Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:75875 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 22049 of 2013 Petitioner :- C/M Devarshi Deval Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- D.B. Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- Nadeem Ahmad,S. Nadeem Ahmad Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri D.B. Yadav, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Shashi Prakash Singh, learned A.C.S.C. for State. 2. The petitioner is guilty of making his case ambiguous, since it is not clear to petitioner, whether it is an independent Junior High School or an Integrated school up to Intermediate, since admittedly, it was upgraded to High School and Intermediate, therefore, in absence of specific case that both schools are running separately, being governed by different set of Rules, the claim as set up for grant-in-aid only for Junior High School cannot be considered. 3. In the entire writ petition, the petitioner has not come up with case that there is distinct separation between Junior High School and school having High School and Intermediate i.e. upgraded school. 4. A submission of learned counsel for petitioner that in earlier round of litigation, impugned order therein was set aside and a finding that school was composite was set aside but it does not reflect from the order dated 15.09.2011 passed in Writ Petition No.1575 of 2010, since at that stage, the Court has proceeded that claim was rejected being of Junior High School and reference was made to clause 2 (13) of the concerned notification dated 07.09.2008, wherein only Junior High School were permitted to apply for grant-in-aid but since said condition was set aside in other litigation, therefore, upgraded school could also apply. 5. A very specific reason was assigned in impugned order, that verification of employees and teachers of school was not completed since petitioner was failed to submit requisite documents. A vague submission that it was with B.S.A. of another district since later on, a separate district was carried out, would not helpful since it was duty of petitioner to produce record from other district but he failed. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances, relief sought cannot be granted and accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 9.5.2025 P. Pandey Digitally signed by :- PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad