¥=- i APHC010213392025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) ^ FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 10836 OF 2025 Between: 1. Sree Veera Brahmendra Mission Aided UP School, Obulreddy Nagar, Mydukur, YSR Kadapa District. Rep by its Correspondent Smt. T. Venkata Lakshmi 2. Sri Potti Sriramulu Upper Primary (SPSUP) School,, Gudur, Tirupathi District (erstwhile SPSR Nellore District). Rep by its Correspondent Mr. Manapati Ravindra Babu. ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary (Education Department), Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary (Finance Department), Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District 3. The Commissioner and Director of School Education, Education Department, Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 4. The District Educational Officer, YSR Kadapa District. 5. The District Educational Officer, Tirupathi District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction the nature of Writ of Mandamus the i more particularly one in - inaction of the Respondents in releasing rate of 6 percentage on the Teaching Grant the Maintenance Grant at the paid to the Petitioners for the academic years 2022-2023, 2023-2024, and as mandated under Section 3 of the A. P. Educational Institutions (Maintenance Grant) Regulation Act, 1995 and as per the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in 1997 (3) ALD 40 and the order passed in W.P. No. 3449 of 2003, dated 30.09.2016, 2024-2025 as arbitrary, illegal, and in violation of Article , 1950 and 30(1) consequently direct the and pay the Maintenance Grant at the the Teaching Grant for the aforementioned and Article 21A of the Constitution of India Respondents to forthwith release rate academic of 6 percentage years to the Petitioners. on 1ANOM_OF2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated I, the High Court may be pleased to b on for the academic years 2022-2023, in the affidavit filed in support of the petition direct the Respondents to release the Maintenance Grant at the rate of 6% the Teaching Grant paid to the Petitioners 2023-2024, and 2024-2025. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRi K.P.S. SAiLESH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos 1,3 to 5: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No. The Court made the following 2: GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING order: 1 APHC010213392025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHF^A PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: inR:^fi/9n9<; [3327] Between: Sree Veera Brahmendra Mission Aided Up School and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner{S): 1.K.P.S. SAILESH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION 2.GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following order: ...RESPONDENT(S) 1. The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the action of the respondents i not releasing the Maintenance Grant at the rate of 6% on the Teaching Grant paid in to the petitioners for the academic years 2022-2023, ,2023-2024, as mandated under Section 3 of the A.P. Educational Institutions (Maintenance Grant) Regulation Act and 2024-2025 . 1995. 2 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for School respondents. EEducation for the 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents-authorities are not releasing the maintenance grant at the rate of 6% on the teaching grant payable to the petitioners’ school. He also submitted that the issue in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.3449 of 2003, dated 30.09.2016, and prayed to pass similar order in this matter. The learned Assistant Government Pleader conceded the said submission. A copy of the order in W.P.No.3449 of 2003, dated 30.09.2016 is placed on record. Accordingly, placing the submission on record and in view of the reasons stated in the said order, this Writ Petition is allowed in terms of the above said order. No order as to costs. Registry to attach a copy of the order, dated 30.09.2016, in W.P.No.3449 of 2023 along with this order. arrears of 4. 5. 6. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shail stand closed. Sd/- B. PRASADA RAO assistant registrar //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Secretary (Education Department), State of Andhra - Ji, Guntur District. Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravath 2. The Secretary (Finance Department), State of AP Secretariat Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District 3. The Commissioner and Director of School Department, Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 4. The District Educational Officer, YSR Kadapa District. 