JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri G.C. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel (A.C.S.C.) for respondent - State. 2. This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 16.06.2008 issued by respondent No.1, whereby the representation filed by the petitioner - Committee of Management has been rejected. 3. Brief fact of the case is that the institution in question, namely, Raj Dutta Shukla Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya Sarauli, Amaniganj, Faizabad was granted recognition in the year 1982 and posts of teaching and non-teaching staff were sanctioned by the competent authority and were filled up in accordance with law and in pursuance thereof, appointment letters to the respective appointments were issued on 10.08.1984. 4. The petitioner raised an objection against the inspection report by which the institution was not found suitable for taking into grant-in-aid list by submitting khatauni of khasra Nos.1408, 1413 & 1414. 5. On 07.09.2006, a Government Order has been issued, which substantiates the case of the petitioner. On 03.11.2006, another objection was raised by the petitioner and explanation to the same was submitted on 10.11.2006. 6. On 01.12.2006, the District Inspector of Schools (DIOS) submitted a report supporting the institution to be enlisted into grant-in-aid list. Subsequently, vide order dated 02.12.2006 Government itself took a decision to enlist the institution into grant-in-aid list on the basis of permanent recognition granted and District Level Committee as well as Regional Level Committee submitted its report in the matter but no heed was paid by the respondents. 7. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.6234 (M/S) of 2007, which was finally disposed of with a direction to the respondents to take final decision within a period of one month from the date of order of this Court. 8. Against non-compliance of the aforesaid judgment and order, the petitioner filed a contempt petition. Thereafter, vide order dated 04.01.2007, the Assistant Director, Basic Education Department rejected claim of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a representation in regard to its claim on 18.01.2007 & 20.01.2007 and in pursuance thereof, a Regional Level Committee was constituted on 17.05.2007. In pursuance thereof, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected vide impugned order dated 16.06.2008. Hence, the present writ petition has been instituted before this Court. 9. The petitioner submitted a representation in regard to its claim on 18.01.2007 & 20.01.2007 and in pursuance thereof, a Regional Level Committee was constituted on 17.05.2007. In pursuance thereof, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected vide impugned order dated 16.06.2008. Hence, the present writ petition has been instituted before this Court. 9. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is running the institute in the name of Raj Dutta Shukla Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, which was granted temporary recognition on 21.04.1982 and a permanent recognition on 23.03.1985. It is submitted that although the institution of the petitioner was recognized, the same was not having the fruits of grant-in-aid. The State Government with a view to bring certain institutions under grant-in-aid issued a Government Order on 07.09.2006, wherein a decision was taken for bringing certain institutions under grant-in-aid, who were fulfilling the criteria as specified from serial No.1 to Serial No.8 in the said Government Order. The said Government Order also provided timeline for the institutions to file their applications, which were to be disposed of according to the time schedule as specified. Clause-3 of the said Government Order also created the committees at the directorate level as well as at the regional level comprising of a person as specified, who were to verify and to recommend the applications for bringing the institutions under grant-in-aid list. 10. In pursuance to the aforesaid Government Order, it is claimed that the institution of the petitioner filed an application before the District Level Committee and the said committee recommended the case of petitioner's institution for being considered to be brought under grant-in-aid (contained as Annexure No.-2 to the petition). 11. It is also submitted that the recommendation, as made in favour of the petitioner, came up for consideration before the Regional Level Committee, wherein one objection was raised against the application of the petitioner, which is contained in Annexure No.10 to the writ petition. The said objection was that approval of the appointment made with regard to clerk was not available in the records. 12. It is submitted by the petitioner that on 10.11.2006, the said objection was duly removed by the petitioner. The said objection was that approval of the appointment made with regard to clerk was not available in the records. 12. It is submitted by the petitioner that on 10.11.2006, the said objection was duly removed by the petitioner. On the said objection, it is submitted that the District Basic Education Officer sent a letter / report to the State Government, in which it was admitted that due to clerical mistake of department, the objection was raised and the approval is correct. 13. In this regard, it is also submitted that despite removal of the objection, name of the petitioner was not included in the list of institutions, which were approved for being taken under grant-in-aid list. The said list dated 02.12.2006 is on record of the writ petition as Annexure No.12, which demonstrates that all the boys colleges, which were granted recognition up to 30.04.1989 were taken in the list of grant-in-aid colleges. 