JUDGMENT
R.N. Biswal, J.
1. The factual aspects being similar and the points of law involved same in all the three cases, all of them were heard analogously and a common judgment is delivered thereon.
2. The case of the petitioners is that their institutions are all recognized schools within the meaning of Section 3(k) of the Orissa Education Act. all of them being recognized in the year 1983. Hie principle as laid down by Smic Government for releasing grant-in-aid to Non Government Aided 1 Ugh Schools, published vide notification No. 9760 dated 7-3-1979 reads as follows:
A recognized High School will be eligible to receive the minimum grant-in-aid after 4 years from the year of presentation of candidates in the final High School Examination subject to the following conditions:
(a) If it is a 6 class High School, it must have 200 students on its roll and If it is a 4-class school, must have 140 students on its roll.
(b) The result of the school must not be, at any rate, below the State average in the Annual High School Examination for 3 consecutive years by the time it qualifies to receive the minimum grant.
So it is crystal clear that if an institution satisfies the conditions of recognition as per the Recognition Rules, 1979 and the competent authority accords recognition to the same and it presents candidates in the Board Examination for a period of four years, then the said institution becomes eligible to come to the fold of grant-in-aid subject to fulfilment of roll strength and the percentage of result as stipulated. The petitioners’ institutions presented their respective first batch of candidates in the final High School Examination in the year 1984 and fulfilled the other criteria as mentioned above. As such they became eligible to receive grant-in-aid from the year 1988-89. but they have not been so granted. It is the further case of the petitioners that some of the schools standing in similar footing to those of the petitioners’ schools have been receiving grant-in-aid 4 years after presentation of their first batch of candidates in the final High School Examination. So. the petitioners’ schools should not be discriminated.
3. As per the counter-affidavits filed by the opp. parties, pursuant to the Government in Education and Youth Services Department letter No. 44362 dated 24-9-1983 and office order No. 41031 dated 19-11-1983 of the Director. Secondary Education Orissa. regarding recognition of High School in excess of the population criterion i.e. 6000 population for one High School, recognition was accorded for opening of Class VIII of the petitioners’ schools with effect from the academic session 1983-84, subject to condition that the schools would not be eligible to get grant-in-aid in accordance with the Grant-in-aid Rules in force. The Government sanctioned grant-in-aid to 37 High Schools with effect from 1-4-1991 as special cases not to be quoted as precedent. Moreover, all those schools had been recognized prior to 24-9-1983 whereas the petitioners’ schools got recognition subsequent to it. As such the petitioners’ schools cannot be equated with those 37 schools. Accordingly the opposite parties pressed to dismiss all the cases.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners’ schools presented their respective first batch of candidates in the final High School Examination in the year 1984, so in terms of 1979 Rules they became eligible to get grant-in-aid from the year 1988-89. There is nothing in the said Rules to restrict any institution from getting grant-in-aid while according recognition to it. When the petitioners’ schools fulfilled the conditions as laid down under the 1979 Rules, the same ought to have been brought under the grant-in-aid fold from the year 1988-89, despite the restriction contained in the recognition order. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that when some of the schools standing in similar footing to those of the petitioners’ schools were granted grant-in-aid, four years after presentation of their first batch of candidates in the final High School Examination the petitioners’ schools should not be discriminated.
5. Per contra learned Additional Government Advocate contended that four years after presentation of the first batch of candidates in the final High School Examination a school becomes eligible to come to the fold of grant-in-aid, but it cannot be said that once the four-years’ term is completed the State Government must grant grant-in-aid to it. It cannot be claimed as a right. It depends upon the financial condition of the State. He further submitted that 37 numbers of High Schools, referred to by the learned Counsel for the petitioners presented their respective first batch candidates in the final High School Examination in the year 1983. As special cases those schools were granted grant-in-aid, that too from 1-4-1991 and it was specifically mentioned in the Grant-in-aid Orders that the same should not be quoted as precedent. As such the petitioners schools cannot get grant-in-aid from 1988-89.
6. In the case of Jaida Delang Ucha Bidyapith v. State of Orissa this Court held as follows:
From the aforementioned provisions. It is manifest that what is prescribed under Clause 10 is the eligibility criteria to be satisfied for an institution to qualify for receiving grant-in-aid. It is not provided therein that immediately on satisfying the eligibility criteria, the institution is entitled to receive grant-in-aid.
