Holding

The exclusion of the respondent institutions from the grant‑in‑aid scheme was arbitrary and violative of Article 14; they must be considered for aid, and the exclusionary conditions are to be ignored.

Summary

The State of Uttar Pradesh issued a 2006 notification to bring 1,000 unaided A‑class Junior High Schools (classes 6‑8) into a grant‑in‑aid scheme, but conditioned eligibility on the schools not offering education below or above those classes. Several institutions that had been recognized as Junior High Schools between 1983‑86 were later upgraded to High Schools and Intermediate Colleges; because they received recognition after the cut‑off date of 30 June 1984, they were excluded from the aid. They filed writ petitions challenging the exclusion. The Allahabad High Court held that the exclusion, effected through Condition 2(13) of the order and Section 13A of the Uttar Pradesh Recognised Junior High Schools (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978, created an arbitrary ‘class within a class’ and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The State appealed, but the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, affirming the High Court’s view and directing that the respondent institutions be considered for grant‑in‑aid, ignoring the exclusionary conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the exclusion of upgraded Junior High Schools from the grant‑in‑aid scheme under Condition 2(13) of the 2006 order violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether Section 13A of the Uttar Pradesh Recognised Junior High Schools (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978, which limits aid to institutions receiving aid before 30 June 1984, is arbitrary and unconstitutional.
Whether the upgradation of a school changes its legal identity such that it loses eligibility for Junior High School aid.
Whether the State may create a ‘class within a class’ for the purpose of grant‑in‑aid distribution.

Subjects

Grant-in-aidArticle 14EqualityJunior High SchoolUpgradationSection 13AUttar Pradesh education lawArbitrary classificationSpecial Leave Petition

Judgment

[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1276

A STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
v.
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, M.T.S. VIDYA MANDIR
AND ORS.
(Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4630 of 2008)
B DECEMBER 02, · 2009
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND .CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]

Grant-in-aid: Cut off date - By Notification dated 7.9.2006,
C 1000 unaided permanently recognized Junior High Schools
were brought on grant.:.in-aid list but with a condition that only
Junior High Schools were entitled to apply and institutions
imparting education below or higher than classes 6 to 8 were
not eligible to apply - Respondent institutions were
D recognised as Junior High School c:.nd upgraded
subsequently to High School and intermediate levels - Th~y
were excluded from the grant;..in-aid Scheme - Held: It would
not be fair to exclude such unaided institutions which were
also imparting education, either at the Primary or the Higher
E Secondary level, from the grant-in-aid scheme, inasmuch as,
they too continued to have Junior High Schools imparting
education for classes 6 to 8 ,..... Uttar Pradesh Basic Education
Act, 1972 - Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921
- Uttar Pradesh Recognised Junior High Schools (Payment
F of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, -1978.

Uttar Pradesh Recognised Junior High Schools
(Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act,
1978: s.13A -- Constitutionality of - s.13A was introducP'.i in
the 1978 Act as transitory provision to continue to proVJde aid
G to Junior High School despite their upgradatir., as High
School or intermediate school - The prcivision was applicable
only to the educational institutions which r6c3ived grant-in-aid
prior to 30. 6. 1984 - High Court held the provision as arbitrary

H 1276
STATE OF U.P. v. COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, 1277
M.T.S. VIDYA MANDIR
- Held: Justified - Such provision was in violation of the A
equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 - Uttar Pradesh Basic
Education Act, 1972 - Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education -
Act, 1921.
B
The Respondent institutions were recognized as
Junior High Schools between the years 1983 and 1986.
When they wer_e granted recognition as Junior High
Schools, they were not brought within the grant-in-aid
scheme framed by the State Government, inasmuch as,
the cut off date for receiving such grant was fixed as 30th C
June, 1984 on the basis of seniority prepared in re5pect
of eligible institutions. Not having received recognition,
the Respondent institutions did not get the benefit of
grant-in-aid for the Junior High School Section. The said
institutions thereafter applied for upgradation to High D
School and Intermediate levels, which was allowed as per
the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act,
1921, but subject to the condition that new and higher
upgraded classes would be run on a self-financing basis.
E
By its notification dated 7th September, 2006, the
Directorate of Basic Education, U.P. decided to bring
1000 unaided permanently recognized (A class) Junior
High Schools on its grant-in-aid list but included a
condition that only Junior High Schools would be entitled F
to apply. It was categorically indicated that institutions
imparting education below or higher than classes 6 to 8
would not be eligible to apply. As a result, the
Respondent institutions were completely excluded from
the grant-in-aid Scheme. Respondent-Institutions filed G
writ petitions. High Court allowed the writ petitions and
directed authorities to consider the case of institutions.
Hence these special leave petitions.

