JUDGMENT Hon’ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.—The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 2.1.2008 whereby the petitioner’s prayer to include the attached Primary Section of the petitioner’s institution in the grant-in-aid list has been rejected. 2. The foundational facts of the case are that Bishambher Nath Janta Inter College, district Maharajganj is a recognized Intermediate College having attached Primary Section which is also entitled to financial aid out of the State Fund. The petitioner made a representation for the said purpose to the authority concerned but his representation failed to elicit any response from the authority concerned. The petitioner preferred a Writ Petition No. 39390 of 1998 before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of on 20th September, 2004 whereby a direction was issued upon the Principal Secretary Education, U.P. Government,Lucknow to pass appropriate and reasoned order within six weeks. 3. Pursuant thereto the Secretary had passed an order on 29.3.2005 and rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner institution does not fulfill the criteria mentioned in the Government Order dated 21.6.1973. Broadly the Secretary has rejected the petitioner’s representation on three grounds namely the institution does not have proper infrastructure; since the institution was granted recognition in the year 1973 of the High School therefore the claim of the petitioner that the Primary Section was established before 21.6.1973 cannot be accepted; the institution has failed to produce the documents in respect of reimbursement grant. The said order dated 29.3.2005 has been brought on record as Annexure-14 to the writ petition. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the said order the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition No. 42957 of 2005. The Court was satisfied that the petitioner’s claim was rejected by the respondent on unsustainable ground thus, the order dated 29.3.2005 was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Secretary Basic Shiksha, U.P. Government Shiksha Anubhagh-6 Secretariat, Lucknow to pass a fresh reasoned speaking order. A copy of the said order has been brought on record as Annexure-15 to the writ petition. 5. In compliance of the said order the Secretary has passed the impugned order. It is stated that in the writ petition as well as in the rejoinder-affidavit that all the documents were produced and some of the documents were sent under registered cover to the Secretary. 5. In compliance of the said order the Secretary has passed the impugned order. It is stated that in the writ petition as well as in the rejoinder-affidavit that all the documents were produced and some of the documents were sent under registered cover to the Secretary. The said statement of fact has been made by the petitioner in paragraph 31 and 32 of the writ petition and paragraph 33 of the rejoinder-affidavit. 6. In the counter-affidavit the averments made in the aforementioned writ petition has not been denied. The stand taken in the counter-affidavit is that the petitioner does not fulfill various conditions mentioned in the order dated 21.6.1973 and the Director in his Circular dated 21.10.1989 has reiterated those pre-conditions before making payment of salary of the teachers of the attached Primary Sections. The said Circular/Communication has been enclosed alongwith the counter-affidavit as Annexure-CA-2 to the counter-affidavit. 7. I have heard Sri Rahul Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K.Yadav, learned Standing Counsel. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner fulfills all the conditions mentioned in the Government Order dated 21.6.1973. He further submits in the earlier writ petition No. 39390 of 1998 filed by the institution a counter-affidavit was filed which was sworn by the District Inspector of Schools wherein most of the facts with regard to condition fulfillment mentioned in the Government Order dated 21.6.1973 has been admitted. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools dated 27.11.1972 whereby the attachment of the Primary Section was ordered subject to the condition that both the institution shall be in the same premises, there shall be one head of the institution. A copy of the said order has been brought on record as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. He has further drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure-5 which is reimbursement grant to the College dated 11.3.1980, 10.3.1981, 12.1.1982, 1.2.193 and onwards. He has further drawn the attention of the Court to the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 31.12.1993 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) wherein name, educational qualification, date of appointment has been mentioned. 10. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner failed to file documents before the authority concerned therefore there is no illegality in the order of the Secretary. 11. 10. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner failed to file documents before the authority concerned therefore there is no illegality in the order of the Secretary. 11. I have considered the submissions of respective parties and perused the record. This matter was sent to the Secretary by this Court. 12. This matter was sent to the Secretary by this Court on two earlier occasions. In the impugned order the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the following grounds : (a) That during the spot inspection on 8.10.2007 it was found that necessary infrastructure was not in the institution; (b) Number of students have been inflated ; (c) Eight teachers were found in the Primary Section but the institution failed to produce the documents with regard to creation of post; selection process and appointment etc. (d) The Institution was granted recognition of the High School in the year 1973 and it was brought in grant in aid list in the year 1978 and got recognition of Intermediate in the year 1992. Thus it was possible to establish prior to 1973 and since in the Government Order dated 21.6.1973 the institution was not established prior to 21.6.1973 is not entitled to get the financial aid out of State Fund. 13. From perusal of the impugned order it is evident that most of the grounds mentioned in the earlier order of the Secretary dated 29.3.2005 was also taken and that order has been set aside by this Court vide 11.9.2007. 14. As regards the ground that institution was not established prior to 1973 the petitioner has brought on the record the order of the District Inspector of Schools mentioned herein above. The said document has not been denied in the counter-affidavit. As regard the appointment of the teachers the petitioner has brought on the record the order of the District Inspector of Schools wherein the name of 28 teachers have been mentioned and in the order itself it is mentioned that during spot inspection 8 teachers were found in the Primary Section. The petitioner has brought on the record the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 31.12.1993 wherein the name of 24 teachers have been mentioned which has also not been denied in the counter-affidavit. 15. The petitioner has brought on the record the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 31.12.1993 wherein the name of 24 teachers have been mentioned which has also not been denied in the counter-affidavit. 15. Another ground taken in the impugned order that the petitioner could not file the documents to satisfy the reimbursement grant was sanctioned to it as mentioned herein above. The petitioner has brought on the record the documents (collectively enclosed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition) indicating therein reimbursement grant the name of the petitioner institution is mentioned in these documents. The averments with regard to the said document has not been denied in the Courter affidavit, thus it is established that the petitioner was granted reimbursement grant in terms of the Government Order of the year 1973. 16. Relevant would it be, to mention that in earlier Writ Petition 39390 of 1998 a counter-affidavit was filed by the office of the District Inspector of Schools which was sworn by the District Inspector of Schools, wherein all the above mentioned facts have been admitted by the District Inspector of Schools therefore this fact was established that the institution was established before the year 1973. The teachers were appointed and during the spot inspection eight teachers were found teaching on the date of inspection. These facts have been totally ignored by the Secretary in the impugned order as stated earlier in the previous impugned order also most of the grounds were found to be the same. 17. Having considered the facts and circumstances of case, I am of the view that for the reasons stated herein above, the impugned order is illegal and based on no evidence and needs to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. 18. The matter is remitted to the Secretary, Basic Shiksha, U.P. Government, Lucknow to pass a fresh order after giving opportunity to the petitioner in the light of the observations made herein above within two months from the date of communication of this oder. 19. With the aforesaid observations and order, writ petition is finally disposed of. 20. No order as to costs.