In view of this, the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioners that since the first batch of candidates of the petitioners’ schools were presented in the final High School Examination in the year 1984 all those schools must receive grant-in-aid from the year 1988-89, irrespective of the conditional recognition orders cannot be tenable.
7. Mr. J. Rath, learned senior counsel for some of the petitioners submitted that in the case of Managing Committee of Hengula Bidya Pitha v. State of Orissa O.J.C. No. 4607 of 1990 even though there was the barrier of 6000 population criterion, this Court allowed grant-in-aid in its favour from the year 1988-89, as it presented the first batch of candidates in the final High School Examination in the year 1984-85. So the petitioners’ schools having presented their respective first batch of candidates in the final High School Examination in the year 1984 should get grant-in-aid from the year 1988-89. On perusal of the said judgment it appears that the Block Development Officer, Dharamasala certified that the area in which Hengula Bidyapitha is located has more than 6000 population. So, the petitioners’ schools do not stand in similar footing to that of Hengula Bidyapitha. Again Mr. Rath submitted that in the case of Managing Committee of Bhudhar Chandi High School v. State of Orissa O.J.C. No. 585 of 1987 this Court allowed Bhudhar Chandi High School which stands in similar footing to those of the petitioners’ schools to receive grant-in-aid with effect from 1987-88 since it presented its first batch of candidates in final High School Examination, 1983. On perusal of the said judgment, it is found that there was no barrier of population criterion. So this decision is also not applicable to the present cases. Drawing our attention to the case of Secretary, Gopinath Ucha Bidyalaya, Toto v. State of Orissa O.J.C. No. 5445 of 1991, Mr. Rath again submitted that even though Gopinath Ucha Bidyalaya suffered from population criterion, this Court directed the opposite parties to release grant-in-aid in its favour with effect from 1989. It transpires from the said judgment that even though sufficient opportunity was given to the opposite parties, they did not file any counter. So basing on the uncontroverted averments made in the writ petition, this Court ordered to release grant-in-aid in favour of the aforesaid school with effect from 1989, in such view of the matter this decision also would not be applicable to the cases at hand. Again Mr. Rath submitted that in the case of “Shri Bishnu Charana Giri v. State of Orissa O.J.C. No. 2289 of 1980 the staff of Gopinath Ucha Bidyalaya received grant-in-aid in the year 1989. So the petitioner’ school should not be discriminated. On perusal of the judgment it appears that even though the school came to grant-in-aid fold in the year 1989, the approved staffs were not being given their salary. So, they filed the O.J.C. No. 2269 of 1990 claiming payment of their salary and the Court allowed their prayer. As such this decision would also be of no help to the petitioners.
At last, Mr. Rath, learned senior counsel submitted that, 37 High Schools having population barrier were granted grant-in-aid, 4 years after presentation of their respective first batch of candidates in the final High School Examination, albeit as special cases. So the petitioners’ schools should not be discriminated. As per the counter-affidavits filed by the opposite parties grant-in-aid was released in favour of those schools with effect from 1-4-1991. As already held earlier the management of a School cannot claim release of grant-in-aid in its favour as of right, even after fulfilling all the qualifying criteria it depends upon the financial condition of the State and many other factors. Grant-in-aid is not provided under any statutory Rule. It is provided under various resolutions of the Government. These resolutions are amended from time to time. In resolution No. 1221 dated 7-3-1983, it was decided that grant-in-aid would not be provided to any recognized Non-Government School where there are excess of schools on the basis of population criteria i.e. one school for 6000 population. Since there were excess of High Schools on the basis of population criteria in Balasore district while granting recognition to the petitioners’ school it was stipulated that they would not be eligible for receiving grant-in-aid. The schools in whose favour grant-in-aid was released despite having population barrier were recognized prior to 24-9-1983. The petitioners’ schools having been recognized subsequent to it cannot be equated with those schools. Even if some of those schools are held to have been recognized subsequent to 24-9-1983, as submitted by Mr. Rath, still then in view of the specific condition in the recognition orders that the same cannot be cited as precedent, the petitioners’ schools cannot get grant-in-aid from 1988-89 as claimed.
In the result, the writ petitions stand dismissed.
P.K. Mohanty, J.
8. I agree.