5. The District Educational Officer, Tirupathi District. 6. One CC to Sri. K.P.S. Sailesh Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for School Education High Court of Andhra [OUT] 8. Two CCs to GP for Finance Planning High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 9. Two CD Copies (Along with a copy of the order dated 30.09.2016 in WP No. 3449 of 2003) GSC Education, Education Pradesh HIGH COURT DATED:18/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 10836 OF 2025 O SEP 2025 rnli .C59 ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS i f SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY THE HON’BLE WRIT PETITION NO.3449 OF 2003 ORDER. Article 226 of the Constitution of challenging the inaction of the maintenance grant at the rate of 6% arbitrary, illegal, 14 and 19 of the This writ petition under India is filed by the petitioner respondents in not paying the of the basic pay of the Teaching Grant as and violative of Articles India and consequently, direct the respondents to discriminatory Constitution of pay the Mamtenanc.^Gfa'ht'tiij!h^ffiW<)i 6>, of the leaching grant. K V. >V fXhe^case*ar'e thaty the petitioner i •.y- V '-v. % I g^tablished in 1973 ^' ■ tr i ^petitioner started H i fEr||lish Medium at o^'v^ed'^ibject of the petitioner educalion’.to t^e^ilfiren in rural areas. Grant-in- admitted IS an The brief'fhd 2. \ V Oi Educational anti Rpn ^eve. h - Act.,I and registered ^'»e Telugu medium i : /n a Yemmiganur in the yelrr'l^SQ. is to impart free aid to Telugu medium and English medium sections was Further, the schools been receiving grant-in-aid in full to 1978 and 1993 respectively. in the years admitted to grant-in-aid have the teaching and non-teaching eligible staff members and also 6% of the schools. of the amount paid to the staff for the maintenance called the maintenance grant. The maintenance grant menial staff, rent, is for meeting expenditure relating to expenditure taxes, repairs, maintenance of buildings, furniture, equipment, on t- MSM,J WP_3449_2003 2 postage, stationaiy, audit charges blackboards, . travellmg expenditure, chalks, water charges and expenditure. The schools admitted part are prohibited from charging students, as such the education is maps, teaching aids, electricity & other day to day miscellaneous to grant-in-aid either in full or any fee or donations from the being imparted at free of cost. 3. It is the petitioner though the schools 10%, the ’s case that, under the relevant rules, are entitled to receive the maintenance grant at government reduced the same to 6% of 1974 pa}'^ scales, tu^yocted the Government Srant that *F^fW^lGovernment has This Court iin W.A. to release the gran^^.^ is being drawi^/']^y / O?/*' \\ I reduced the ki*- by virtue of V # pant as a O lu, 5 G.O.Ms.No.32|)12i the ground that I rci 16.09.1994, WiT on \ payfn^i teaching grant reisults m. percentage of *»■ [nded;hike.in the maintenance ih'an'u grant as and when the pay^ scales arefrpvised. In normal situation. In normal situation. hike m pay revision takes place uniformity in fixing maintenance of teaching, in order to meet the i market. It is the once in every five years for grants at a particular percentage inflationaiy tendencies in the case that the schools not being paid the entire teaching grant amount actually not 6%. To avoid further impHcations are expenditure incurred, but it is restricted to 6% of hhd if actual expenditure is below 6% than the expended is being paid and MSM,J WP 3449 2003 1 3 of law, the Government has enacted Act. 11 of 1995 to nullify the judgment of this Court and directed the institutions to send proposals for the maintenance grant at prescribed rate. In Recognised Schools Managements Associations, A.P. v. Government of A.P., Education Department and another^, the Court held that Act No. 11 of 1995 is no more applicable and declared the Act as unconstitutional. Therefore, it is urged that the petitioner is entitled to claim maintenance grant-in-aid at the rate of 6% in terms of the judgment referred supra. It is specifically to grant-in-aid, but on fullHm6ilt'!c the Govemment.f-. i 'the petitioner was admitted 4. % conditions laid down by Constitution of bhgati^n^ Xo' ^provide fr. _ i hildreft-diitif they complete the tig to .'ee and i.he State, is 'omder ,a I 3:11% India, compulsory i Uu Uion. or age of fourteeri yea^. others v. State' of Andhra Pradesh & others^ held that a nni iPlrishnan J.P 85 A]^e.x Co childhood has a fundamental.’tight'toifree'education up to the age of 14 years. As the aided schools are imparting free education in 5. regional languages, the State is under a constitutional obligation for