JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The present petition has been filed alleging that the State Government had issued a Government order dated 07.09.2006 in which a decision was taken for providing grant-in-aid to one thousand recognized junior high schools subject to certain conditions. 3. In terms of the said Government Order, it is claimed that the petitioners applied for being taken into grant-in-aid. On the said application, initially the objection was raised on 03.11.2006 to the effect that the school in question only has eight classes, the playground is admeasuring 0.3890 hectares and at the time of inspection, children in excess of the sanctioned strength were found in the institution. The petitioner gave the objection in pursuance to the objection raised by the respondents, however, subsequently thereto an order came to be passed on 31.01.2007 rejecting the application of the petitioners mainly on the ground that it has recognition upto primary stage and with regard to the high school it was stated that it has direct recognition. The said objection was, according to the State, in consonance with Condition No.2(13) of the Government Order dated 07.09.2006. 4. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that Condition No.2(13) of the Government Order dated 07.09.2006 was challenged before this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.61343 of 2006 (Committee of Management Mata Tapeshwari Saraswaati Vidya Mandir Unchachar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Maradah, District Ghazipur and Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.), which was finally allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 04.01.2007 as contained in Annexure -6 wherein the said Condition No.2(13) was quashed. The said judgment of the High Court dated 04.01.2007 was challenged in an intra-Court appeal and the appeal was also dismissed and subsequently, an SLP was filed being Special Leave petition (C) No.4630 of 2008 (State of U.P. & Ors. v. Committee of Management Mata Tapeshwari Saraswaati Vidya Mandir & Ors.) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 02.12.2009 affirmed the judgment passed by Single Judge as well as the special appeal and issued directions for consideration of the applications ignoring the Condition No.2(13) of Government Order dated 07.09.2006 and Condition No.12 of the Advertisement dated 09.09.2006. 5. v. Committee of Management Mata Tapeshwari Saraswaati Vidya Mandir & Ors.) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 02.12.2009 affirmed the judgment passed by Single Judge as well as the special appeal and issued directions for consideration of the applications ignoring the Condition No.2(13) of Government Order dated 07.09.2006 and Condition No.12 of the Advertisement dated 09.09.2006. 5. After the said order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed on 02.12.2009, a fresh order came to be passed against the order on 28.09.2010 rejecting the application of the petitioner on two fresh grounds, namely that in respect of two teachers who were removed by the management, no approval was taken, which, according to the order, speaks against the management. It was further recorded that in the college, there were more than 450 students whereas including the Principal, three teachers are working and no steps have been taken by the management to fill the balance vacancies, which reveals that the management is not interested in the educational activities of the school. It was further recorded that the advertisement, permission for advertisement and the documents pertaining to the interview with regard to appointment of Shri Kedar Singh were not made available and thus, the request for taking the petitioner institution under grant-in-aid in terms of the Government Order dated 07.09.2006 was rejected. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the order dated 28/29.09.2010 is bad in law for the reasons more than one. He argues that the grounds taken in the impugned order while rejecting the request for grant-in-aid are not contemplated under the Government Order dated 07.09.2006. He further argues that the petitioner has been denied the benefit of consideration on one ground or the other. He further argues that prior to passing of the order dated 28/29.09.2010, the petitioner was never confronted with the proposed objections and if given an opportunity, the petitioner would have demonstrated that the said grounds are also untrue. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws my attention to the documents contained in the rejoinder affidavit to argue that in respect of the two teachers, one clerk and one employee referred to in the order, the said two teachers had already left the institution for which the permission was also sought on 09.02.2004. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws my attention to the documents contained in the rejoinder affidavit to argue that in respect of the two teachers, one clerk and one employee referred to in the order, the said two teachers had already left the institution for which the permission was also sought on 09.02.2004. He further draws my attention to the communication dated 18.07.1996 as contained in the rejoinder affidavit (Annexure -RA 2) to the effect that appointment of Shri Kedar Singh was approved by the BSA himself. He argues that in any case these two conditions could not have been made the basis for rejecting the application as they do not in any way violate any of the conditions stipulated in the Government Order dated 07.09.2006. 8. He lastly places reliance on the judgment of this Court Dated 27.02.2019 passed in Writ -C No.4735 of 2017 (C/M Ram Daun Ram Raj Pr-Secondary School and Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.) wherein in similar circumstances this Court had issued directions for granting financial aid to the petitioner institution. The special appeal being Special Appeal Defective No.975 of 2020 (State of U.P. & Ors. v. Committee of Management, Rama Daun Ram Raj Pre-Secondary School and Anr.) against the said judgment was dismissed by this Court on 21.10.2020 and the SLP filed against the said order is also dismissed on 02.07.2021 passed in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 3359 of 2021 as well as Review Petition No.186 of 2022 filed in Special Leave Petition (C) No.3359 of 2021 was also dismissed vide order dated 08.03.2022. 