IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 30057 OF 2024 oo Between: A.F.D.T. Junior College (High School), Mallkipuram (V) Ambedkar Konaseema District. Rep. by its Secretary & Correspondent. ...PETITIONER & (M), Dr. BR AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, (School Education Department), A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi.Guntur District. A.P. 2. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government (Finance Department) A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi District A.P. 3. The Commissioner of School Education, Govt, of A.P.Vidya Opp T.D.P.Office, Guntur Road, Mangalagiri. Guntur District 4. The District Educational Officer, AIMS Campus, Mummudivaram BR Ambedkar Konaseema District. Guntur Bhavan Dr. ...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 in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS Respondents in not or direction more particularly declaring the action of paying maintenance grant to the petitioner's School at the rate of 6% of the basic of the teaching grant for the years from 1-4-2021 to 31-3-2022, 1-4-2022 to 31-3-2023 and 1-4-2023 to 31- 3-2024 as illegal, arbitrary , contrary to law and discriminatory and violative of Articles 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to pay maintenance grant to the petitioner's School at 'vthe rate of 6% of the teaching grant for the years from ^'-1-4-2d21 to 31-3-2022, from 1-4-2022 to 31-3-2023 and from 1-4-2023 to 3.4-3-2024. f IA NOi 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to consider the petitioner School Representation/Proposals dated: 10-12-2024 and to release maintenance grant at the rate of 6% to the petitioner's school for the years from 01-04-2021 to 31-3-2022, from 1-4-2022 to 31-3-2023 and from 01-4-2023 to 31-3-2024 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. 4 » Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B.P.RAJU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010576502024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE [3330] mi PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 30057/2024 Between: A F D T Junior College (High School) ...PETITIONER AND The State of AP and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.B P RAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION 2.GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING ...RESPONDENT(S) The Court made the following order: 2 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO ^ WRIT PETITION N0.30057 of 2024 THE ORDER: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief; “...to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondents in not paying maintenance grant to the petitioner's school at the rate of 6% of the basic of the teaching grant for the years from 1-4-2021 to 31-3-2022, 1-4- 2022 to 31-3-2023 and 1-4-2023 to 31-3-2024 as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and discriminatory and violative of Articles 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to pay maintenance grant to the petitioner's school at the rate of 6% of the teaching grant for the years from 1-4-2021 to 31-3-2022, from 1-4-2022 to 31-3-2023 and from 1-4-2023 to 31-3-2024...’’ Precisely, the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents not releasing the arrears of maintenance grant @ 6% on the teaching grant payable to the petitioner. 2. are Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the issue in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed by the composite High Court in W.P.No.3449 of 2003, dated 30.09.2016 and other orders of this Court in W.P.No.29769 of 2023, dated 17.11.2023 and W.P.No.5528 of 2021, 3. dated 09.03.2021. 3 The learned Assistant Government Pleader has furnished the 4. proceedings, dated 21.12.2024, addressed by the District School Educational Officer, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District to the Government Pleader for School Education, High Court of A.P., Amaravathi. As seen from the said proceedings, it transpires that the respondents are admitted the proposals, vide letter dated 10.12.2024 of the petitioner, received by their office on 16.12.2024 and the said proposals are forwarded to the Director of School Education, Andhra Amaravathi vide letter in Rc.No.7306/B1/2024, dated \ X Pradesh 19.12.2024 for taking necessary action. As the respondents are not disputing the arrears payable to the petitioner towards maintenance @6% on the teaching grant and in of the order passed by the composite High Court in W.P.No.3449 of 2003, dated 30.09.2016 and the orders of this Court in 5. pursuance W.P.No.29769 of 2023, dated 17.11.2023, W.P.No.5528 of 2021, dated 09.03.2021 and W.P.No.21006 of 2024, dated 09.12.2024, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition directing the respondents to pay the maintenance @ 6% to the petitioner School, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Registry is directed to attach the copy of the order, dated 30.09.2016 passed in W.P.No.3449 of 2003. 6. 