proper, healthy and smooth running of the schools, apart from teaching and non-teaching staff, for meeting expenditure relating to expenditure on menial staff, rents, taxes, repairs, maintenance 1 1997 (3) ALD page 40 ^ 1993 AIR2I79 MSM,J WP_3449_2003 4 of buildings, furniture, charges, travelling teaching aids, electricity & miscellaneous expenditure, which school. The grant-in-aid is only to meet the equipment, postage, stationary, expenditure. audit chalks, blackboards. maps. water charges and other day-to-day are sine quo non for running a contingencies and the teaching grant is only to meet the above it is contended that the contingencies. Therefore, respondents are liable to pay grant-in-aid to the petitioner. 6. It is the case that, the petitioner has been sending lUued by the respondents. proposals for maintenance^rq.ntf. but the respond naintenance grant, ^fent writ petitions. despite the direct&n loner is entitled )> Mtfof tire entitled amount, an paid and balance of Rs.26,433/- release the ma.ntenat,c-e.gii,ay^e' p^iioner is not in a position to meet / ,,-un account of failure to necessary expenditure to maintain the school. Despite repeated requests and demand, the respondents did the maintenance not release grant and withhold the amount for the reasons best known to them. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ petition praying for the above said reUefs. 7. The respondents filed allegations and raised counter affidavit denying material several contentions which are as follows: wr 5 f 1 It is contended that the Government is the competent a) authority to prescribe percentage of teaching grant as grant payable to the private educational institutions for receiving grant-in-aid from the State the Government issued maintenance Accordingly, Government. G.O.Ms.No.320 Dated 16.09.1994 and based on the said the Government fixed the percentage of teaching grant payable to private G.O, maintenance grant as educational institutions. The percentage of Maintenance fixed for differeaL periods mentioned in the G.O. Grant i reads as foIlo\ys; \ Fronf to 31 0^*1986 ' From oY.04 19864.0 31 03099^ ' i V'' ' ’ ^ Hi*, 4.5% >0. 3% and 2% I f f|.« f \ ... ded*B^&e resj^depts Jhat, though the 2% from 01.04.1992 kinaing frmit-in-aid at the rate maintenance grant-' is onwards, the petitioner ... ,.. .. . and that the'Shme is against the orders of the of 6% Government in G.O.Ms.No.320 dated 16.09.1994. Further, it is asserted that. According to Section 41 and 46 private educational b) 1982 of A.P. Education Act, institutions cannot claim grant-in-aid as a matter of right. 45 of the Education Act further prescribed that the order passed by the Government refusing to sanction Section MSM,J WP_3449_2003 6 grant shall be final and Court of law. withhold, reduce of the Act. shaU not be Therefore, the Government questioned in any has power to oriy grant under Section 46 or withdraw c) The respondents contended further that, R-51,494/- and Rs.33,665/- ,„„ands maintenance on 21.07.2006 an amount of grant was released to the to the petitioner’s schools for the Rc. No. 1836/A. IV/2006-07 years 1978 to 2005 vide dated 02.06.2006 proceedings by the Director of Hyderabad, Court i duly issued in. e respondents releafeetj i institutions i O m terms they are b-excess of tlie ' O!Ms.No.'320. not entitlAl fixed by\.heMv^§ amount e d) It IS contended Government has i counter affidavit that issued Ordinance the No.9/2007 dated 19.09.2007 which has become an Act No.34 of 2007 to Andhra Pradesh bringing amendments Educational Institutions Private Maintenance Grant (Regulation) Act, 1995, by which, in Section 3(1) the amendment has been made which claim for Maintenance states that, provided that Grant shall be allowed no arrear beyond a WP 3449 2003 7 period of 3 years from the date on which it has become due and all such arrear claims shall lapse. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any arrecirs for the earlier periods and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy contended that when G.O.Ms.No.320 was struck down by this Court, the petitioner is not entitled to claim That apart, a direction was issued 8. benefit under G.O.Ms.No.320. by this Court in W.A.No.963^oL.Ji,92ri directing the respondent to pay grant-in-aid at -6%. Similarly in, W,,P.No.20160 of 2014 i.e. ' t'i, IS.KC- ‘ Hi' Recognised School^M^a^eiD^^^ supra) Act Np. was deci^di"uhd»nstltutional, and -.u >" jbiatlon’s case (referred \ 1/ AA ^ ■ i Id to' Bd illP^l>nd inoperative consequentlyGIOLM §.iNfb. 3 2 (J waP*hi« and the same was\Mr%©fe down the rate of 6% on thejaasicpa by the said judgmehC W,.