14. It is also submitted that petitioner's institution was granted recognition prior in point of time than the institutions, which were granted the benefit. Subsequently, the Assistant Director, Basic Education raised fresh objection on 04.01.2007 in respect of the application filed by the petitioner (Annexure No.16). It is also submitted that on 20.01.2007, the petitioner gave a detailed reply to the new objection filed. On 17.05.2007, the Regional Level Committee considered the case of the petitioner's institution along with other institutions and recommended the name of the petitioner's institution in the list, wherein the name of petitioner's institution is contained at Serial No.10 (Annexure No.18). 15. It is further submitted that despite the recommendation made in favour of the petitioner by the Regional Level Committee, as no decision was being taken, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing Writ Petition No.6234 (M/S) of 2007, wherein directions were issued to the State Government to take a decision on the application of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of two months. 16. It is further stated that despite the said order, as no decision was taken, the petitioner was constrained to file a contempt petition before this Court. In the said petition, it is argued that the notices were issued and during the pendency of the contempt petition, an order came to be passed on 16.06.2008 (Annexure No.1), wherein the application of the petitioner was rejected on the grounds as enumerated. 17. In the said petition, it is argued that the notices were issued and during the pendency of the contempt petition, an order came to be passed on 16.06.2008 (Annexure No.1), wherein the application of the petitioner was rejected on the grounds as enumerated. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in terms of the directions issued by this Court, the order passed and impugned reveals that a meeting was convened on 31.12.2007, wherein the petitioner was heard and a report was called from the District Basic Education Officer, Faizabad. The order further records that the Director, Basic Education had sent its report dated 10.06.2008 and on going through the said report, it was found that the approval to the appointment was not issued according to the dispatch register and the institution has not annexed the ownership documents of the land, where the institution was situate as such, it was recorded that the petitioner's institution was not eligible in terms of the provisions of the Government Order dated 07.09.2006. In the said order, it is also stated that in terms of the Government Order dated 07.09.2006, the institutions, which were eligible, have already been taken under grant-in-aid list by means of Government Order dated 02.12.2006 and further subsequent thereto, no financial budget was available and thus, it was not possible to consider the case of the petitioner and the said order is under challenge. 18. He further submitted that in terms of Government Order dated 07.09.2006, it is incumbent that the decision be taken by a committee constituted, which has not been done in the case of the petitioner and despite there being a recommendation in favour of the petitioner, the order impugned has been passed on consideration other than that as were required under the Government Order dated 07.09.2006. 19. He next submitted that in any event the impugned order dated 16.06.2008 is violative of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the order itself records that the petitioner was heard on 31.12.2007, whereas the foundation for passing of the order is some report dated 10.06.2008, which was never given to the petitioner nor was ever the petitioner called to explain the discrepancies as allegedly noticed in the report dated 10.06.2008. 20. 20. He further submitted that in any view the Government Order dated 07.09.2006 provided for a decision to be taken based upon the report of the committee constituted, whereas the order impugned has been passed based upon the report of the Director of Basic Education dated 10.06.2008, who is not empowered. 21. He next submitted that similarly placed institutions, which were granted recognition subsequent to the petitioner's recognition, have been brought under grant-in-aid and thus, the rights of petitioner enshrined under Article 14 of Constitution of India for being brought under grant-in-aid have been violated. He has also drawn attention of this Court to one of the condition as contained in the Government Order dated 07.09.2006 with regard to ownership of the land by the institution, which condition was set aside by this Court in the judgment passed by this Court in Writ-C No.66100 of 2006; C/M Adarsh Janta Junior High School Vs. State of U.P. and others, following the judgment in the case of Committee of Management Vs. State of U.P. and others; (1994) 2 UPLBED 1127, wherein Clause 8 was found to be arbitrary and illegal. 22. The counsel for the petitioner further argues that on filing of the application in terms of the Government Order, a right has accrued in favour of the petitioner for being considered within the parameters of the Government Order, which has been violated. He places reliance on the judgment of this Court in Writ -C No.4735 of 2017 (C/M Ram Daun Ram Raj Pre -Secondary School and another) wherein in similar circumstances this court had passed the order dated 27.02.2019 which was affirmed in the Special Appeal Defective No.975 of 2020 and further in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.3359 of 202. He further places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of C/M Sri Satya Narain Junior High School and others vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ-C No.24767 of 2018 decided on 16.11.2021 wherein in similar circumstances, the court had considered the rights of the petitioner and have granted the relief to the petitioner therein. He also placed reliance on a similar matter being decided by this Court in Writ-C No.1000923 of 2011 (C/ M Chandra Shekhar Azad Junior High School Lucknow vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 