Dismissing the Special Leave Petitions, the Court
H
1278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A HELD: Admittedly, 'some of the Junior High Schools
were enjoying the benefit of the grant-in-aid Scheme on
the basis of seniority having regard to the cut-off date for
grant of recognition to Junior High Schools. The
Respondent institutions were not considered for the
B grant-in-aid Scheme as they had not been granted
recognition as Junior High Schools prior to the said cut-
off date. Since most of the Junior High Schools had
subsequently been upgraded and granted recognition to
conduct higher classes from classes 9 to 12 and by
C virtue of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 were
disentitled to receive aid at the Junior High School level,
the State Government by inserting Section 13A in the U.P.
Recognised Junior High Schools (Payment of Salaries of
Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978 sought to
protect their interests by continuing the application of the
0
1978 Act to those institutions which had been upgraded,
but were already receiving grant-in-aid for the Junior High
School section. It was by virtue of the amended
provisions of Section 13-A that a class within a class was
being sought to be created in perpetuity. The application
E of the 1978 Act only to educational institutions which
received grant-in-aid prior to 30th June, 1984, has been
rightly held to be arbitrary by the High Court. Such
provision is in violation of the equality clause enshrined
in Article 14 of the Constitution. If it was the intention of
F the State Government to extend ihe benefit of the grant-
in-aid Scheme to 1000 unaided permanently recognized
(A Class) Junior High Schools by its advertisement dated
9th September, 2006, then it would not be fair to exclude
such unaided institutions which besides imparting
G education at the Junior High School level were also
imparting education, either at the Primary or the Higher
Secondary level, from the grant-in-aid scheme, inasmuch
as, they too continued to have Junior High Schools
imparting education for classes 6 to 8. The petitioners are
H directed to consider the case of the Respondent
STATE OF U.P. v. COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, 1279
M.T.S. VIDYA MANDIR
institutions, along with other applicants, for being A
.. brought within the ambit of the grant-in-aid Scheme in
pursuance of the Government Order dated 7th
September, 2006. [Paras 19 and 23] [1287-C-H; 1288-A-B;
1289-8-C]
B
State of U.P. & Ors. v. Pawan Kumar Divedi & Ors. (2006)
7 SCC 745; Vinod Sharma v. Director of Education (Basic),
U.P. (1998) 3 SCC 404; State of U.P. & Ors. v. District Judge,
Varanasi & Ors. 1981 UPLBEC 336; State of U.P. & Ors. v.
Ram Charitra Tyagi & Ors. (2005) 10 SCC 431; State of
Punjab v. Joginder Singh 1963 Supp. (2) SCR 169; Ram Lal C
Wadhwa v. State of Haryana & Ors. (1973) 1 SCR 608; Life
Insurance Corporation & Ors. v. S.S. Srivastava (1988) Supp.
sec 1, referred to.
Case Law Reference: D
(2006) 1 sec 145 referred to Para 10
(1998) 3 sec 404 referred to Para 10
1981 UPLBEC 336 referred to Para 11
E
(2005) 10 sec 431 referred to Para 13
1963 Supp. (2) SCR 169 referred to Para 14
(1973) 1 SCR 608 referred to Para 14
F
(1988) Supp. sec 1 referred to Para 14
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: SLP (Civil) No. 4630
of 2008.