^^Np_;9 Division Bench of this Court'c'Onfiffhed the order passed by in the g^ito p^ grant-in-aid at Ching staff grant. Aggrieved f 1997 was preferred and the d dir 'I S'i writ petition by the learned Single Judge and held that G.O.Ms.No.320 is no more in operation and thereby, the respondents are not entitled to take shelter under the said Further, it is contended that Act No. 11/1995 also declared as unconstitutional and thereby the G.O.Ms.No.320. wass respondents are not entitled to deny grant-in-aid at the rate of 6%. It is alleged that. Amendment to Section 3(1) of A.P. Educational MSM,J WP_3449 2003 Institutional Maintenance date of filing the writ petition, limitation was prescribed, but the Act on 19.09.2007 will have right of the petitioner to claim taken away to declare inaction of the aid as illegal and arbitraiy and directed Grant (Regulation) Act, 1995 as on the was not in existence and amendment which brought the no retrospective effect, thereby, the no arrears of grant-in-aid cannot be account of such amendment and therefore, respondents in not releasing the grant-in- to issue a consequential direction to release grant-in-aid at the rate of 6% to the on the pay scale of the teaching,staff. on prayed petitioner A 9. Per contra,/the' would contend/hait4s ^G.a^:'Sd7 ader for Education v^fn^ri'pt possible to pay \ \ was f|om 4.5% to 3% ; t •ent CO om 01.04.1978 \. ., 'i"" respondents released granWaid fo;^''He petitioner by proceedings dated 14.07.2006 and to 31.03.1986, OlTo^il^e 01.04.1992 to onwards respectively by'G.'b. .320.'-' Bwen otherwise, the receipt of the same has been acknowledged while accepting to furnish certificate of utilization in due course, as petitioner. Therefore, the per letter dated 30.08.2006 issued by the petitioner having accepted release of grant-m-aid at the rate of 2%, based on the percentage fixed in G.O.Ms.No.320, the petitioner is now cannot go back and claim grant-in-aid at the rate of 6%. Even otherwise, per the amended Act 11/1995, the petitioner is not as MStvU WP 3449 2003 9 entitled to recover arrears at the rate of 6%, as claimed by the petitioner and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. Considering rival contentions and perusing the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is “whether the petitioner is entitled to claim arrears of grant-in-aid of the pay scales of teaching staff at the rate of 6% on the pay scales of teaching staff. If so, the inaction of the respondents in releasing grant-in-aid at the rate of 6% amounts to violation of fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution of India and the same be declared as arbitrary and illegal and consequential direction be issued to the respondents for release of grant-in-aid at the rate of 6%, as claimed by the petitioner. 10. ff POINT •*5' .H % 1^- .1* m jdii3ilted._ into grant- isK mediumMtpgfAfSif-aid scheme in U nd i s pu tedl^J'" both for Telugu. and , different years and th' ■' ']f ^ the writ petition i Government refused: in-aid, 11. ■ ^m ffaoifpi ^•havetii^^S^d graietiinmicilirior to filing of . .. tfeArate ort% an p.qfMs.No.320, the I'lts/own reasons and fixed the rates of teaching gra^^^mainte|iance grant payable to private educational institutib*H8'*'tof''fhe following financial years, '■■M. which are as follows; Percentage Period 4.5% From 01.04.1978 to 31.03.1986 3% From 01.04.1986 to 31.03.1992 2$ From 01.04.1992 onwards MSM,J WP_3449 2003 10 12. But G.O.Ms.No.320 challenged by the Recognised Association was Management Schools W.P.No.20160 of 1994 19.03.1997, struck down the {referred supra) in and this Court by its order dated said G.O. declaring the same as unconstitutional and the was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No,526 of 1997, whUe directing the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Education Department grant-in-aid at the rate of 6% Therefore, G.O.Ms.No.320 is no more same and others to release on the pay teaching staff grant, in existence and the respondents cannot take adyantage of the G.O and reduce the it is brought to the .t Pleader for the A the order was grant-in-aid to 2% ^ ^ oner notice of this respondents thaciff judgment in * o passed on the ipn o n-Gb Pleader to the ?n I X’t-c mo % effect that the case of the pefitionSr^p^i;] \ .mm:’ required to be paid'to tt%':re,s^®e ' enactment. But, that does'''rt-ot• rridke applicability of the G.O to the of this Court also adverted to the the iro' ugned' not apply to the I ‘^fA0ion^' already paid jS|aims>'for the period before - - any difference regarding or present petitioner. A Division Bench provisions of A.P. Private Educational Institutions Maintenance (Regulation) Act, 1995 (Act 11/1995) and upheld the judgment of the single Judge