rules have been repealed now. Whether it is so or not and what its effect is need not be examined in the present case. That question is left open.
5. In the light of what we have said, the order of the High Court is set aside and there shall be a direction to the respondents to continue with the aid granted to the appellant in terms of the order dated 24-11-1994 and subject to rules. The appeal is allowed accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
1. The appellant before us is an educational institution which sought for grant -in-aid in the light of the decision of this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. H.P. State Recognised & Aided Schools Managing Committees & Ors.1 (1995 (4) SCC 507). However, the Government rejected this claim on the ground that this was not one of those schools which had been granted aid in the list disclosed to this Court.
2. On rejection of that claim, a writ petition was filed before the High Court. The High Court, however, sought to distinguish the said decision stating that the question which fell for consideration in the said decision was whether the teachers of the private schools who were receiving grant-in-aid were entitled to claim salary on parity with the government school teachers and while deciding that question, certain aspects were referred to in that case. Careful reading of the decision will make it clear that the question posed for consideration before the Court was whether the teachers working in the aided schools were entitled to pay scales which are being paid to their counterparts in the government schools and whether they were entitled to receive grant-in-aid to meet 95 per cent of the net approved expenditure. When that was the position, the High Court could not have made a distinction between that decision and the issue arising in the present case.
3. Even assuming that position to be correct there is one special feature in this case. The school was receiving aid for the year 1991-92 by the order made by the government on 24-11-1994. If the school was entitled to such aid, we fail to see as to why the aid could not have been continued thereafter. The aid should have been continued and particularly in the light of the decision of this Court. Therefore, we think in the special features of this case the order made by the High Court should be set aside and the aid granted to the school pursuant to the order made on 24-11-1994 should be continued.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, pointed out that the grant-in-aid rules have been repealed now. Whether it is so or not and what its effect is need not be examined in the present case. That question is left open.
5. In the light of what we have said, the order of the High Court is set aside and there shall be a direction to the respondents to continue with the aid granted to the appellant in terms of the order dated 24-11-1994 and subject to rules. The appeal is allowed accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