4 Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no 0^ 7. order as to costs. miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand Sd/- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR - SEdTfoS^FFICER As a sequel closed. //TRUE COPY// To, Principal Secretary to Government, (School Education Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. Guntur District. Government (Finance Department), 1. The Department) 2. The Principal Secretary to Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 3. The Commissioner of School Education Government of A.P.Vidya Bhavan, Opp T.D.P.Office Guntur Road, Mangalagiri. Guntur District. Educational Officer, AIMS Campus, Mummudivaram, 4. The District Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District. CC to Sri B.P.Raju, Advocate [OPUC] School Education, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 5. One 6. Two CCS to GP for [OUT] 7. Two CCs to GP for Finance [OUT] 8. Three CD Copies. (Along with the Copy of the Order in 30.09.2016) & Planning, High Court of Andhra Pradesh in WP.No.3449 of 2003, dated gi HIGH COURT DATED:02/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.30057 of 2024 O 1 7 JAN 2025 , Current Section ^ o CO DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION NO.3449 OF 2003 ORDER: This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner, challenging the inaction of the respondents in not paying the maintenance grant at the rate of 6% of the basic pay of the Teaching Grant as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the respondents to pay the Maintenance Gra^ft' The brief'- Educational an(| of the teaching grant. 2. ffi^petitioner is an rfeft^lished in 1973 itioner started eN evelqpg^qt Ac^ r ^ Act; 5 iyhe So and registered Telugu mediurti i: '•whesAj Yemmiganur in the yd^^J'98'4!: E ish Medium at dt of the petitioner p.'in rural areas. Grant-in- aid to Telugu medium and English medium sections was admitted in the years 1978 and 1993 respectively. Further, the schools admitted to grant-in-aid have been receiving grant-in-aid in full to the teaching and non-teaching eligible staff members and also 6% of the amount paid to the staff for the maintenance of the schools, called the maintenance grant. The maintenance grant is for meeting expenditure relating to expenditure on menial stall, rent, taxes, repairs, maintenance of buildings, furniture, equipment. o is to impart tree educatip "tl MSM,] WP 3449 2003 2 postage, stationary, audit charges, travelling expenditure, chalks, blackboards, maps, teaching aids, electricity & water charges and other day to day miscellaneous expenditure. The schools admitted to grant-in-aid either in full or part are prohibited from charging any fee or donations from the students, as such the education is being imparted at free of cost. It is the petitioner’s case that, under the relevant rules, though the schools are entitled to receive the maintenance grant at 10%, the government reduced the same to 6% of 1974 pay scales. This Court in W.A.^9^vP^f:ja9|y^,^^yted the Government to 3. release the grant .at,:.6^ is being drawm'f^^J / 4,, reduced the .inltmfen^ce virtue of 16.09.1994, on G.O.Ms.No.32p the ground tlia^ p teaching grant re'bult^'m^ ah'\i t ai a percentage of Rike^tin the maintenance grant as and when the‘’*p led. In normal situation hike in pay revision takes place once in every five years for uniformity in fixing maintenance grants at a particular percentage of teaching, in order to meet the inflationary tendencies in the market. It is the case that the schools are not being paid the entire expenditure incurred, but it is restricted to 6% of teaching grant and if actual expenditure is below 6% than the amount actually expended is being paid and not 6%. To avoid further implications MSM,J WP_3449 2003 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 Recognised Schools Managements grant at prescribed rate. In Associations, A.P. Government of A.P., Education Department and another^ V. , the 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 Court held that Act No. 11 of 1995 iIS supra. It is specifically^o|ten.4^4 th^^ petitioner was admitted g'to Alim 4. to grant-in-aid, litions laid down by Constitution of the Govemme: India, tJie S lAivide free and O lu# I > compulsory ed age of fourteerl ve^®^’ \ ^ others v, State\of^ childhood has of 14 years. ildn JTOOJ^y complete the ishnan J.P & held that a \ ‘A others^ a fundaihejtjjfiiht td^ee'education up to the age 5. As the aided schools are imparting free education i : regional languages, the State is under a constitutional obHgation 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, 1997 (3) ALD page 40 ' 1993 AIR2179 m rents, taxes, repairs, maintenance MSM,] WP 3449 2003 4 of buildings, furniture, equipment, postage, stationary, audit charges, travelling expenditure, chalks, blackboards, teaching aids, electricity & water charges and other day-to-day miscellaneous expenditure, which are sine quo non for running a school. The grant-in-aid is only to meet the contingencies and the teaching grant is only to meet the above contingencies. Therefore, it is contended that the