ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner by this petition is seeking appropriate writ to quash and set aside the decision of the respondent in not approving the grant to the petitioner for the year 20022003 of two teachers, Shri B.J.Patel and Shri P.R.Chaudhari and it is prayed by the petitioner to direct the respondent to sanction the grant which has been deducted. 2. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner is running school which includes two classes of 11th Standard and two classes of 12th Standard. However, for the year 20022003 as per the petitioner because of unavoidable circumstances the number of students was reduced than 35 number which was normal requirement in the rural area. When the petitioner applied for grant for the year 20022003, upon assessment made by the office of the District Education Officer it was found that the average presence per class was reduced to 32.40 whereas the requirement was 35 and therefore, the deduction was made for reduction of the grant by not allowing salary of two teachers, Shri B.J.Patel and Shri P.R.Chaudhari. The communication was made by the District Education Officer in this regard and thereafter the petitioner made representation to the District Education Officer by pointing the circumstances which had resulted into reduction of strength of students in classes. The District Education Officer once again considered the matter and it was found by the District Education Officer that reduction of number of students was due to the circumstances that the other school was located within the periphery of 10 kilometers and result of 10th Standard was 56.92% and he recommended for condonation. The Commissioner, Higher Education who is competent authority examined the matter and found that the proposal for condonation cannot be accepted. Under the circumstances the present petition before this Court. 3. I have heard Mr.Mohit Pathak with Ms.Vashi for Mr.Desai for the petitioner and Mr.Soni, learned AGP for the respondents. 4. It is undisputed position that number of students had gone down from 35 to 32.40. It is also an admitted position that the requisite presence of the student was 35 for the eligibility of the grant. 3. I have heard Mr.Mohit Pathak with Ms.Vashi for Mr.Desai for the petitioner and Mr.Soni, learned AGP for the respondents. 4. It is undisputed position that number of students had gone down from 35 to 32.40. It is also an admitted position that the requisite presence of the student was 35 for the eligibility of the grant. If the decision is tested on the aspect of reasonableness for reduction of the grant on account of lowering down of the presence of the students in the classes, the same per se cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary inasmuch as the teachers are engaged for providing education in the school to the students and if the requisite number of students are not available the grant may be stopped or could be reduced. 5. If the aspect of proportionately withholding of the grant is considered, in the present case it is not a matter where 100% grant is stopped or not allowed, but it has been disallowed only for the salary of two teachers. Therefore, when the principles of proportionately are also considered, the decision cannot be said arbitrary. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner made an attempt to contend that the District Education Officer had vide communication dated 8.8.2005 at Annexure RV recommended for condoning the said aspect and therefore, in view of the circumstances mentioned in the said communication it was a fit case to condone the lowering down of the presence of the students and consequently grant ought to have been sanctioned to the fullest extent. Whereas the learned AGP by relying upon the contents of the affidavitinreply at para5 contended that the requisite number of students per class was 75 and as against the same two classes were sanctioned. If the total number of students is considered, they were in all 73 which would meet with the strength of one class because in addition to the requisite number of students 10 students can be permitted so it can be enhanced to 85. Whereas in the present case total number of students of both the classes was less than 75and even if it is considered that the classes were in the rural area, the decision taken for not to accept the proposal of the District Education Officer for condonation cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary. 7. Whereas in the present case total number of students of both the classes was less than 75and even if it is considered that the classes were in the rural area, the decision taken for not to accept the proposal of the District Education Officer for condonation cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary. 7. In my view this Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the competent authority upon the representation made by the petitioner. If the ground stated at para5 in the affidavitinreply filed dated 1.2.2010 is considered and if it has resulted into the decision for withholding of grant for salary of two teachers, it cannot be said that the power has been exercised in an arbitrary manner as sought to be canvassed. 8. In view of the above, the petition is meritless. Hence the same is dismissed.