Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:116807 Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8564 of 2017 Petitioner :- Sharad Kushwaha And 8 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Tiwari,Anubhav Dwivedi,Satyendra Nath Tripathi,Shashi Kant Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Ajitam Srivastav,C.S.C. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners questioning the order dated 12.07.2016 passed by the 1st respondent. 3. Sole ground raised by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is that earlier the petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing Writ-A No.68676 of 2015 for non- consideration of the case of the petitioners in compliance to the orders of the Constitutional Bench of this Court in the case of the State of U.P. and others Vs. Pawan Kumar Divedi and others (2014) 9 SCC 692 and in the case of Paripurna Nand Tripathi and another Vs. State of U.P. and others in Special Appeal Defective No.994 of 2014. 4. Considering grievance of the petitioners, this Court has passed the following orders on 22.12.2015:- It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the issue whether the Primary Section attached to the High School should be granted financial aid or not has came to be decided by a Constitutional Bench in the case of State of U.P. & Others v. Pawan Kumar Divedi & others (2014) 9 SCC 692, wherein it has been held that the attached Primary Section of a recognized institution is a single unit and it is also entitled for the grant-in-aid subject to the completion of the conditions. Following the aforementioned case a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No. 994 of 2014 (Paripurna Nand Tripathi & another v. State of U.P. & others) has issued a general direction to the State Government to consider the matter and to take a fresh policy decision in respect of financial aid granted to the primary sections attached to the High School and Intermediate Sections. From the record it appears that petitioners have made several representations to the respondents for grant-in-aid to the Primary Section. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in my view the end of justice would be subserved by issuing a direction upon the respondent no. 1 to consider the grievance of the petitioners in the light of the judgments passed by a Constitutional Bench in the case of State of U.P. & Others v. Pawan Kumar Dwivedi & others (2014) 9 SCC 692 and Special Appeal Defective No. 994 of 2014 (Paripurna Nand Tripathi & another v. State of U.P. & others)(supra). 5. In compliance to the said orders, the 1st respondent has passed the impugned order dated 12.07.2016 without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and also to the committee of management. Only based on certain materials, the Ist respondent has rejected the claim of the petitioners which is wholly illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the principle of natural justice. 6. All the petitioners have been appointed by the 5th respondent in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Admittedly, the 5th respondent - Institution is a recognized institution and is imparting education more particularly Sanskrit language. 7. Learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents though has submitted that after disposal of the writ petition, the respondents conducted a meeting at the Government level and on perusal of the letter of the management, it was found that the said letter is fake and the management never approached the Director of Education. Learned Standing Counsel has also pointed out lacuna in the appointment of the petitioners. 8. In reply to the said submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the information brought to the notice of the Government is not known to the petitioners and in fact, no notice was issued to the petitioners as well as committee of management. Hence, records / reports which are relied by the 1st respondent in the impugned order are contrary to law. 9. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, on perusal of records as well as the impugned order, it clearly discloses that in compliance to the earlier order of this Court dated 22.12.2015, the 1st respondent did not issue any notice either to the petitioners or to the 5th respondent. In the said circumstances, the impugned order dated 12.07.2016 passed by the 1st respondent is set aside, remanding the matter once again to the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders as directed by this Court in Writ-A No.68676 of 2015 after issuing notice to the petitioners as well as the 5th respondent and, if required, by giving an opportunity of hearing to them. This exercise should be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 10. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 rkg (Donadi Ramesh, J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad