Dilip Gupta, J. - (1.) THE petitioners have sought the quashing of the order dated 14th May, 2009 passed by the State Government by which the representation filed by the petitioners, pursuant to the directions issued by the Court on 5th March, 2009 in Writ Petition No. 70510 of 2006, for bringing the Institution on the grant -in -aid list of the State Government has been rejected.
(2.) THE records of the writ petition indicates that earlier by the order dated 3rd January, 2007, the Assistant Director of Education (Basic) had rejected the application filed by the petitioners for bring the Institution on the grant -in -aid list of the State Government on the basis of the Government Order dated 2nd December, 2009 for the reason that certain deficiencies existed. This order 3rd January, 2007 was assailed by the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 70510 of 2006 which was allowed by the judgment and order dated 5th March, 2009 which is quoted below: The petitioner applied for its institution being included in grant -in -aid list, pursuant to the Government order dated 7th September, 2006. An inspection was made by the competent authorities and certain defects were reported in its report dated 30th October, 2006. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 10th of November, 2006 removing the defects pointed out by the committee. Bey the impugned order dated 3rd January, 2007 the petitioner's application for being included in the grant -in -aid list has been rejected on account of certain defects, which was pointed out by the committee. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition. A perusal of the impugned order dated 3rd January, 2007 and the report of the Committee dated 30th October, 2006, indicated that the reply of the petitioner alleges to have removed those defects. Consequently, the impugned order apparently suffers from non -application of mind and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The authority is directed to reconsider the petitioner's application as well as the reply dated 10.11.206 and such other documents which the petitioner may file before the authority concerned. It is further directed that the authority will pass a fresh order within three months from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order. The State Government has now by the impugned order dated 14th May, 2009 rejected the representation filed by the petitioners. Two reasons have been stated. The first is that the Director of Education has submitted a report dated 8th May, 2009 regarding the deficiencies and the second is that the Institutions were brought on the grant -in -aid list pursuant to the Government Order dated 2nd December, 2006 but at present there is no policy of the State Government for bring the Institutions on the grant -in -aid list.
(3.) IT is submitted by Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the representation could not have been rejected for the reasons assigned in the order dated 14th May, 2009 inasmuch as the State Government was required to examine whether the deficiencies which had been pointed out in the communication dated 3rd January, 2007 existed or not. The report dated 8th May, 2009 only refers to the earlier order and does not examine the explanation given by the petitioners in their representation. It is also his submission that the State Government was required to examine whether the petitioner -Institution could be brought on the grant -in -aid list on the basis of the Government Order dated 2nd December, 2006 and whether any policy for bringing the Institution on the grant -in -aid list exists as on date or not is not relevant.;