From the Judgment & Order dated 15.1.2008 of the High G
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 162 of
~· 2007.
WITH
SLP (C) Nos. 17236 & 19261 of 2008. H
1280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A P.P. Rao, P.N. Mishra, Dinesh Dwivedi, Shail Kr. Divedi,
AAG, Garvesh Kabra, Shrish Kumar Mishra, Pushkin, Yatish
Mohan, Ms. Vinita, Y. Mohan, E.C. Vidya Sagar, Mukesh
Verma, M.R. Shamshad, Manish Shankar, Prateek Dwivedi,
Vivek Vishnoi, Yash Pal Dhingra, Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, Manoj
B K. Mishra for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. The Respondent institutions were
recognized as Junior High Schools between the years 1983 and
C 1986. Thereafter, between 1987 and 1989, they were granted
recognition for imparting education at the High School level and
were subsequently upgraded as Intermediate Colleges
between 1991 and 1999. It appears that as Junior High Schools
which were granted recognition after 30th June, 1984, none of
o the respondent institutions were covered by the grant-in-aid
scheme of the State Government to Junior High Schools and
at the time of their upgradation as High Schools or Intermediate
Colleges, one of the conditions imposed by the Board of High
School and Intermediate Education was that for opening and
E running the new (higher) classes, the institutions would have to
· operate the same on a self-financing basis and would not be.
provided with any aid by the State Government. There is nc
dispute that the institutions imparting education from classes
1 to 5 are governed by the provisions of the U.P. ·Basic
F Education Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1972 Act");
institutions imparting education from classes 6 to 8 are
governed by the provisions of the U.P. Recognized Junior High
Schools (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other
Employees) Act, 1978, (hereinafter referred to as "the 1978
G Act"); and institutions imparting ~ducation from classes9 to 12
are governed by the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate
Education Act, 1921, (hereinafter referred to as "the 1921 Act")
and also the U.P. High Schools and Intermediate College
(Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act
1971, (hereinafter referred to as "the 1971 Act").
H
STATE OF U.P. v. COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, 1281
M.T.S. VIDYA MANDIR [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
·2. The provision for grant of recognition to an institution in A
respect of any new subject or for a higher class on a self-
financing basis was introduced into the 1921 Act, which came
into effect from 14th October, 1986. By virtue of the said
amendment, Section 7-A of the 1921 Act stood substituted and
Section 7-AA was inserted into the parent Act to provide for B 1

employment of part-time teachers and part-time instructors and
the funds therefor were to be arranged by the institution from
its own sources.

3. As mentioned hereinbefore, when the Respondent
institutions were granted recognition as Junior High Schools, C
they were not brought within the grant-in-aid Scheme framed
by the State Government, inasmuch as, the cut off date for
receiving such grant was fixed as 30th June, 1984 on the basis
of seniority prepared in respect of eligible institutions. Not
having received recognition prior to 30th June, 1984, the P
Respondent institutions did not get the benefit of grant-in-aid
for the Junior High School Section. The said institutions
thereafter applied for upgradation to High School and
Intermediate levels, which was allowed as per the provisions
of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, but subject to the E
condition that new and higher upgraded classes would be run
on a self-financing basis.

~ 4. The case made out by the Respondent institutions in
their writ petition was that, although, they had earlier been F
denied the benefit of grant-in-aid for their Junior High School
section they were still hoping to be brought within the ambit of
the grant-in-aid for the Junior High School Section comprising
- classes 6 to 8. The expectations of the Respondent institutions
were negated when by its Notification dated 7th September,
2006, the Directorate
)
of Basic Education, U.P. decided to bring G
1000 unaided permanently recognized (A class) Junior High
Schools on its grant-in-aid list but includeu a condition that only
Junior High Schools would be entitled to apply. It was
categorically indicated that institutions imparting education H
1282 SUPkEME COURT REPuRTS [2009) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A belo.v or higher than classes 6 to 8 would not be eligible to
apply. As a result of the above, the Respondent institutions
were comp!Ately excluded from the grant-in-aid Scheme.
Inasmuch as, a decision hao been taken by the State
Government not to provide grant-in-aid to educational
8 institutions for the Junior High Schools after their upgradation
as High Schools or Intermediate Colleges, an exception was
made in respect of institutions which had been receiving grant-
in-aia for their Junior High School sections despite the fact that
the said institutions ha j been' upgra( 1d. Section 13A was
C introduced ir. the 1978 Act as a transitor} orovision to cc. 1tinue
to provide aid to such institutions despite their upgradation as
High Schools or lntermed_iate Colleges. As a result, a class
within a class was c··~ated. As a result, one set of educatiunal
institutions received maintenance grants at the Junior High
School level, while other similarly placed ins cit. :tions were
0 denied the same benefits.

· 5. In such circumstances, the Respondent institutions filed
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.61343 of 2006, which was disposed
of by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court on
E 4th January, 2007. Accepting the case made out by the
Respondent institutions that the creation of a dass within a
class was not only unfair and unreasonable but also offended
the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the
learned Single Judge of the High Court, by his judgment dated
F 4th January, 2007, upheld the contention of the Respondent
institutions and quashed condition No.2(13) of the Stata
Government Order dated 7th September, 2006, aJ well as
condition No.12 of the Advertisement dated 9th September,
2006, issued by the Directorate of Basic Education, U.P. The
G petitioner authorities.herein were directed to consider the case
of the writ petitioner institutions along with other applicants to
bring their Junior High School Sections within the am'Jit of the
grant-in-aid Scheme in pursuance of the Government Order
dcited 7th September, 2006, upon ignoring the aforesaid
H conditions of the Government Order and the Advertisement.
STATE OF U.P. v. COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, 1283
M.T.S. VIDYA MANDIR [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.)
6. The appe..il preferred by the State of U.P. and its A
authorities in the Education Department, being Special Appeal
No.162 of 2007, was dismissed by the Division Bench of the
High Court on th!:! ground that no infirmity could be shown in
the judgment of ti.~ learned Single Juqge:
8
7. This Special Leave Petition and the other connected
Special Leave Petitions have been filed against the aforesaid
judgment of the Division Bench of the Attahabad High Court in
Special Appeal No.162 of 2007.

8. Appearing for the State of U.P. and its authorities, who C
are the petithners herein, Mr. P.P. Rao, learned Senior
Acivocate, submitted that by the above-mentioned notification
dated 9th September, 2006, issued by the Directorate of Basic
Education, U.P., Allahabad/Lucknow, the State Government
was treating Junior High Schools as a separate entity and in D
view of the decision of the State Government to exclude
educational institutions which had been upgraded from the ,
ambit of the 1978 Act, it had to protect those Junior High
Schools which were already receiving grant-in-aid. Section 13A
was accordingly inserted in the 1978 Act by amendment. By E
virtue of Section 13A, which was described as a transitory
provision, tie 1978 Act would continue to apply in respect of
certain upgraded institutions which had been provided grant-
in-aid for their Junior Hi~h School sections. Mr. Rao submitted
that having obtained recognition of the upgraded sections F
subject to the condition that the upgraded sections would have
to operate on a self-financing basis, it no longer lay in the mouth
of the Respondent institutions to resile from the said position
and claim that they too should be included within the scope of
the grant-in-aid Scheme for their Junior High Schools.
G
9. Mr. Rao submitted that the financial implications
invL lved were of such magnitude that a ·:-:.it-off date had to be
fixed to contain the number of schools to which such grant could
be provided. Mr. Rao submitted that the same constituted the
intelligible.differentia between those institutions who were the H
1284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A beneficiaries of the grant-in-aid Scheme and those whose
cases could not be considered beyond the cut-off date. It was
urged that it was because of such very reason that Section 13A
had to be introduced in the 1978 Act in respect of a dying class
which would be eliminated by passage of time.
B
10. In this regard, Mr. Rao referred to the decision of this
Court in State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Pawan Kumar Divedi & Ors.
[(2006) 7 sec 745), where similar questions fell for
determination and another decision of this Court in the case
of Vinod Sharma vs. Director of Education (Basic), U.P.
C [(1998) 3 SCC 404] was referred to and relied upon, in which
the submission that the institution was providing education to
students from classes 1 to 10 were in effect a single unit and
could not be divided into segments was accepted. Mr. Rao,
however, fairly submitted that the said view, which had been
D accepted in ·Vinod Sharma's case, (supra) did not find favour
with this Court in Pawan Kumar Divedi's case (supra) and the
matter was ultimately referred to a larger Bench for
reconsideration, but such reconsideration had not yet taken
place.
E
11. Mr. Rao also relied on the Full Bench decision of the
Allahabad High Court in the case in State of U.P. &Ors. vs.
District Judge, Varanasi & Ors. [1981 UPLBEC 336], where
the same questions fell for determination and it was, inter alia,
F held that the level of a Junior High School could not be the same
as that of the High School or Intermediate College. It was held
that a Basic School or a Junior High School is different from a
High School or an Intermediate College. Accordingly, the ~ame
institution could not be called a Basic School or a Junior High
School as well as a High School or ari Intermediate College.
G Each unit had a distinct legal entity. It was further held that on-
a Basic School or a Junior High School being upgradea as a
High School or an Intermediate College, the identity of the
institution known as Basic School or Junior Hign School is lost.
It ceases to exist as a legal entity and in its place another
H
-
STATE OF U.P. v. COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, 1285
M.T.S. VIDYA MANDIR [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
institution with a new legal entity comes into being. A