declaring the action of respondent as arbitrary in view of the concession, the nulUty of Act 11/1995 was not decided in the writ appeal at all. But, ultimately, the Division Bench held that the declaration in the Wl" J44y iuu.s impugned judgment that Act No. 11 of 1995 is not ultra vires, but affirmed the direction that the appellants would carry out the orders of W.P.No. 1159 of 1991 which were affirmed in W.A.No.963 of 1991. Thus, in view of the law declared by the Division Bench of this Court, the respondents are liable to release grant-in-aid at the rate of 6% in view of the declaration of G.O.Ms.No.320 as unconstitutional. Therefore, the respondents are bound to pay grant-in-aid at such rate to the petitioner. Learned Government Pleader for Education drawn attention of this Court to Sections i43,45 & _4b,;ot , Education Act, 1982, and would contend to deny grant-m-pid'^s'fihnf'and the s 13. ■i dfder passe'd bv the Government Q- le questioned. X' p O' f iv in such cases i,^G.overn|i|eM t|jijG|et|on 43,4^1 ..r ‘',v ^ 14. According-.' I i l&l they think rit. ef/b^er, sancdon graA%>ny|Tecognised local authorit>' education^ ^i^t^tio^M^ni^atevedu^ltional subject to such conditions>3 tl^feax.impoS'g in the order relating to such grant; every grant sanctioned under sub-section (1) shall flii I # i as institution 'i ^ be disbursed by the Director or such other officer subordinate to the Director as the Government may, by a general or special order, authorise in this behalf, in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed; the manager of every recognised institution which is receiving any grant out of State Funds shall be responsible for the fulfilment of all the conditions subject to which such grant has been given. Thus Section 43 deals with the power MSM,J WP_3449 2003 12 of t±ie Government to the present facts of the taking advantage of Section 46 of A. case. Therefore, P. Education Act, the petitioner payment of grant-in-aid at the rate of 6%. cannot be denied 15. Yet, the learned Government Pleader State of Andhra Pradesh amendment made to Section 3(1) by Educational Institutions Maintenance effect from 19.09.2007, arrears of grant-in-aid. By the date force, the writ petition-isyiiW/ciyne^ngmg the inaction of the respondents and the efuteeaiieh? L\ n u on the claim nm«bwJl^«Hlonei-vS,6e!,tm.nonde„te denied for Education for the would contend that, in view of the Act 34 of 2007, A.P. (Regulation) Act, 1995, with the petitioner is disentitled to recover on which the Act came into ^W^’^f^o-320, despite lonal/,-J)y- Court in the u. grant-in-aid if 6% cr ms declaring the! I f judgments referTecf\‘sU;^a:'‘tod '*grant%-m'§ e uncb. O se of the petitioner to recover arrears of ' IS s^5ekiag a direction against e the respondents for raea|e/of gralj^Wd'at the rate of 6%, as ordered by this Court in the judgments referred supra. In such a case. Amendment to Act 34 of 2007 will have no effect on the claim of the petitioner. Accordingly, this contention of the learned government pleader for education is rejected. 16. Learned Government Pleader further contended that the respondents released grant-in-aid for the financial year 2005-2006 by proceedings dated 14.07.2006 and the petitioner acknowledged Wt" J4^V_JUUJ» 13 the receipt of maintenance grant arrears of Rs.51,494/- and while the petitioner obligated to submit the amount, accepting utilization certificate in due course. But, that does not mean that the petitioner waived his right to claim of maintenance grant at the rate of 6%, since it does not amount to reserving right to claim maintenance grant at the rate of 6%. Therefore, the subsequent accepting maintenance grant at the rate of 2% by letter dated 30.08.2006 by the petitioner would not take away the right to claim maintenance grant at the rate of 6%. events. The petitioner is an edupatioqal institution established with imparting^ free pdubation.Vo the 17. the children and the an objective of Government is.un'dl^lS^ * 'dd'^maintenance grant reduced '.Obligatiori ■ tck •A’ conCingeacies. Bur.^^uddenly^tlje' Gavernment to meet the maintenance a hitMifn “ g% by issuing G.O.Ms.No.320,whip|[ >v^^tmck‘ qourt declarmg as unconstitutional by diis'Gourt.