respondents are liable to pay grant-in-aid to the petitioner. maps. It is the case that, the petitioner has been sending y,ired by the respondents, t^the‘^maintenance grant, ^nt writ petitions. '{ ^fioner is entitled 1 S<h-Cit fof the entitled 6. proposals for mainten but the respondqiitg despite the direc|idj^<. ; As per G.O.Ms.Mqi -1 to the mainteil&n \ my paid and balance amount, an ampurt of Rs.26,433/- iX’ release the maintenance the-pfeifiolier is not in a position to to maintain the school. Despite s; account of failure to meet necessary expenditure repeated requests and demand, the respondents did not release the maintenance 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 reliefs. The respondents filed counter affidavit denying material allegations and raised several contentions which are as follows. 7. MSM,J WP_3449 2003 5 It is contended that the Government is the competent authority to prescribe percentage of teaching grant maintenance grant payable to the private educational institutions for receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government. Accordingly, the G.O.Ms.No.320 Dated 16.09.1994 and based on the said G.O, the Government fixed the percentage of teaching grant as maintenance a) as Government issued grant payable to private educational institutions. The percentage of Maintenance Grant fixed for different..periods mentioned in the G.O. 3% and tsihat, though the mainten om 01.04.1992 lining grant-in-aid at the rate is against the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.320 dated 16.09.1994. ,X onwards, thXpeti^netfi of 6% and that b) Further, it is asserted that, According to Section 41 and 46 private educational institutions cannot claim grant-in-aid as a matter of right. Section 45 of the Education Act further prescribed that the order passed by the Government refusing to sanction of A.P. Education Act, 1982, MSM,J WP 3449 2003 6 grant shall be final and shall not be questioned in any Court of law. Therefore, the Government has power to withhold, reduce or withdraw any grant under Section 46 of the Act. The respondents contended further that, an amount of Rs.51,4g4/- and Rs.33,665/- towards maintenance grant was released on 21.07.2006 to the to the petitioner’s c) schools for the years 1978 to 2005 vide proceedings Rc.No.l836/A.IV/2006-07 . dated 02.06.2006 by the Schopi^ I Edvic|a,tion,, A.P., Hyderabad, duly Director of tfjs''-. Court issued in £J%;5'r\'the respondents . oner.s| institutions i" 3: ii I implementiriff^ :2irr. •*'20057<f wPMB:Np':.4g released /.’^gCdfen-aid''^ [ o m they are not terms of the amount entitl fixed counter affidavit that the d) It is contended Government has issued Ordinance No.9/2007 dated 19.09.2007 which has become an Act No.34 of 2007 bringing amendments to Andhra Pradesh Private Educational Institutions Maintenance Grant (Regulation) Act, 1995, by which, in Section 3(1) the amendment has been made which states that, provided that no arrear claim for Maintenance Grant shall be allowed beyond a MSM,J 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 for the earlier periods and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. any aiTears 8. 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 benefit under G.O.Ms.No.320. by this Court in That apart, a direction was issued W.A.No.963 pOagi, directing the respondent . ’ p.20160 of 2014 i.e. to pay grant-in-aid at,<6%. Recognised Scho^b^U>i supra) Act & case (referred 5 was decll X" ititutional, and ^T. El». consequently. b.32 1 and inoperative grant-in-aid at // g st^ grant. Aggrieved ./ ^f*1997„viias preferred and the XU"-t ef * and the same wasm S'- Wot the rate of 6% on tlie ■w- \ by the said judgmeh,!, W,A7N,o.^ Division Bench of this Court bonfi: tel la' ■,4 ed the order passed by in the writ petition by the learned Single Judge G.O.Ms.No.320 is and held that 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 as unconstitutional and thereby the respondents are not entitled to deny grant-in-aid at the rate of 6%. G.O.Ms.No.320. wass also declared It IS alleged that. Amendment to Section 3(1) of A.P. Educational MSMJ WP 3449 2003 8 Grant (Regulation) Act, 1995 as on the date of filing the writ petition, was not in existence and no prescribed, but the amendment which brought the 19.09.2007 will have no retrospective effect, thereby, the to claim arrears of grant-in-aid cannot be of such amendment and therefore, prayed Institutional Maintenance limitation was Act on right of the petitioner taken away on account declare inaction of the respondents in not releasing the grant- aid as illegal and arbitrary and directed to issue a consequential direction to release grant-in-aid at the rate of 6% to the petitioner in to the pay scale of the teachirtg^sta.