R.A.Sharma - (1.) PETITIONER not having been given grant-in-aid for its Junior High School named Purva Madhyamik Adarsh Bal Niketan Attarra, Banda (hereinafter referred to as the school), filed writ petition No. 11941 of 1991 before this Court, which was disposed of with a direction to decide the petitioner's application on merit In accordance with law. Thereafter on 10-4-1992 the Director of Education (Basic), U. P. has rejected the application on two grounds, namely (i) petitioner's application was received after 15-9- 1990 in the office of the Director of Education and as such, not liable to be considered and (ii) the teachers in the school are in excess of the MANAK (Standard).
(2.) SO far as the first question is concerned, the Director has himself mentioned in the impugned order that petitioner filed its application well within time before the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Banda ; but the said officer submitted the petitioner's application in the office of the Director after 15-9-1990. The applications for grant-in-aid are submitted in the office of the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, who transmit the same with his own report to the Director. Petitioner has submitted,, as mentioned in the impugned order, its application within time before the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari but the said District Basic Shiksha Adhikari has not transmitted the petitioner's application in time to the Director. The Basic Shiksha Adhikari receives the application for and on behalf of the: Director of Education and acts as an agent of the Director. If such an agent/Officer commits delay in forwarding the application to the office of the Director, the applicant concerned cannot be punished or cannot be held responsible for such delay. The application as such, submitted by the petitioner liable to be treated as an application filed within time. In this connection It may be mentioned that in the counter affidavit stand taken by the respondents is different Inasmuch as in paragraph 7 of the same, it has been stated that there has been some manipulation in the record by the employees of the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari to create evidence in favour of the petitioner. On this basis the learned Standing Counsel has argued that manipulations in the record must have been done by the employees of the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari in collusion with the petitioner and as such, writ petition is liable to be rejected. It is not possible to agree with the learned standing counsel for two reasons, namely (i) in the Impugned order it is categorically stated that the petitioner has submitted its application for grant-in-aid in the office of the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari well In time. In view of that averment in the impugned order anything said in the counter affidavit contrary to it cannot be relied upon and cannot be accepted. In this connection reference to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, AIR 1978 SC 851 the relevant extract from which is reproduced below: "The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity mast be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Base, J. in Gordhandas Bhanjl, AIR 1951 SC 16 at p. 18. "Public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used In the order itself;" Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older." Secondly, it has not been stated in the counter affidavit as to what action has been taken against those employees working in the office of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, who are responsible for the so called manipulation in the record. If there was really manipulation, it was expected from the State to take action against those employees and not having done so, the averments made in the counter affidavit are not worth reliance.
(3.) AS regards the second ground on which the Director has rejected the application of the petitioner for grant-in-aid it may be mentioned that the Director of Education ought not to have rejected the application without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, as has been held in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17464 of 1991, Committee of Management v. State of UP. and others decided on August 10, 1992, relevant extract from which is reproduced below: "In case the petitioner has supplied details while making application for grant-in-aid and relevant informations have also been furnished latter on, it was the duty of the respondents to sanction grant-in-aid to the petitioner's school. In case something was lacking it was incumbent upon the respondents to point out to the petitioner the conditions which have not been complied with by it. Before rejection of the application the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to make good the deficiency and or to point out: that it has complied with all the conditions." For the reasons given above, the writ petition is allowed with costs. The impugned order dated 10-4-1992, (Annexure VIS to the writ petition) is quashed. The Director off Education (Basic), U. P. Allahabad is directed to pass appropriate order on the application of the petitioners for grant in aid for their school within a period of two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this (order. Petition allowed.;