^^^efore; it is.the obligation of the under Article^d-S'.df jthq'f^pst'itution of India to make 1 V government every effort to provide early child children until they complete age of 6 years. But denial of grant-in- aid at the agreed rate of 6% on the pay scales of teaching staff and education for the care opportunity to provide free would deprive the petitioner an education to the children in the rural areas and that apart, m (referred supra), the Supreme judgment in Unni Krishnan’s case upheld the obligation of the government to provide free Court MSM.J WP_J449 2003 14 education. Article 45 is only a directive of India is amended by Eighty Sixth amending Article 21-A, fundamental right and it is as follows: principle. The Constitution Amendment Act, 2002, and by recognising the right to education as a The State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six ot manner as the State may, by law, determine. ’’ 18. Similarly, Article 45 is also suitably amended, also amended Clau guardian to provide the case may be, The amendmen^f^^y , ,/ O/' ' brought only ^ith'^ Article 51-A is se (J), which obligates that who i Epo^tuni.tie& foj^qducation to his child or IS a parent or , as 5K^^and fourteen J^t|tion of India was years. d compulsoiy ■ As the State s (d adoption of the ajlFthildren in this age Policy of Education The Government of India, in has made strenuous and, though significant improvements - indicators, the ultimate goal still remains unfulliUed. goal and declaring the right to education compulsory education could group gained momenfum^4rr,thet«|tional (NPE) was announced in 1986. partnership with the State, Governments, efforts to fulfil this mandate were seen in various educational i of providing universal and quality education That would not fulfil this a fundamental right to free and as as a MSM,J WP J449 2003 15 fundamental right by incorporating Article 21-A of the Constitution of India for the children between 6 to 14 years for their upliftment and similarly, enacted the Right to Free Education Act, to achieve the same objective, in view of the amendment to Constitution of India. But the respondents instead of allowing the petitioner provide such free education incurring minimum expenditure of 6% as grant-in-aid on the pay scales of the teaching staff and denied the opportunities to the petitioners to provide free education in the rural areas like Yemmiganur and the action of the respondents is contrary to Article 21-A, whic||,i§,„ajundamental right. to I. 19. The earlier ord^r jin 'fappeaJ' .was passed on the concession of Gove Even otherwise. Schools mo^Vto,p the committees of W.P.No.2ulot|f of ^994 was^jtiled By. 'Reco^ised Managements! SI .. % in-which. ons. the schools are for a moment that the order in W.A:No.526"W'l9^^s'‘by noncession, if the benefit IS extended to one aided’sdiool and'denied to another school, it amounts to discriminating the equals and the Government is not supposed to give concession to one and deny the benefit to others. Such approach of the Government would amount to discrimination of equals. 20. As the judgment of the learned single Judge W.P.No.20160 of 1994 was not set-aside by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.526 of 1997 Appellate Court, still it holds m ■ ^ MSM,J WP 3449 2003 16 good. Therefore, the contention of the learned Government Pleader for the respondents is without any substance and it is nothing but applying to one yardstick to the association in the writ appeal and different yardstick to the petitioner herein in releasing grant-in-aid. Therefore, the act of the respondents is discriminatoiy and violative of the order passed by this Court in Recognised Schools Managements Associations case (referred supra). Hence, the maction of the respondents is declared as illegal and arbitrary. 21. In any view of the matter, the contention of the learned Government Pleader maintenance uer is not entitled to y supra. Even down by this otherwise, the ato ^■|ernment giving concession tov onb'baJl’cationa the petitioner’di, ediipi*^^ ’ • i;itutio iif* d,'denying benefit to *■'ii bl jp encouraged by ing.tbr3' in not releasing whose object is to provide free education. In those circumstances, this Court has option except to hold that the inaction of the respondents i; arbitraiy in not releasing the maintenance grant-in-aid to the the Courts, since it is arbitrary ajid discritni the p'etitiaher’s as^ciation S ‘ grant-in-aid to no IS petitioner’s educational institution and consequently, I hold that the petitioner is entitled to all the benefits Recognised Schools Managements Associations the respondents are directed to work as decided in case. Hence, out maintenance grant @ 6% MSM,J WP_3449 2003 17 * and arrange to pay the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order to the petitioner’s educational institution, on par with other schools. 22. With the above direction, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if shall also stand closed. No costs. 22. any. JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date:30.09.2016 III lu*. SP A •A f t . k- ■ ' /V' / c % f SA ¥ 1 tiU r'’E# I ' / m $ mm W' I A P f € i i’iiJ r1