JUDGMENT : SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J. 1. As per the Government Orders dated 7.2.2014 and 11.2.2014, the petitioner applied for grant-in-aid. After the applications were received by the State Level Committee, the Deputy Director of Education (Sanskrit), Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad referred the matter on 19.1.2015 to the Registrar of Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi for the verification of the recognition etc. of the petitioner-institution. It may be noted that the Government Orders dated 7.2.2014 and 11.2.2014 were with regard to such institutions which were involved in the teaching of Sanskrit and were approved by their relevant Universities. On 24.3.2015, the State Level Committee after getting the certificates of the approval from the University forwarded the list of such institutions which according to it were qualified for getting grant-in-aid. This list was published on 1.4.2015 but the name of the petitioner-institution did not find place in it. On 1.4.2015 itself another list was published which displayed the names of such institutions which had though been recommended had to provide certain further data and the list was called a "restricted recognition list". The petitioner had throughout been under the impression that it had fulfilled all the conditions which were required by the Government Orders dated 7.2.2014 and 11.2.2014 and, therefore, it represented its case to the Member Secretary, Secondary Education, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. When no action was taken on the representation, the petitioner filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No.45483 of 2015 which was disposed of on 13.8.2015 with a direction that the representation filed by the petitioner be decided. Ultimately in compliance of the order of the High Court dated 13.8.2015, the representation of the petitioner was rejected after a decision was taken on 4.3.2016. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that if the impugned order dated 4.3.2016 is perused, it showed that as per the Government Order dated 7.2.2014 : (i) the applicant-institution had to be a recognised institution; (ii) it had to see that the endowment fund with the recognising University was there; and (iii) the Committee of Management which was running the institution had given its consent that the college be included in grant-in-aid. As per the order dated 4.3.2016 the endowment fund was not to be found and also the consent of the Committee of Management was not on record. As per the order dated 4.3.2016 the endowment fund was not to be found and also the consent of the Committee of Management was not on record. The order also discloses, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the institution was informed before the "Restricted List" was published on 1.5.2015 that the deficiencies had to be rectified by 31.1.2015. However, he stated that as the communication by which the deficiencies were informed to the petitioner itself reached the petitioner-institution on 12.2.2015, the deficiencies could not have been cured by the fixed cut-off date of 31.1.2015. 3. So far as the recognition part is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the University had in its verification informed the State Government that the petitioner-institution was recognised and this was clear from the list which the University had sent on 12.3.2015. The name of the petitioner-institution was found at Serial No.39. 4. So far as the defect with regard to the endowment fund was concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the College had submitted the endowment fund of Rs.3000/- and, therefore, the defect had very much been removed. Further the consent of the Committee of Management of the institution was also very much there on record. 5. The ground taken in paragraph 9 of the Counter Affidavit filed by respondent no.5 that the defect was not removed has been repelled in paragraph 7 of the Rejoinder Affidavit dated 18.2.2016 and it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that wrongly the petitioner-institution was placed in a category of schools which had not fulfilled the conditions of the Government Orders dated 7.2.2014 and 11.2.2014. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the ground taken in the impugned order dated 4.3.2016 that none of the institutions which were placed in the list of schools which had defects in their applications were taken in the grant-in-aid list was also not available to the respondents as the record showed that many other institutions were taken in the grant-in-aid list which were in fact earlier in the list which had the names of such institutions whose applications had defects. Learned counsel further states that the petitioner could not remove the defects before the cut-off date i.e. before 31.1.2015 as the information given to the petitioner to remove the defects itself was received by the communication dated 12.2.2015. Learned counsel further states that the petitioner could not remove the defects before the cut-off date i.e. before 31.1.2015 as the information given to the petitioner to remove the defects itself was received by the communication dated 12.2.2015. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the grounds taken in the impugned order dated 4.3.2016 were not tenable in the eyes of law and, therefore, the same be quashed and the respondent no.1 be issued a writ of mandamus to include the name of the petitioner-institution in the list of institutions which were to be granted aid. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a decision of this Court in Committee of Management, Shri Dravi Nath Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2019 1 ADJ 513 and submitted that when the petitioner-institution was recognised and all the other formalities were completed by the petitioner-institution then the grant-in-aid should not have been denied. Learned counsel further submitted that only to deprive the petitioner-institution of the right to get aid and for certain other oblique reasons, the aid was denied and the impugned order was thereafter passed. 7. Learned Standing Counsel, however, submitted that the petitioner did not fulfill the requirements of the Government Orders dated 7.2.2014 and 11.2.2014 at the relevant point and subsequently also when the defects were removed, they were so done after the cut-off date. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, I am of the considered view that when the institution was recognised and the other formalities namely the submission of endowment fund and the submission of the consent of the Committee of Management of the institution were there then the State Authorities should not have deprived the petitioner-institution of the grant-in-aid. The rejection on the ground that the defects were removed after the cut-off date i.e. 31.1.2015 appears to be irrelevant for two reasons : (i) the defects were clerical in nature and should not have weighed on the minds of the Authorities; and (ii) as has been stated by the petitioner, the information to remove the defects itself was received by the College on 12.2.2015, then under no circumstances, could the petitioner-institution have removed the defects before the cut-off date i.e. before 31.1.2015. What is more, the endeavour of the State Government should be to grant aid to the institutions which are recognised and running classes properly and also taking examinations of the students who were studying therein. 9. Right to education is a fundamental right as has been enshrined under Article 21-A of the Constitution of India. Instead of boosting education, the State Government appears to be behaving in a most arbitrary manner to deprive institutions of the aids which are due to them. In State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Pawan Kumar Divedi & Anr., (2014) 9 SCC 692 and in Paripurna Nand Tripathi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2015) 3 ADJ 567 (DB) it has been held that it was the fundamental right of every child to get proper education. 10. Under such circumstances, the order dated 4.3.2016 passed by the State of Uttar Pradesh is quashed and a writ of mandamus is being issued that the petitioner-institution be brought in grant-in-aid list forthwith and the grant be provided to the College within three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. 11. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.