JUDGMENT : Ashok Kumar, J. Heard Sri Uma Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a registered society and runs an educational institution in the name and style of Ram Daun Ram Raj Pre-Secondary School, Bawanapur, District Basti. The school is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The said educational institution has been established for providing the education to the children of the locality where the institution is established. The said institution is duly recognised by the State Government and a temporary registration was granted in the year 1981, whereas the permanent registration has been granted vide order dated 31.8.1985. The petitioner claims that after obtaining the permission for selection process the selection proceedings were completed and the documents as so required were forwarded to the District Basic Education Officer for his approval. The District Basic Education officer after due care and examination of the documents granted the approval vide his order dated 23.12.1988. 3. In para 11 of the writ petition the petitioner states that the State Government has issued a Government Order dated 7.9.2006 inviting the applications for bringing the institution of Junior High School on grant-in-aid list of State Government which fulfills the norms and condition prescribed in Government Order. 4. In para 12 of the writ petition the petitioner submits that in pursuance of the Government Order dated 7.9.2006, petitioners submitted an application on 3.10.2006 for taking their institution on grant-in-aid list, as petitioners fulfilled all the conditions of the Government Order. 5. The petitioner claims that after consideration of the petitioner's application, the Regional Assistant Director of Education (Basic) raised certain objections. The petitioner claims that the petitioner have removed the objections which are raised by the Regional Assistant Director Education (Basic), Basti by submitting their reply to the objection on 15.11.2006. According to the petitioner no intimation or information was received by the petitioner with respect of their reply to the objections. 6. In the meantime, the State Government has published a list of 1000 institutions (800 boys institutions and 200 girls institutions) vide notification dated 2.12.2006 and in the said list the name of the petitioner's institution was not found. According to the petitioner no intimation or information was received by the petitioner with respect of their reply to the objections. 6. In the meantime, the State Government has published a list of 1000 institutions (800 boys institutions and 200 girls institutions) vide notification dated 2.12.2006 and in the said list the name of the petitioner's institution was not found. The petitioner has further noticed that the institutions, which are recognised, after recognition of the petitioner's institution by the respondents, have been given recognition and have been taken for grant-in-aid. After publication of the said list of 1000 institutions the respondents have informed the petitioner vide order dated 4.1.2007 the reasons for which the petitioner institutions were not issued grant-in-aid. The petitioner, immediately, after getting information about the reasons/objections, has submitted their reply on 20.1.2007 meeting out all the objections by means of filing affidavits/documents related to the title of land, execution etc. 7. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in spite of submitting the reply and providing the relevant documents no decision was taken by the respondents to accept the petitioner's request for grant-in-aid, hence the petitioner filed a Writ-C No. 51410 of 2007 claiming that the petitioner's institution are entitled for grant-in-aid but the same is refused. The said writ petition no. 51410 of 2007 was disposed of vide order dated 26.10.2009 (corrected order dated 7.11.2009). 8. The petitioner in compliance of the order passed in Writ C No. 51410 of 2007 has submitted a fresh representation on 16.11.2009 enclosing the complete documents. A notice was issued by the Principal Secretary, Basic Education, Government of U.P. as well as the District Basic Education Officer and in pursuance thereto the petitioner appeared before them and produced the relevant record. 9. The claim of the petitioner was that though the petitioner fulfills all the requirements according to the Government Order dated 7.9.2006, the representation of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 3.3.2010. 10. 9. The claim of the petitioner was that though the petitioner fulfills all the requirements according to the Government Order dated 7.9.2006, the representation of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 3.3.2010. 10. Again the petitioner approached this Court by means of Writ C No. 51230 of 2010 challenging the order dated 3.3.2010 and this Court heard the matter along with other connected writ petitions similar in nature and a judgment was delivered on 27.8.2013 by which the petitions were allowed and the matter was remitted back to the State Government with a direction to pass a fresh order in the light of the observations of the Court passed in Writ C No. 59940 of 2010. 11. A Special Appeal was filed by the State Government challenging the judgment and order dated 27.8.2013 passed by learned Single Judge being Special Appeal (Defective) No. 542 of 2014 (State of U.P. and others vs. Committee of Management Sarvodaya Inter College and others). The special appeal filed by the State Government was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 11.9.2014. The petitioner has placed the certified copy of the order of the learned Single Judge before the respondents for compliance of the directions but inspite of service effected by the petitioner on 20.1.2014 no decision was taken by the respondents, therefore a contempt application being Contempt Application (Civil) No. 5911 of 2014 filed by the petitioner which was disposed of vide order dated 28.10.2014. The Contempt Court has granted one more opportunity to the respondents for compliance of the order passed by this Court in case of the petitioner. The order passed in contempt petition dated 28.10.2014 was served in the office of the respondent no.1 however no orders are passed by the respondents. Surprisingly another contempt application was filed being Contempt Application (Civil) No. 3293 of 2015 (Committee of Management Ram Daun Ram Raj Secondary School and another vs. Nitishwar Kumar, Principal Secretary Department Basic Education). The notice was issued to the Secretary Basic Shiksha Adhikari and an affidavit of compliance was filed by the respondent no.1 by which he has enclosed an order dated 21.11.2014 rejecting the representation of the petitioner. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent no.1 has arbitrarily and illegally proceeded in the matter and not considered the directions issued by this Court as such has ignored the directions and raised a new objection/ground. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent no.1 has arbitrarily and illegally proceeded in the matter and not considered the directions issued by this Court as such has ignored the directions and raised a new objection/ground. It is noticed that on the basis of affidavit of compliance the contempt petition filed by the petitioner was rejected. 13. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the respondent rejecting the representation of the petitioner dated 21.11.2014. 14. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order dated 21.11.2014 is wholly arbitrary, illegal and is against the specific provisions of Government Order dated 7.9.2006. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the State Government itself is extended the benefit of Government Order dated 7.9.2006 to similar situated other institutions. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter submits that the claim of the petitioner is fully justified as such the petitioner is entitled to get the grantin aid as the petitioner fulfills all the conditions. 15. In support of the submission learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court the judgment of this Court in Writ C No. 2624 of 2015 (Committee of Management Sukhdeo Singh Kanya Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya and another vs. State of U.P. & 3 others). 16. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the case of Sukhdeo Singh Kanya Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya (Supra) the similar controversy came up for consideration before this Court and after due consideration this Court has held that the order of the State Government rejecting the petitioner's claim cannot be sustained as such is set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance of another recent judgment of this Court in the case of Committee of Management Shri Dravi Nath Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya and another Vs. State of U.P. and others 2019 (1) ADJ 513 . Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance of para 8 of the aforesaid judgment of the Committee of Management Shri Dravi Nath Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya and another (Supra), which is quoted herein below: “Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, I am of the view that the orders dated 18.11.2011 and 23.5.2014 cannot be sustained. The reasons as have been given in both the orders have no basis. In the order dated 13.7.2011 which was passed in Writ Petition No. 29572 of 2010 this Court had observed that when the School was given a permanent recognition in the year 1984 then the Basic Siksha Adhikari after 23 years could not question the appointment of the employees of the School. Further more, the order had found that the appointments were correctly made and there was a proper approval also accorded to the appointments. Further, the reason which has now been given in the order dated 23.5.2014 also is an absolutely erroneous one. When the petitioners college was recognized in the year 1984 and was running from much before the order of recognition then as per 'the Rules of 2011', the Institutions which had come up in the vicinity of the institution of the petitioners could not have been opened at all. It does not lie in the mouth Secretary Basic Education to say that since there were other institutions being run by the Parishad in the vicinity of the petitioners' Institution, the petitioners were disentitled from getting the financial aid. Further, I find that under the provisions of 'the Act of 2009' and as per the Article 21A of the Constitution of India, children studying in the petitioners' Institution were also entitled for free education and this was possible only if the petitioners' Institution was granted a proper financial aid. In the judgement reported in 2014 (9) SCC 692 (State of U.P. & Ors vs. Pawan Kumar Divedi & Ors), and in view of the judgement reported in 2015 (2) UPLBEC 1154 (Paripurna Nand Tripathi and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors.) wherein it has been held that it was the Fundamental Right of every child between the ages 6 to 14 to get free education, I am definitely of the view that the petitioners institution which runs classes 6 to 8 along with other classes should be given grantinaid for which it was eligible ever since 2006.” 17. Learned standing counsel, on the other hand, has placed reliance on his counter affidavit particularly referred para 5, 6 and 9. Learned standing counsel has placed reliance of Annexure 1 to the counter affidavit and claims that this is a Government Order dated 2nd January 2018. Learned standing counsel, on the other hand, has placed reliance on his counter affidavit particularly referred para 5, 6 and 9. Learned standing counsel has placed reliance of Annexure 1 to the counter affidavit and claims that this is a Government Order dated 2nd January 2018. Learned standing counsel has submitted that the Government Order aforesaid is applicable in the present case therefore the relief claimed by the petitioner cannot be accepted. 18. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel and after considering the relevant documents and the pleadings of the affidavits, in my opinion, the order impugned dated 21.11.2014 is arbitrary, therefore is quashed. The issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the decision in the case of Committee of Management Shri Dravi Nath Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya (Supra) and Sukhdeo Singh (Supra). A writ of mandamus is being issued to the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to grant financial aid to the petitioner institution which is known as Ram Daun Ram Raj PreSecondary School, Bawanapur, District Basti. 19. The writ petition is allowed.