JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J. The petitioners, in response, to a notification issued on 6.9.2006 for bringing certain Junior High Schools under grant-in-aid, responded through a prescribed proforma. When certain documents were asked for and certain objections were raised, the petitioners supplied the documents and removed the objections. Yet on 4.1.2007, the petitioners' institution was refused the aid. This necessitated the petitioners to file a writ petition, being Writ Petition No. 1804 of 2007 which was allowed on 6.9.2007. However, when on 26.2.2008, the grant-in-aid was again refused, the petitioners approached this Court by means of the present Writ Petition. This Court, upon going through the record, found that the order dated 26.2.2008 was passed without considering the report dated 28.2.2008 of the District Basic Education Officer, which was in fovour of the petitioners and, therefore on 11.4.2014 directed the respondent no. 1 i.e. the Secretary Basic Education, Uttar Pradesh, to decide the matter afresh. The order as was passed by this Court on 11.4.2014 is being reproduced here as under:- "The impugned order was passed on 26.2.2008. It is the contention of the petitioner that the impugned order was passed without consideration of the report made by the department itself dated 28.2.2008 (appended as Annexure-11 to the writ petition), it is in favour of the petitioner recording that there is land in the name of the institution and also that the institution is a recognized institution. Since this report has not been considered and no reply has been made to this report in the counter affidavit, the respondent no.1 is directed to pass a fresh order taking into account the report dated 28.2.2008. This Court fixes the date for hearing of the matter before the respondent no.1 on 27th May, 2014. Certified copy of this order may be placed before the respondent no.1 within the next one week. Learned Counsel for the respondent no.1 will thereafter, file the order passed by the respondent no.1 before this Court by way of an affidavit. List this matter on 27th May, 2014." 2. When in pursuance of the order of this Court, the Secretary Basic Education again passed an order on 16.7.2014 refusing the grant, the petitioners amended the writ petition and sought the quashing of the order dated 16.7.2014. List this matter on 27th May, 2014." 2. When in pursuance of the order of this Court, the Secretary Basic Education again passed an order on 16.7.2014 refusing the grant, the petitioners amended the writ petition and sought the quashing of the order dated 16.7.2014. The petitioners, while questioning the order dated 16.7.2014 made the following submissions:- I. The petitioners' institution which was imparting education as a Junior High School was a recognized institution and that as per the report of the District Basic Education Officer dated 28.2.2008, the petitioners' institution was very much entitled for financial aid. II. Alongwith the amendment application, the petitioners had also filed a report which clearly stated that aid could be granted to seven more institutions as per the Government Notification dated 6.9.2006. The affidavit, which had been filed in support of the amendment application, despite opportunities being granted by this Court, were never controverted. III. When the petitioners' institution was always qualified for getting the grant-in-aid then no occasion arose for the respondents to deny the grant. IV. In view of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and in view of Article 21-A of the Constitution of India, it was imperative that the respondents grant, the petitioners, the financial aid to run the school. V. Even if, all the one thousand Institutions had been granted the aid as per the notification of the order dated 2006, the petitioner's institution should be granted the aid as it was eligible to get the aid from the very beginning and the respondents in the year 2014 could not now say that the petitioners could not get the grant as one thousand institutions had already been given the financial aid. 3. Learned Standing Counsel, in reply, however, submitted that the institution could not be granted the aid as there was no scheme now available under which the petitioners could be given the grant-in-aid and that all the one thousand institutions which were to be given the aid as per the notification of 2006 had been granted the aid. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, I am of the definite view that the grant-in-aid should be made available to the petitioners. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, I am of the definite view that the grant-in-aid should be made available to the petitioners. From the record, it is evident that ever since 2006 when the notification to bring certain institutions under the Aid list was advertized, the petitioners were refused the grant for virtually non-existent reasons. On 4.1.2007, the grant was refused because the petitioners were running in addition to the Junior High School Intermediate Classes. When this confusion was cleared and the writ petition challenging the order dated 4.1.2007 was allowed on 6.10.2007 then the petitioners was refused the financial aid on 28.2.2008 without considering the report of the Basic Siksha Adhikari which was dated 26.2.2008 and was in favour of the petitioners and, therefore, the Court had directed, on 11.4.2014, the respondent no. 1 to pass fresh orders after looking into the report dated 26.2.2008. When the respondents on 16.7.2014 have again passed the order saying that the petitioners could not be granted the financial aid as one thousands Schools which were to be granted the Aid had already been granted the same and that there was no further budget available for giving the petitioners' institution Financial assistance then the order was again challenged. It is apparent that when the order dated 16.7.2014 has been passed, the respondent no. 1 had not seen the report of its own official dated 16.4.2012 which said that 7 more institutions could be brought under the grant-in-aid list. 5. Be that as it may, even if all the one thousand Institutions had been granted the financial aid, the petitioners' institution cannot be deprived of the financial aid. It was very much eligible to be granted the aid in the year 2006 itself. For reasons which were absolutely not in existence the petitioners were refused the aid on 4.1.2007 and on 28.2.2008. Now in the year 2014 it did not lie in the mouth of the respondents to say that all the one thousand institutions had been granted the aid and therefore the petitioners could not get the aid. 6. From the record, it is absolutely clear that the petitioners have been vexed for absolutely non-existent reasons. The petitioners have been forced to challenge three orders before this Court i.e. the orders dated 4.1.2007, 28.2.2008 and 11.4.2014 and all because the respondent no. 6. From the record, it is absolutely clear that the petitioners have been vexed for absolutely non-existent reasons. The petitioners have been forced to challenge three orders before this Court i.e. the orders dated 4.1.2007, 28.2.2008 and 11.4.2014 and all because the respondent no. 1 was passing orders without any application of mind. Definitely, the respondents are under an obligation to grant aid to the petitioners as the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, promises free education for all children up to the age of 14. Article 21-A of the Constitution of India also recognized right to free and compulsory education to all children up to the age of 14 as a Fundamental Right under the Constitution of India and thus the petitioners deserve to be provided the financial aid. 7. Under such circumstances, I quash the order dated 26.2.2008 and the order dated 16.7.2014 and also issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 to provide full financial Aid to the petitioners forthwith. Since the petitioners have been made to run to this Court and indulge in litigation ever since 2006, I feel that that they should be compensated by the respondent no. 1 by paying to them a sum of Rs. 25,000/- within a period of one month from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. 8. The writ petition is allowed with costs.