इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट ने गैर वित्त पोषित प्राथमिक विद्यालयों को ग्रांट इन एड देने की पॉलिसी तय करने का निर्देश दिया है। कोर्ट ने सरकार से कहा कि वह 1989 में बनी पॉलिसी की समीक्षा करे। साथ ही अनिवार्य और निशुल्क शिक्षा का अधिकार कानून 2009 को लागू करने के लिए प्राइवेट स्कूलों को आर्थिक सहायता, मूलभूत ढांचा उपलब्ध कराने के संबंध में एक पॉलिसी तय करे।
बता दें कि यह आदेश जज मनोज कुमार ने ग्राम विकास सेवा समिति इलाहाबाद की पिटीशन पर सुनवाई करते हुए दिया। पिटीशन पर अपना पक्ष रख रहे वकील अनिल तिवारी का कहना था कि संविधान के अनुच्छेद 21 ए में शिक्षा को मौलिक अधिकार का दर्जा दे दिया गया है। इसके अनुसार, 6 से 14 साल तक के बच्चों को अनिवार्य रूप से शिक्षा दी जानी है। इस आवश्यकता को पूरा करने के लिए निशुल्क और अनिवार्य शिक्षा कानून 2009 में लागू किया गया है। शिक्षा देने का कार्य सरकारी विद्यालयों के साथ निजी विद्यालय भी कर रहे हैं, जिनको सरकार से कोई मदद नहीं मिलती।
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 62182 of 2015
Petitioner :- Gram Vikash Sewa Samiti & Another
Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmala Yadav,Anil Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
1. Heard counsel for the petitioners, counsel for the Union of India, learned standing counsel for the State respondents and Sri A.K. Yadav for respondents no. 3 and 4. With their consent, this writ petition is being disposed of finally, without inviting counter affidavit.
2. Petitioner No. 1 is a registered Society under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is running a Junior Basic School in the name of Seth Mani Lal Swarnkar Prathmik Vidyalaya, Dhobahan, Allahabad. The institution is not receiving any Grant-in-aid from the State Government and the entire expenses are being borne by the petitioner Society. The institution claims to have made an application for being given Grant-in-aid. It seems that the application made by the institution was forwarded to the first respondent. Thereafter, the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education and Literacy issued a letter dated 24 June, 2014 recommending the name of the petitioner institution for being admitted to the benefit of the Grant-in-aid under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. In pursuance of the aforesaid, it seems that the State Government by letter dated 20.3.2015 informed the Central Government that the petitioners institution which comes under P.P.D. mode is not covered by the existing policy in relation to the Grant-in-aid.
Consequently, a request has been made to the Central Government to take appropriate decision in this regard at its level.
3. The petitioners have now approached this Court seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to provide Grant-in-aid to the petitioner institution. It is submitted that since after 86th Amendment to the Constitution, whereby Article 21-A was inserted, the State is under obligation to provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of 6 to 14 years. The mandate of the Constitution is to be carried out in accordance with law to be framed by the State. In order to meet the Constitutional obligation under Article 21-A of the Constitution, the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 has been enacted. Under Section 6 of the Act, it is provided that for carrying out the provisions of the Act, the appropriate Government and the local authority shall establish, within such areas or limits of neighbourhood, as may be prescribed, a school, where it is not so established, within a period of three years from the commencement of this Act. Section 7 stipulates that the Central Government and the State Government shall have concurrent responsibility for providing funds for carrying out the provisions of the Act. Section 8 mandates that appropriate government shall provide free and compulsory elementary education to every children. The term 'compulsory education' means obligation of the appropriate government to provide free elementary education to every child of the age of 6 to 14 years and to ensure compulsory admission, attendance, and completion of elementary education by every child of the age of 6 to 14 years. It also cast a responsibility on the appropriate government to ensure availability of a neighbourhood school as specified in Section 6. Section 12 cast responsibility on a school specified in sub-clause (i) of clause (n) of Section 2 to provide free and compulsory elementary education to all children admitted therein. The institutions specified in sub clause (ii) of clause (n) of Section 2 are required to provide free and compulsory elementary education to such proportion of children admitted therein, as its annual recurring aid or grants so received bears to its annual recurring expenses, subject to a minimum of 25 percent. In respect of the institutions falling under sub-clauses (iii) & (iv) of clause (n) of Section 2, the obligation of the school is to the extent of at least 25 percent of the strength of that class in relation to the children belonging to weaker section and disadvantaged group.
4. It is submitted that the private institutions which are unaided and which come under sub-clause (iv) of clause (n) of Section 2 are thus assisting the States to meet its obligation under the Constitution. It is urged that the State is therefore equally under an obligation to provide financial aid and infrastructure support to such schools.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out taking into consideration the Constitutional mandate and the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Paripurna Nand Tripathi and another Vs State of U.P. and others1 has issued directions to the State Government to reconsider its policy framed in the year 1989 in respect of admitting institutions to the Grant-in-aid scheme in the light of the recent amendment in the Constitution. It is submitted that the State Government has not framed any policy so far and it is for the said reason that institution like the petitioners are being denied Grant-in-aid.
6. In Paripurna Nand Tripathi (supra) this Court after considering the various previous decisions of the Supreme Court observed as under:-
"19.After the enactment of the Act, 2009 and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan (supra), Bhartiya Seva Samaj Trust (supra) and State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Pawan Kumar Divedi and others10, we are of the view that the State Government may revisit its age old policy in the light of the constitutional amendment and the law laid down by the Supreme Court on the subject.
20. Undoubtedly, now it is the State's responsibility to provide free and compulsory education to the children of the age of six to fourteen years. Private institutions, which are imparting education to children of the said age group, in fact, are performing and sharing the obligations of the State. Therefore, an obligation is cast upon the State Government not only to provide the Grant-in-aid to such institutions but to provide infrastructure also subject to reasonable conditions laid down by it. Providing education to the children of the age of six to fourteen years shall be a mirage unless qualitative education is provided to them.
21.In the State of Uttar Pradesh, the large majority of children of the said age group come from the marginalized sections of the society. Most of the institutions providing primary and basic education are situated in rural and semi-urban areas. To provide quality education it is necessary that trained and competent teachers are appointed and necessary infrastructure is also made available to such institutions. The teachers in private unaided institutions are working in pitiable conditions. No good teacher would like to work in such institutions. Thus, the students will be deprived of quality education.
22.In view of the supervening events, we are of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge dated 29 August 2014 and the order of the State Government dated 10 January 2002 need to be set aside and are, accordingly, set aside. The matter is remitted to the State Government to reconsider it in the light of the law referred to above. The State Government may reconsider its policy of 1989 in respect of the grant of aid to the unaided institutions in the light of the constitutional amendment, the Act of 2009 and the law laid down in the judgments referred above."
7. Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the State respondents and Sri A.K. Yadav on behalf of respondents no. 4 & 5 very fairly admit that the State Government, in the view of the Division Bench decision of this Court, is required to re-visit the policy relating to Grant-in-aid. They submitted that in case such policy has not been framed so far, as had been directed by the Division Bench of this Court, the State Government would take appropriate decision in this regard within such time as may be directed by this Court.
8. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to ensure compliance of the directions issued by this Court in the case of Paripurna Nand Tripathi (supra) and frame the policy in relation to Grant-in-aid to unaided institutions in the light of the Constitutional mandate and Article 21-A and the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the Principal Secretary (Basic Education U.P., Lucknow).
9. The petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.
10. Needless to mention that after the State Government takes the policy decision in the matter, the case of petitioners institution shall be dealt with accordingly.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J)
Order Date :- 5.11.2015
Arif