- " 12. Mr. Rao submitted that U.P. Junior High Schools
(Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act,
1978, applies only to Junior High Schools which impart
) education from class 6 to class 8 and on upgradation as High
B
School or Intermediate College, imparting education from
classes 9 to 12, it ceases to be a Junior High School and its
status thereafter changes to that of a High School disentitling
it to receive any grant-in-aid as a Junior High School.

13. Mr. Rao reiterated that Junior High Schools which had c
been upgraded would not be entitled to the said benefit except
for those protected under Section 13A of the 1978 Act. Mr. Rao
contended that this was the intent and purport of Section 13A
of the 1978 Act which was inserted in the parent Act by Act
No.34 of 2000 only as a transitory provision. He submitted that D
the position was the same even prior to the insertion of Section
. 13A in the 1978 Act as was held in the case of State of U.P.
& Ors. Vs. Ram Charitra Tyagi & Ors. [(2005) 10 SCC 431).

14. Mr. Rao urged that the provisions of Section 13A
being of a transitory nature they were meant to operate only till E.
such time as the teachers and other employees, who were
already receiving the benefit of grant-in-aid, continued ·in
service. He urged that such a provision could not be said to
.. be arbitrary having regard to the fact that the employees
receiving such a benefit constituted a separate class which was· F
steadily diminishing numerically and that the said proposition
was considered and upheld by this Court in (i) State of Punjab
vs. Joginder Singh [1963 Supp. (2) SCR 169]; (ii) Ram Lal
Wadhwa vs. State of Haryana & Ors. [(1973) 1 SCR 608]; and
(iii) Life Insurance Corporation & Ors. vs. S.S. Srivastava G
{(1988) Supp. sec 11.

.\ 15. Mr. Rao urged that both the learned Single Judge and
the Division Bench of the High Court had erred in holding that
the condition in the advertisement dated 9.9.2006 was H
1286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A discriminatory, without appreciating the fact that on upgradation
the status of the schools changed from Junior High School to ,,.,._
High School or Intermediate College, which were governed by '"'
a different enactment, namely, the 1921 Act. Mr. Rao submitted
that grant-in-aid could not be claimed as a matter of right and
B that it was left to the Government to decide the same on account
of the financial implications involved. Accordingly. the decision
of the learned Single Judge upheld by the Division Bench of
the High Court in Special Appeal No.162/2007, was not
capable of being sustained and was liable to be set aside.
c 16. Appearing for the respondents, Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi,
learned Senior Advocate, while opposing the submissions
made by Mr. Rao, contended that by creating a class within a
class, the State Government had not only acted arbitrarily, but
in,a discriminatory fashion, and, that too, without giving a hearing
D to those who were to be adversely affected in the process. Mr.
,_
Dwivedi urged' that by deliberately excluding Junior High
Schools which had been granted recognition after 30th June,
1984, from the benefit of the Notification dated 9th September,
2006, a distinction between two schools of the same category
E was created, and while, on the one hand, one category of such
SGhools continued to get the benefit of the grant-in-aid scheme
for the Junior High School inspite of upgradation, on the other
hand, schools, which had been denied such benefit at the
Junior High· School level were excluded from such benefit in ..
F perpetuity, which according to Mr. Dwivedi could never have
been the intention of the State Government in its Education
Department.

17. Referring to Mr. Rao's submissions regarding insertion
of Section 13(A) in the 1978 Act, Mr. Dwivedi submitted that
G when a decision had been taken by the State Government to
include one thousand unaided schools within the ambit of the
~-
grant-in-aid scheme a mere technicality that- they had been
granted recognition after 30th June, 1984, should not be treated
as a bar for the responcfents to be also considered for grant-
H
-·
STATE OF U.P. v. COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, 1287
M.T.S. VIDYA MANDIR [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
in-aid for their Junior High School along with other applicants 'A

