ORDER
B.A. Khan, J.
1. Petitioners are private educational institutions said to be governed by the Private Educational Institutions (Regulations and Control) Act, 1967 and the Grant-in-aid Rules framed pursuant to the powers exercised under the Financial Code. These rules contained in Govt. Order No. 53 of 1975 dated 27-1-1995, inter alia, prescribe and provide for a complete machinery for the control and regulation of these institutions and also for providing them financial aid and its appropriation. In this regard Rule 17(c)(ii) made a provision for reimbursement of the rent of the building/s paid by the institutions, but, at the same time made an exception in respect of the building/s which belonged to the Managing Committee or were constructed with the aid of the Government and made provision for maintenance expenditure only in respect of these building/s. Similarly, Rule 17(VII)(iii) further provided that in respect of the rent of building/s, rent actually paid as per rent-deed was reimburseable except in the case of building/s which belonged to the Managing Committee or any of the members or of any staff member of an institution in which case the rent payable would be assessed by the Chief Engineer, P.W.D. concerned.
2. Petitioners case is that pursuant thereto they were receiving rent for the buildings used by them but the Government issued Govt. Order No. 431-Edu of 1985 dated 2-8-1985 whereby it modified the Rules by deleting Rule 17(c)(ii) and by recasting Rule 17-(e)(iii) as under :
“In respect of rent of buildings, rent actually paid as per the rent deeds shall be reimbursable. The rent reimbursable shall be the rent actually charged or the rent which may be certified as reasonable by the Chief Engineer R & B of the Province in which the institution is located whichever is less. However, no rent will be paid for any building/buildings belonging to the Managing Committee/Trust or Managing Committees nominated by the trust from their General Council of any of its members, their
relatives, or to any staff member or his/her relatives or the patron of the institution or for a building donated to the institution or raised from contributions from the public with or without Govt. aid. However, in respect of building/ buildings belonging to the Managing Committee or one constructed with the aid of Government. On such cases expenditure on maintenance may be allowed in accordance with the norms laid down by the Government in respect of Government buildings.”
Petitioners feel aggrieved of this as according to them, it had resulted in hostile discrimination to them. They contend that their school buildings are either owned by the individual member of the managing committee of the institution or an individual member of the staff working in the institution or a relation of either of the two and since these buildings were not owned by the institutions, rent was being paid for them to the owner irrespective of whether he was a member of the managing committee or the staff. As such there was no justification for segregating those school buildings which were owned by the members of the managing committee or the staff as against the buildings which were taken on rent from others. It is also pointed out that the modified rules perpetuate discrimination by making a further classification by providing for payment of maintenance charges to the school building/s belonging to the managing committees or those constructed with the aid of the government and at the same time refuse this facility in case of building/s owned by the member of the managing committee or staff or a relation of either of the two.
3. Petitioners’ whole case proceeds on the thesis that private educational institutions were part and parcel of the educational structure of the State and were as good as government educational establishments imparting education and thus, discharging a constitutional obligation of the State and since these institutions were further controlled and regulated by the Govt., State was under an obligation to take care of their needs and to provide them aid to sustain. As such it was required to reimburse the rent for their school buildings irrespective of whether these were owned by any member of the managing committee or staff or the relation of the two because these institutions were in any case paying rent to the
owners irrespective of their status in such institutions. In other words, it is projected that by denying the facility of providing rent to their school building/s and by extending this facility to hired school building/s, Govt. was only discriminating between the similarly situated and circumstanced institutions in violation of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. Reliance in this regard is placed on the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court regarding class legislation in Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendulkar, AIR 1958 SC 538.
4. A perusal of the “J & K Private Educational Institutions Grant-in-Aid Rules, 1974” (for short, the Rules) shows that these besides envisaging regulation of the private educational institutions related to the grant of their recognition and classification and conditions of service of their staff, also provide for the mode of assessment of the grant to be given to such institutions. While doing so it also envisages certain items of expenditure incurred as approved for the purposes of such grant. One of such items is the rent of the school building/s which originally was not payable in respect of the building/s owned by the managing committees of the school or constructed by the Government. The modifying rules have placed an additional rinder that this rent would not be payable for any such school building/s belonging to the managing committee/trust or managing committees nominated by the trust from their General Council, or any of its members their relatives, or to any staff member or his/her relative, or to the patron of the institution, or for a building donated to the institution or raised from contributions from the public with or without the government aid. These rules, however, permitted a maintenance expenditure in respect of building/s belonging to the managing committees of the schools or constructed with the aid of the Government.
5. The new rules have classified the school building/s of private institutions into two classes, viz : (i) building/s taken on lease from owners other than those excluded, where actual rent payable is reimbursable; and (ii) building/s which belonged to the managing committee/trust/ member of the managing committee/member of the staff of the institution or their relatives or those donated to the institution or raised from the contribution of the public.
6. Therefore, all that remains to be seen is, whether the classification made is rational having nexus with the object sought to be achieved or whether it can be termed as a reasonable and permissible classification?
7. It is well settled that there is a presumption of constitutionality attached to a legislation, be that subordinate legislation also and to sustain this, the Courts are required to take in regard the matters of common knowledge, of common import, the history of times and are within their rights to assume every state of fact which could be seemed to be conceived at the time of existing legislation.
8. It goes without saying that Article 14 forbids class legislation but it permits reasonable classification provided it is founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes the persons or things which are grouped together from others who are left out and if that differentia has a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved.
9. It is true that the private educational institutions are filling up a gap and performing supportive role in supplementing the educational activities which otherwise was to be undertaken by the Government under the constitutional mandate to achieve the object of imparting education to the citizens. But, it cannot be glossed over that these institutions are commercial institutions at the same time charging fabulous fee from the students and are engaged in a profit making race. It was the mushroom growth of these institutions which necessitated the passing of the Private Educational Institutions Regulations Act and also the Grant-in-Aid Rules. The object sought to be achieved was to put them within their bounds and to restrain them from indulging in free for all and at the same time to enable them to find their feet and sustain themselves with a view to perform a supplemental role in imparting education. In other words, the object sought to be achieved was to support them and not to run them or to take them over. It could not be and it never was to meet all their needs and requirements from the public funds and to contribute to their commercial profit making activity by straining the public exchequer.
10. Looking at it from the other angle, the rational behind granting aid to the private
educational institutions was more to provide them an incentive to settle down for supplanting the educational activity and not to distribute any public largesse to them for commercial purpose. That being so, these institutions could not as a matter of right, claim aid for their every requirement at the expense of the tax-payer and if the Government was obliged to meet their every need, it could as well run them on its own.
11. Viewed thus, if the Government had made a classification for purposes of extending need-based-aid, it cannot be faulted for making such a reasonable classification between those who were paying rent for the school building/s taken by them on lease and those who owned these buildings under the veil and wanted to be paid from the public funds for their own profit making. The two classes are separate and distinct and the modified rules are founded on such rational distinction and intelligible differentia which has a close relation with the object sought to be achieved, i.e., to provide aid to the needy private public institutions to sustain them for imparting education and not to contribute to their commercial activity by burdening the public exchequer. The question of striking down the modified rules does not arise.
12. In the result this petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.