- (1.) The petitioner which is a private college seeks for a direction to the State to release grant-in-aid in the same manner as it has been done for yet another college Desh Bhagat College, Dhuri. The admitted case is that the State grants aid upto 95% against posts which were in existence on 01.11.1977. At that time, the college had arts faculty to run the courses in English, Sanskrit, Punjabi etc. The College started course in commerce after obtaining affiliation with the Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, w.e.f. 1979. It is claimed in the petition that they began the science faculty w.e.f. 1984. The grievance is that the petitioner-College is entitled to secure grant-in-aid not only for the courses that were already conducted at the time when the initial grant-in-aid was given but it shall also be given State aid for payment of teachers upto 95% for the courses started subsequently. It would also contend that yet another college called Desh Bhagat College, Dhuri was granted 95% aid for the staff strength as it existed on 01.01.1986. The petitioner's contention would be therefore that the petitioner-College must also be granted the similar privilege on the basis of staff strength as it existed on 01.01.1986. The petitioner's further plea is that the institution is run as a 'minority institution' and it enjoys constitutional guarantees under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. Since the State has declared under Articles 38 and 41 of the Constitution that it shall promote the welfare of the people and make provision for securing right to work in education, it is bound to provide grant-in-aid to secure the constitutional goals. The grant of aid to some institutions while denying to the petitioner is claimed to be discriminatory.
(2.) The State has filed its reply through the Deputy Director (College & Planning) pointing out to the fact that the petitionerinstitution was functioning since 1974, while the Desh Bhagat College was started later and the aid granted to the State college was as a special case and was not to be treated as a precedent. The affiliation obtained by the college to some of the courses, according to the State, does not cast any obligation for it to provide grant-inaid for the additional courses as well.
(3.) The fundamental issue is whether there is any right to demand State aid. The counsel for the petitioner would refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in The Chandigarh Administration and others Versus Mrs. Rajni Vali and others, 2000 1 JT 159that held that when a school was established under permission of competent authority and the institution was also upgraded to higher secondary school, if the institution was receiving grant-in-aid, the same shall also continue for Lecturers appointed to teach those subjects under rules. The denial of State grant created two classes of teachers in the same school, all of which had been approved and a plea of additional financial burden could not be taken by the State to deny grant to the teachers who were teaching the same subjects when the school was upgraded. The decision hinges on situations where some teachers who were granted certain scales were entitled to be given parity who were teaching in the same standard but designated as Lecturers. The parity was seen by the same work done in the same school, as a justification for making directions for issuing grants. In the present case, we are examining situation when the college started with particular classes, it obtained grants-in-aid but started different courses over a period of time and sought for aid for teachers in the other courses also the State denied for additional course. Here, in this case, parity of salary is not ever in contemplation between teachers doing different courses under different sources of employment.;