^^^ on der for Education i^pt possible to pay ctorom 4.5% to 3% 9. Per contra, would contend to erant-in- aid ai ttu I# and then to to 31.03.1986, Om onwards respectively respondents released gfaiqt^^-|ajd tj^l^e f dated 14.07.2006 and receipt of the same £31 VK.' if 6« was iftl* f ffi^jffom 01.04.1978 01.04.1992 to ^ Even otherwise, the •ent CO 1 I :32 V ikitioner by proceedings has been acknowledged while accepting to furnish certificate of utilization in due course, as per letter dated 30.08.2006 issued by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner having accepted release of grant-in-aid at the rate of 2%, based on the percentage fixed in G.O.Ms.No.320, the petitioner is cannot go back and claim grant-in-aid at the rate of 6%. Even now the amended Act 11/1995, the petitioner is not otherwise, as per MSM,J WP_3449_2003 9 entitled to recover arrears at the rate of 6%, petitioner and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. as claimed by the 10. Considering rival contentions arid 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 Constitution of India and as arbitrary and illegal and consequential fundamental right guaranteed under the the same be declared direction be issued to the the rate of 6%, as claimed by the petitioner. respondents for release of grant-in-aid at »> POINT Undisputqrfilf xTfe 11. i^into grant-in-aid. ish mediurnNfflWCBJh^eJi both for Tel different year^ ^ the writ peti Government refuse fixed the rates of tek^hin^gr^j private educational institufibh's^fpr fffr following financial years, which are as follows; -aid scheme in trior to filing of t •te d] in .CyMs.No.320, the '0 \ 5r itsypwn reasons and ’'HI. sjaance grant payable to Period Percentage 4.5% From 01,04.1978 to 31.03.1986 From 01.04.1986 to 31.03.1992 From 01.04.1992 onwards 3% 2$ MSM,J WP 3449 2003 10 chaUenged by the Recognised Association (referred supra) in this Court by its order dated But G.O.Ms.No.320 was 12. Schools Management W.P.No.20160 of 1994 and 19.03.1997, struck down the said G.O. declaring the same affirmed by a Division Bench of as unconstitutional and the same was this Court in W.A.No.526 of 1997, while directing the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Education Department and others to release in-aid at the rate of 6% on the pay teaching staff grant, existence and the grant- Therefore, G.O.Ms.No.320 is no more m of the G.O and reduce the respondents cannot take grant-in-aid to 2% tof^e.^^toer^^YS •, it is brought to the t Pleader for the notice of this Co y< the order was 1 Pleader to the O I all not apply to the ^judgment in'^Y respondents that- tri Bt passed on the eb? «<t. effect that the'proth'^OTl^f the ^■^^oney already paid or of the petitioii^r-4 case ;eJ5<3ainis'"for the period before difference regarding required to be paicf'to enactment. But, that does-T«^1hSke any A Division Bench applicability of the G.O to the present petitioner of this Court also adverted to the provisions Educational Institutions Maintenance (Regulation) Act, 1995 (Act of A.P. Private /1995) and upheld the judgment of the single Judge declanng the action of respondent as arbitrary in view of the concession, the not decided in the writ appeal at all. Bench held that the declaration in the 11 nulUty of Act 11/1995 was But, ultimately, the Division MSM,J WP_3449_2003 11 impugned judgment that Act No. 11 of 1995 iIS not ultra vires, but would carry out the were affirmed in W.A.No.963 view of the law declared by the Division Bench of this Court, the respondents are liable to release grant-in-aid at the affirmed the direction that the appellants orders of W.P.No.ll59 of 1991 which of 1991. Thus, in rate of 6% in view of the declaration of G.O.Ms.No.320 unconstitutional. Therefore, the respondents grant-in-aid at such rate to the petitioner. as are bound to pay 13. Learned Government Pleader for Education of this Court to vSectio. 1982, and would c6at to deny grant-ih-gM&^l / O//^/0 //^ I Accordip£tf|;S|^Hon . . v authority educationf^mJf^ttioi subject to such conditior^%a,J^^ to such grant; eveiy gran’rsifflhtioWg^Srunder be disbursed by the Director drawn attention ffie A.P. Education Act, ^^wby the Government questioned. h :Mth*e" 14. •iGoverr in such cases nr P^nyffecognised local as they think ’fit, li' tro^^du^tional institution ^™^se in the order relating sub-section (1) shall 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 the Government to the present facts of the case. Therefore, taking advantage of Section 46 of A.P. Education Act, the petitioner cannot be denied payment of grant-in-aid at the rate of 6%. the learned Government Pleader for Education for the view of the 15. Yet, State of Andhra Pradesh would contend that, in amendment made to Section 3(1) by Act 34 of 2007, A.P. Educational Institutions Maintenance (Regulation) Act, 1995, with effect from 19.09.2007, the petitioner is disentitled to recover which the Act came into .cine the inaction of the of grant-in-aid. By the date on arrears force, the writ petitio respondents and the/§ law will have no effect ^^spondents denied on the claim mj^<^ / ■7- ^ ^?