JUDGMENT Ref: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application Application is allowed. Delay in filing Special Appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in affidavit filed in support of Delay Condonation Application. The Special Appeal is to be treated as filed well within time. Ref: Special Appeal State of U.P. is before this Court assailing the validity of order dated 26th March, 2015 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.15968 of 2015 (Committee of Management Shri Gokul Prasad Balika Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya and another vs. State of U.P. and others), wherein following order has been passed: "This writ petition assails the validity of an order dated 18/1/2015, in terms of which the application of the petitioner institution to be taken on the grant in aid list has come to be rejected. The ground taken in the impugned order is that in terms of Section 7-A of the Act, 1921, the petitioner did not enjoy statutory approval and recognition prior to 14/10/1986. However, the order itself records that the institution had been accorded approval by the State Government prior to 14/10/1986. However, the decision of the Government was conveyed by the Board subsequent to the said date. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once approval had been accorded by the State Government prior to 14/10/1986, the institution was clearly entitled to be taken on the grant in aid list. He submits that the mere act that the decision of the State Government was communicated to the petitioners on a date subsequent thereto could not be taken as a ground to defeat the claim raised before the Authority. In this connection learned counsel for the petitioners has further invited the attention of this Court to the judgment rendered in Writ Petition No.8716/2001, Committee of Management Sri 108 Swami Naga Nirwan Ji Maharaj Inter College, Hanswa, Fatehpur, and another Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., wherein this Court considering a similar issued 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. 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." 2. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents does not dispute the legal submission as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In any view of the matter and in light of the recital carried in the impugned order itself there is a clear admission on behalf of the State respondents that the approval had been accorded to the petitioners institution prior to 14/10/1986. 3. Accordingly, and in view of the above, this writ petition shall stand allowed. Impugned order dated 09/1/2015, is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to proceed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the application of the petitioners in light of the observations made herein above and the law as laid down by this Court in Committee of Management (supra).The above exercise be completed within a period of one month by the respondent no.1 from the date of production of a certified copy of the order of this Court." 4. From the side of the appellants-respondents, it has been sought to be contended that the recognition in question has been accorded under Section 7(4) of Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and in view of this, such an order could not have been passed by learned Single Judge. 5. The arguments in question advanced by Dr. From the side of the appellants-respondents, it has been sought to be contended that the recognition in question has been accorded under Section 7(4) of Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and in view of this, such an order could not have been passed by learned Single Judge. 5. The arguments in question advanced by Dr. Y.K. Shrivastava, Advocate has been resisted by Shri A.K. Malviya, Advocate by submitting that rightful orders have been passed and no interference should be made as here the recognition letter, on its face value, is speaking for itself. 6. After respective argument have been advanced what we find in the present case is that Special Appeal Defective No.98 of 2016 (State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Madhyamik Education Lucknow and others vs. Rashtriya Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Unnao). has been filed at Lucknow Bench of this Court and therein virtually the same order that is subject matter of appeal before us has been dealt with and following order has been passed: "Heard Sri Praful Yadav learned counsel for the State at length. Sri Praful Yadav has advanced the same submissions that were advanced before the learned Single Judge contending that recognition and approval are two different concepts and, therefore, the question of bringing the institution on the grant in aid list being dependent on the recognition by the Board, the learned Single Judge has erred in extending the benefit on the the ground of mere approval by the State Government. This issue has been dealt with by the learned Single Judge categorically and has arrived at the conclusion in the following words: "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 09.07.2013 passed in writ petition no. 214 of 2010 as also the judgment dated 21.04.2004 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. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, the same is accordingly quashed. This Court has only considered the question of eligibility of the petitioner for being considered for grant in aid. The reasoning contained in the impugned order apparently is in contempt of the said judgments. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, the same is accordingly quashed. 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." 7. The said finding is clearly based on the authority of the judgment earlier delivered and admittedly no special leave petition was filed before the Hon. Apex Court questioning the said judgment. In our considered opinion the same would, therefore, bring about an anomaly and the State Government was under an obligation to have considered the claim of the petitioner as well. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the appeal. Rejected." 8. Once such is the factual situation before us also that the directives in the judgement passed in Writ Petition No.8716 of 2002 dated 21st April, 2004 is still holding the field and the said judgement has been permitted to attain finality as no Special Appeal has been filed before the this Court nor any Special Leave Petition has been filed before Apex Court, there is no occasion or reason for us to take a different or contrary view as the order in question is based on the judgement passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.8716 of 2002, in which the State Government was a party. Accordingly, the claim of Institution be considered by the State as to whether the Institution in question is entitled to be given grant-in-aid or not and as far as we are concerned, we are not at all going to interfere with the same. With these observations, Special Appeal is dismissed.