JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajan Roy, J.—Heard Sri Surendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Rohit Verma, learned Standing Counsel. 2. The question of recognition of the petitioner under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 was considered by the State Government which gave its approval for the same on 13.6.1986, however, the certificate of recognition was issued by the Board of Intermediate Education, U.P. on 1.12.1986. Section 7-AA was inserted in the year 1986 w.e.f. 14.10.1986 to the effect that henceforth the recognition shall be granted without financial assistance to the Institutions, thus, as per the policy of the State Government those Institutions recognized under the Act prior to 14.10.1986 alone were eligible for being considered for grant in aid. 3. As the certificate of recognition was issued to the petitioner by the Board on 1.12.1986, therefore, treating it as ineligible, the petitioner was not considered for grant in aid. 4. Being aggrieved, he filed a writ petition before this Court bearing writ petition No. 214 of 2010 which was decided vide judgment dated 9.7.2013 which is extracted herein below: “Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the question involved in the abovecaptioned writ petition has already been decided by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8716 of 2002, decided on 21.4.2009, whereby this Court directed the State Government to consider the claim of the petitioner’s institution treating the date of its recognition before 14.10.1986 within four months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. Therefore, interest of justice would be suffice, if the benefit of the judgment and order dated 21.4.2009 be also extended to the petitioner of the abovecaptioned writ petition. Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the above facts. In view of the above, State Government is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner’s institution treating the date of its recognition before 14.10.1986 within four months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. Both the above writ petition stands disposed of finally.” 5. Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the above facts. In view of the above, State Government is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner’s institution treating the date of its recognition before 14.10.1986 within four months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. Both the above writ petition stands disposed of finally.” 5. A perusal of the said judgment reveals that the writ petition was allowed in view of the pronouncement of this Court dated 21.4.2009 in writ petition No. 8716 of 2002 wherein this issue had already been considered and decided and it was held as under: “Thus, it is clear that recognition is followed by approval, and thereafter communication is done, which is nothing but recognition of decision already taken. It is simply a ministerial act.In case there has been any delay in issuance of letter of recognition then in that event, the same will not be presumed that recognition has not been accorded to the institution. Recognition is followed by approval as per language used in Section 7-A of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Thus, in fact, effective date for the aforementioned purpose would be the date on which State Government accorded approval. In this view the fact, in case, there was any delay in issuing letter of recognition, which was only ministerial act, the same cannot affect the right of the petitioner’s claim. The State Government is hereby directed to consider the claim of petitioner’s institution treating the date of its recognition before 14.10.1988 within four months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. Writ petition is disposed of in terms o the above observations and directions.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the judgment dated 21.4.2004 was challenged by the State before the Division Bench by means of Special Appeal No. 861 of 2004 which was dismissed on the ground of delay. 7. The learned Standing Counsel, on being asked, has informed that no S.L.P. has been filed thereafter. Thus, the aforesaid judgment dated 21.4.2004 became final. 8. Indisputably the judgment dated 9.7.2013 passed in the case of the petitioner was also not challenged before the Division Bench, therefore, the same has also attained finality between the parties. 7. The learned Standing Counsel, on being asked, has informed that no S.L.P. has been filed thereafter. Thus, the aforesaid judgment dated 21.4.2004 became final. 8. Indisputably the judgment dated 9.7.2013 passed in the case of the petitioner was also not challenged before the Division Bench, therefore, the same has also attained finality between the parties. Against the aforesaid backdrop when the impugned order is perused it is found that the only reason indicated therein for rejecting the claim of the petitioners that though the approval was given by the State Government on 13.6.1986 but the certificate was issued by the Board on 1.12.1986 i.e. after the cut off date i.e. 14.10.1986 and that after approval of the State Government it is the Board which scrutinises the papers for grant of recognition and it is the body competent to grant recognition under the Act of 1921, therefore, there is no provision under which the petitioner could have been considered and granted the aid, as, it was granted recognition after the cut off date. 9. I am of the considered view that the reasoning given in the impugned order is clearly in the teeth of the observations / directions in the judgment dated 9.7.2013 passed in writ petition No. 214 of 2010 as also the judgment dated 21.4.2004 passed in C.M.W.P. No. 8716 of 2002 to which the State Government was a party. The reasoning contained in the impugned order apparently is in contempt of the said judgments. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, the same is accordingly quashed. 11. This Court has only considered the question of eligibility of the petitioner for being considered for grant in aid. It has not considered the merits of its entitlement to be actually given the grant in aid which shall be considered by the State Government as per law. 12. The matter is remanded back to the State Government for consideration of the case of the petitioner for grant in aid afresh strictly in accordance with the judgment dated 9.7.2013 and 21.4.2004 referred herein above. The requisite decision shall be taken by the concerned authority in the State Government within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this judgment is produced before it. 13. The requisite decision shall be taken by the concerned authority in the State Government within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this judgment is produced before it. 13. It is made clear that the only reason this Court is not initiating proceeding for contempt against the officer who had taken the decision vide order impugned herein is the hope that now the State Government will take decision strictly in accordance with observations and directions of this Court. It is further made clear that any deviation therefrom hereinafter shall be viewed seriously and the consequences will follow accordingly. 14. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. ———————