|No.320, despite Court in the /the grant-in-aid af. .IW ! o1 I I declaring the| G1 judgments refebre cirrears of'gran the respondents for rele^ ordered by this Court in the judgments referred supra. In such a , 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. petitioner to e o in/a direction against recover /■ at the rate of 6%, as case 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 16. MSM,J WP 3449 2003 13 the receipt of maintenance grant arrears of Rs.51,494/- and while accepting the amount, the petitioner obligated to submit 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 events, 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%. 17. The petitioner is odueationatiiistitution established with Siyo^the children and the an objective of u|ipq^i Government isj^tiiiil fOsI' intenance grant •gahon iiment reduced to meet the con )f7 1% by issuing maintenance G.O.Ms.No.32(7,wh s QoT-irt declaring as is,ffhe obligation of the |S^«’^ution of India to make every effort to provide early child caio and education for the unconstitutional by thfS&Gourt '■v government under Artfclq^. 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 would deprive the petitioner an opportunity to provide free education to the children in the rural areas and that apart, in judgment in Unni Krishnan’s case (referred supra), the Supreme Court upheld the obligation of the government to provide free MSM,J WP 3449 2003 14 education. Article 45 is only a directive principle. The Constitution of India is amended by Eighty Sixth Amendment Act, 2002, and by amending Article 21-A, recognising the right to education as a fundamental right and it is as follows: “The State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may, by law, determine. ” Similarly, Article 45 is also suitably amended. Article 51-A is also amended Clause (J), which obligates that who is a parent or child or, as 18. years. tution of India was The amendmen knd compulsory brought only i O; tu J. dren age; rs. As tlie State education to all'Th^-h tVie 'gohJ^vei^Pfeig^i^ars of adoption of the provision, the task of prayidirig^^igat^^Tb all children in this age gained rnomentuip^^aftbr.ThQt'National Policy of Education could not achieve group 1986. The Government of India, in (NPE) was announced in partnership with the State Governments, has made strenuous efforts to fulfil this mandate and, though significant improvements educational indicators, the ultimate goal of were seen in various providing universal and quality education still remains unfulfilled. That would not fulfil this goal and declaring the right to education fundamental right to free and compulsory education as a as a MSM,J WP_3449 2003 15 fundamental right by incorporating Article of India for the children between 6 21-A of the Constitution to 14 years for their upliftment 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 6o/o and similarly, enacted the Right to Free Education to as grant-in-aid on the pay scales of the teaching staff and denied to provide free education in the action of the respondents is contraiy to Article 21-A, which.is„a,, fundamental right. the opportunities to the petitioners rural areas like Yemmiganur and the % 19. Tire earlier a- •s passed on the r.Gbvern'fnel'^^- ^ ^ concession of fhc' Even otherwise. i W.P.No.2016(»' D & filed w, ised Schools f committees of fq# a moment that / ' by-eonq/ssion, if the benefit Managements Asi^ I I bns, kh, hS the schools ark W.A:Np.5^g^l^93 s. the order in is extended to one aid! % >1 ed to another school, it 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 of equals. amounts amount to discrimination 20. As the judgment of the W.P.No.20160 of 1994 learned single Judge in was not set-aside by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.526 of 1997 Appellate Court, still it holds 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 discriminatory and violative of the order passed by this Court in Recognised Schools Managements Associations case (referred supra). Hence, the inaction of the respondents is declared as illegal and arbitraiy. In any view of the matter, the contention of the learned Pleader is-th^ti(tlie.’/petitioner is not entitled to which was struck d supra. Even 21. Government maintenance grant V'- down by this/ Cp: VP*% otherwise, th 'ernment giving I denying benefit to t 1^ encouraged by iscj^iinafory in not releasing concession to on >i. I the petitioner’d,, ed the Courts, since it is grant-in-aid to the pdti provide Iree education. In those circumstances, this Court has no ySiiLiife adfd^tion w'hose object is to option except to hold that the inaction of the respondents is arbitrary in not releasing the maintenance grant-in-aid to the petitioner’s educational institution and consequently, I hold that the petitioner is entitled to all the benefits as decided in Recognised Schools Managements Associations case. Hence, the respondents are directed to work out maintenance grant @ 6% MSM,J WP_3449_2003 17 and arrange to pay the the date of same within a period of three months from receipt of copy of this order to the educational institution, on pai- with other schools. petitioner’s 22. With the above direction, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, miscellaneous shall also stand closed. No 22. applications pending if any. costs. JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date:30.09.2016 SP