- ~ 18. From the submissions made on behalf of the
respective parties, it is clear that the dispute in this case is
confined to the question as to whether Junior High Schools,
which had previously not been.brought within the ambit of the
B
grant-in-aid Scheme, but had been allowed to upgrade their
institutions to impart education at the High School and
Intermediate College level, would stand disentitled to benefit of
the said scheme in view of clause 2(13) of the Government
Order dated 7th September, 2006.
c
19. Admittedly, some of the Junior High Schools have
been enjoying the benefit of the grant-in-aid Scheme on the
basis of seniority having regard to the cut-off date (30.6.1984)
for grant of recognition to Junior High Schools. The Respondent I
institutions were not considered for the grant-in!.aid Scheme as D
they had not been granted recognition as Junior. High Schools
-+
prior to the said cut-off date. Since most of the Junior High
~ Schools had subsequently been upgraded and granted
recognition to conduct higher classes from classes 9 to 12 and
by virtue of the 1921 Act were disentitled to receive aid at the E
Junior High School level, the State Government by inserting
Section 13A in the 1978 Act sought to protect their interests
by continuing the application of the 1978 Act to those

. institutions which had been upgraded, but were already
receiving grant-in-aid for the Junior High School section. It is
F
. '
by virtue of the amended provisions of Section 13-A that a class
I( within a class was being sought to pe created in perpetuity. The
---t application of the 1978 Act only to educational institutions which
received grant-in-aid prior to 30th June, 1984, has, in our view,
,,
been rightly held to be arbitrary by the High Court. Such
provision is in violation of the equality clause enshrined in Article G
14 of the Constitution. If it was the intention of the State
_. Government to extend the benefit of the grant-in-aid Scheme
to 1000 unaided permanently recognized (A Class) Junior High
Schools by its advertisement dated 9th September, 2006, then
H
1288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A it would not be fair, as has been rightly held by the High Court,
to exclude such unaided institutions which besides imparting ~ -
education at the Junior High School level were also imparting
education, either at the Primary or the Higher Secondary level,
from the grant-in-aid scheme, inasmuch as, they too continued
B to have Junior High Schools imparting education for classes 6 "
to 8.

20. We entirely agree with the reasoning of the High Court
that if it was the intention of the State Government to extend
aid to unaided institutions at the Junior High School level for ~

c improving the quality of education at the said level, it ought not
to have excluded those institutions who continued to run Junior
High Schools, but had been upgraded for the purpose of
imparting education at the High School and Intermediate
College level.)n.other words, the object sought to be achieved
D by the notification of 9th September. 2006, has no intelligible
nexus with the object it wishes to achieve. +
;l.
21. We are unable to accept Mr. P.P. Rae's submissions
that the said Notification was protected by the transitory, __
E provisions of Section 13-A inserted into the 1978 Act to provide
assistance to those institutions which had already been covered
by the grant-in-aid Scheme, although, they had also been
upgraded subsequently. The only fault of the Respondent
institutions, as has been pointed out by the High Court, is that ~ '
F on account of the cut-off date for grant of recognition, they had
1
,..,
not been brought within the ambit of the grant-in;aid Scheme \
on account of their seniority position. Subsequently, when 1000
educational institutions were to be provided such benefit, the ',
exclusion of the respondent institution from being considered ~.

for grant-in-aid for the Junior High Schooi section is wholly
G unjustified and cannot be sustained. The decisions cited by Mr.
P.P. Rao do not address the special facts of this case. 1
'1·
22. We, therefore, have no hesitation in upholding the
orders passed both by the learned Single Judge and the
H Division Bench 'Of the High Court and the directions contained
..
STATE OF U.P. v. COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, 1289
M.T.S. VIDYA MANDIR [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
therein. A
23. These Special Leave Petitions are, accordingly,
dismissed. As directed by the learned Single Judge of the High
Court by his judgment and order dated 4th January, 2007, and
upheld by the Division Bench by its judgment and order dated
15th January, 2008, the petitioners are directed to consider the B
case of the Respondent institutions, along with other applicants,
for being brought within the ambit of the grant-in-aid Scheme
in pursuance of the Government Order dated 7th September,
2006, and while doing so ignore Condition No.2(13) of the said
Order and Condition No.12 of the Advertisement dated 9th C
September, 2006, issued by the Directorate of Basic
Education, U.P.

24. There will, however, be no ord6r as to costs.

D.G. SLPs dismissed. D