15.07.2022. He also placed reliance on a similar matter being decided by this Court in Writ-C No.1000923 of 2011 (C/ M Chandra Shekhar Azad Junior High School Lucknow vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 15.07.2022. In the light of the said, he argues that the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 23. On the other hand, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and has drawn attention of this Court to the order dated 16.01.2008, wherein the decision was taken in respect of the certain institution, which were brought under grant in aid on 27.12.2006 on the ground that adequate budget could not be sanctioned by the State Government. She further argues that this Court in the judgment reported in 2019 (6) ADJ 255 has given certain directions to the State Government for framing a policy in respect of the said institutions and in terms of the said order, the State Government has framed a policy on 14.07.2020 whereby a decision has been taken for not taking the institution under the grant in aid list for the reasons contained in paragraph Nos.7(7), 7(8) and 8 of the Government Order dated 14.07.2020. The said condition as specified in the Government Order dated 14.07.2020 is basically based on the ground that the State Government is concentrating on improving the standard of the education in the institution which are already on the grant in aid list. In the light of the said, she argues that the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 24. In the light of the arguments as recorded above, this court is to see whether the impugned order rejecting the application of the petitioner vide order dated 16.06.2008 is justified or not. It bears from the record that the State Government had issued a Government Order dated 07.09.2006 for bringing the certain institutions under grant in aid, the application filed by the petitioner in pursuance to the Government Order was duly recommended by the District Level Committee as well as by the Regional Level Committee as bears from the perusal of Annexure No.18 wherein the name of the petitioner had appeared at serial No.10. 25. 25. It also bears from the record that the institutions similarly situated but granted recognition subsequent to the date of recognition granted to the petitioner institution have been taken under grant in aid. In view of the said, the order dated 16.06.2008 is clearly not sustainable firstly because the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice as it places reliance on a report dated 10.06.2008, which was obtained subsequent to the date of hearing which happened on 31.12.2007 without giving the said report to the petitioner or permitting him to rebut the same, the order impugned could not have been passed which has occasioned in violation of the principles of natural justice. 26. In normal circumstances, the matter deserves to be remanded, however considering the stand taken by the State Government in the impugned order of rejecting the application of the petitioner on the two grounds mentioned in the impugned order, this Court proposes to deal the same as sufficient time has elapsed and no useful purpose would be served in remanding the matter. The grounds based upon which the impugned order has been passed denying the benefit of grant in aid to the petitioner are; i) the approval to the appointment of Clerk was not mentioned in the dispatch register, and ii) the ownership documents of the land is not included in the certificate. 27. With regard to the second ground which has led to the passing of the impugned order, the same does not merit any acceptance for the reason that the District Basic Education Officer himself in his order dated 01.12.2006 had recorded that all the actions with regard to the approval of the appointment of the Clerk was duly made (Annexure No.12) and with regard to the first ground, which is the foundation of passing the order, that the ownership of the land documents have not been annexed is also not acceptable for the reason that in the report of the District Basic Education Officer dated 01.12.2006 (Annexure No.12), he has himself recorded that all the documents with regard to the ownership have been provided and further more that the said condition has already been set aside by this Court in Writ-C No.66100 of 2006 [C/M Adarsh Janta Junior High School vs. State of U.P. and others] decided on 13.02.2013. Even otherwise, the order impugned cannot be sustained as being without jurisdiction as the decision has to be taken by the State Government based upon the recommendation of the committees constituted under the Government Order. The State Government could not have gone beyond the said recommendations in accepting or rejecting the claim made by various institutions which has precisely been done in the present case wherein the request has been rejected despite there being a recommendation in favour of the petitioner. Even otherwise, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of C/M Ram Daun Ram Raj Pre -Secondary School and another (supra) decided on 27.02.2019. 28. Thus, for all the reasons recorded above, the impugned order dated 16.06.2008 is clearly not sustainable and is liable to be quashed. 29. Accordingly, the order dated 16.06.2008 is set-aside. The State Government is directed to take the petitioner's institution under grant-in-aid in pursuance to the Government Order dated 07.09.2006 as has been done in the case of the other eligible institutions who were applied for being taken under grant-in-aid in pursuance to the Government Order dated 07.09.2006. The decision in that regard shall be taken without fail within a period of four months from today. 30. The Additional Chief Standing Counsel is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the State Government for its compliance and in accordance with law. 31. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition succeeds and stands allowed.