9. He also places reliance on judgment of this Court Dated 16.11.2021 passed in the case of C/M Sri Satya Narain Junior High Schools and Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Writ -C No.24767 of 2018), which is to the same effect. The said judgment is referred to impress this Court that the State Government cannot take stand that in view of the change in the policy/Government Order, the petitioner would not be entitled to be covered under the Government Order dated 07.09.2006. 10. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Writ -C No.24767 of 2018), which is to the same effect. The said judgment is referred to impress this Court that the State Government cannot take stand that in view of the change in the policy/Government Order, the petitioner would not be entitled to be covered under the Government Order dated 07.09.2006. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in terms of the cut-off prescribed by the State Government for consideration to be accorded to the institution applying for grant-in-aid, the petitioner was senior as the recognition to the petitioner institution was granted on 11.09.1987 and the institution upto 1988 have been granted recognition. 11. Shri Vijay Vikram Singh, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has tried to justify the order passed by the respondents in view of Condition No.2(6) of the Government Order dated 07.09.2006 and argues that the petitioner was clearly in violation of the said Condition No.2(6) and as such, the request has been rightly rejected. 12. Condition No.2(6) of the Government Order dated 07.09.2006 is quoted hereinbelow: "2........ 1... 2... 3... 4... 5... 6. 6- vuqnku gsrq vkosnu i= laEcf/kr ftyk csfld f'k{kk vf/kdkjh dk;kZy; es izkIr djkus dh frfFk dks fo|ky; esa Lohd`r inksa ij vuqeksfnr ,oa fu;fer v/;kid@deZpkjh dk;Zjr gksA vkjf{kr inksa gsrq vko’;d vuqca/k@Lkgefr i= izkIr fd;k tk;] ftlls Hkfo"; dh fjfDr;ks es tc rd vkj{k.k dksVk iwjk u gks] rc rd 50 izfr'kr fu;qfDr;ka dh tk;sA ----------------^^ 13. In view of the arguments raised at the Bar what emerges is that Condition No.2(13) of the Government Order dated 07.09.2006 has been set aside and the fate with regard to the said provision is already sealed in view of the subsequent order passed in the special appeal as well as in the SLP. The only issue to be considered is whether the petitioner can be held to be in violation of Condition No.2(6) of the Government Order dated 07.09.2006. 14. Condition No.2(6) of the Government Order dated 07.09.2006 clearly provides that on the date of filing of the application, all the teachers and the employees should be found to be working and in the absence thereto, the petitioner may be found to be unsuitable for grant-in-aid. 15. On the analysis of the said provision it is clear that on the date of the application, the teachers who have been approved should be working. 15. On the analysis of the said provision it is clear that on the date of the application, the teachers who have been approved should be working. The application of the petitioner was filed after the Government Order coming into force on 07.09.2006, in respect of the two teachers referred to, a decision had already been taken on 09.09.2004 i.e. prior to the Government Order coming into force and thus, the order is clearly not sustainable on the face of it and in view of the documents annexed in the rejoinder affidavit, similarly in respect of person referred to in the impugned order being one Kedar Singh, the record bears that the approval in respect of the said person had already been granted on 18.07.1996 i.e. much earlier to the Government Order coming into force. 16. In view of the said developments and on perusal of the record it is clear that the reasonings as contained in the order dated 28/29.09.2010 are wholly unjustified and contrary to the record. The impugned order prima-facie is also in violation of principles of natural justice as no opportunity appears to have been granted to the petitioner and from the record it is clear that if an opportunity had been granted, the petitioner could have demonstrated that the foundation for passing the order dated 28/29.09.2010 clearly stood vanished. Although the principles of natural justice was violated, no useful purpose would be served by remanding the matter as the documents on record clearly demonstrate that the foundation for passing the order dated 28/29.09.2010 were non-existent on the date of passing of the order and even on the date of coming into force of the Government Order. 17. Following the judgment of this Court in the case of C/M Ram Daun Ram Raj Pr-Secondary School and Anr. (supra) and in the case of C/M Sri Satya Narain Junior High Schools and Ors. (supra), the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is ordered accordingly. 18. Impugned order dated 28/29.09.2010 (Annexure -1) is set aside and a mandamus is issued to the State Government to grant financial aid to the petitioner in terms of the Government Order dated 07.09.2006. 19. (supra), the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is ordered accordingly. 18. Impugned order dated 28/29.09.2010 (Annexure -1) is set aside and a mandamus is issued to the State Government to grant financial aid to the petitioner in terms of the Government Order dated 07.09.2006. 19. It is further clarified that the State Government would not be entitled to take a ground that the Government Order has been modified and amended as the State would be clearly in violation of the judgment passed in the case of C/M Sri Satya Narain Junior High Schools and Ors. (supra). 20. The State Government shall pass a reasoned order as directed above in the case of the petitioner with all expedition, preferably within four months from the date of filing of a copy of this order.