- (1.) In this group of petitions, the petitioners have a common cause of action. The petitioners have received necessary recognition and permission for running Secondary and Higher Secondary schools in the State of Gujarat. Such permissions have been granted at the first instance either by the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Board or by the State Government in appeal. All the petitioners were granted such permission to run their schools on the condition that the Government will not bear the burden of financing such schools. In short, the petitioners had received permission from the respondents to start their new schools without grant-in-aid. Later on, the petitioners applied to the authorities to give grant to run their respective schools. The respondents did not accede to their requests. The petitioners have, therefore, at different stages under different circumstances approached this Court. Though there are certain minor factual differences, the central issue in all these petitions is common. The short question that has been placed before this Court for consideration and decision is whether the petitioners are entitled to receive grant-in-aid for their schools from the Government. In other words, the question is whether the Government erred in rejecting the request of the petitioners to release grant in favour of their educational institutions.
(2.) For the purpose of deciding the above controversies, some of the factual aspects brought on record can be noted.
(3.) Special Civil Application No.1479 of 1999 has been filed by one Ankur Kelvani Mandal. The petitioner therein applied for starting school in the secondary section. Such an application was rejected by the Board on 9.8.91. The petitioner, therefore, filed an appeal and the State Government by an order dated 4.8.94 granted permission to the petitioner to run the school. Such permission, however, was with the condition that the petitioner shall not claim grant-in-aid for its school. It may be noted that though permission was granted by the State Government in the year 1994, case of the respondents is that the the petitioner did not start its school right up to 2000 and thereafter also, after running the school for about five years, the petitioner once again closed down the school. To these factual averments, learned advocate for the petitioner has not raised any dispute. In fact, these aspects are also borne out from the affidavit filed by the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that for want of financial aid from the Government, the petitioner could not start the school and the school-management, therefore, made series of representations to the State Government for giving grant to the petitioner to run its school. Such representations were made in the years 1995 to 1998. Since no response was available from the Government, the petitioner filed Special Civil Application No.5699 of 1998. The said petition came to be disposed by an order dated 5.11.98 wherein the learned single Judge of this Court directed the State Government to consider the case of the petitioner for releasing of grant. It was observed that the case of the petitioner cannot be discriminated from other similar cases. It was observed that the undertaking given by the petitioner (not to claim grant even in future) would not disentitle the petitioner from such consideration since at the time of giving the undertaking the petitioner was not aware of the fact that grant has been given to other similarly situated schools. 1]. Pursuant to the said order dated 5th November 1998, passed by this Court, the case of the petitioner was considered by the State Government, but turned down by an order dated 18.12.98. In the said order also, the State Government once again reiterated that the petitioner had been granted permission to start the school on the condition that the petitioner will not claim grant from the Government and in that view of the matter, request of the petitioner cannot be accepted. 2]. The petitioner has filed an additional affidavit dated 19th April 2000 and placed certain additional averments on record. Through the averments made in the petition as well as made in the above-mentioned additional affidavit, in the nutshell, the case of the petitioner is that despite its undertaking given to the Government for not claiming grant even in future, the case of the petitioner cannot be completely shut out of consideration and that large number of similarly situated other institutions and schools have been granted benefit of grant-in-aid even subsequently despite similar undertakings having been given by them also. Certain orders passed in favour of other institutions have also been placed on record to seek parity. 3]. In Special Civil Application No.6381 of 1998, the case of the petitioner Trust is that the petitioner-Trust was desirous of starting a secondary school. The petitioner therefore applied to respondent No.2 Board on 30th August 1991. The application was rejected by the Board on 24th November 1992. The petitioner appealed before the State Government against the decision of the Board. The appeal was allowed and permission to start a secondary school was granted by the State Government by an order dated 18.4.94, however, on a condition that the school will not receive grant in aid from the Government. In this case also, the petitioner had agreed to accept the permission to run the school without grant-in-aid facility. 4]. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner's school was situated in an economically backward area and that the petitioner Trust therefore required the grant-in-aid facility to run its school. Such requests were made periodically to the State Government. However, only on the ground that the petitioner had agreed to start the school without the facility of grant, the Government did not accede to the request of the petitioner. Here also, the petitioner has tried to set up a case of hostile discrimination alleging that under similar circumstances, the respondents have released grant in favour of several other schools. 5]. In Special Civil Application No.10295 of 1999, facts are more or less similar except that the petition is pertaining to permission granted by the Government to start 11th standard class in science stream. The petitioner was already running a school in secondary section with grant-in-aid facility. Permission to start standard 11 class in science stream was, however, given without grant in aid. The petitioner therein though initially started standard 11 class some time in the year 2000, was later on forced to close down the said section since last year for want of funds. The recognition of the school, however, has not yet been cancelled. 6. Remaining petitions, involve no different factual aspects. It is, therefore, not necessary to record the factual aspects in those petitions. Suffice it to say, all the petitioners have a common grievance of not being granted benefit of grant by the Government. It may also be noted that all schools were granted permission at the outset on the condition that the schools will not receive grant from the Government.;