Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a society running three special schools for specially enabled children in Amravati district, approached the High Court seeking direction to the State Government to frame a policy for grants-in-aid to special schools and to consider its institutions for permanent grants-in-aid. The schools were registered with the Commissioner (Persons with Disabilities) and imparted education to children covered by the Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. The society had applied for permanent grants-in-aid but its efforts were unsuccessful. Earlier, a coordinate Bench of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.10180/2012 had directed the State to evolve an appropriate policy for grants-in-aid to special schools within three months. The State claimed compliance by issuing Government Resolution dated 8 April 2015, but that Resolution merely listed 123 specifically named schools as eligible for grants-in-aid, without prescribing any general eligibility criteria. In its affidavit, the State admitted that there was no policy to sanction grants-in-aid to the petitioner's schools and that the demand could not be accepted without a policy. During pendency of the petition, the State issued further Government Resolutions on 3 July 2019 and 17 September 2019, sanctioning grants-in-aid to two and three additional schools respectively, each described as a special case, while simultaneously maintaining that no policy existed. The Court observed that the State had not framed any uniform policy, contrary to the earlier judicial direction, and had continued to grant sanctions intermittently and selectively. It held that government resolutions approving named schools as special cases could not substitute a general policy prescribing eligibility conditions and criteria. The Court found the State's conduct arbitrary and inconsistent: it denied the petitioner's demand on the ground of absence of policy while selectively extending the benefit to other similarly situated schools. The final decision directed the State to comply with the earlier direction by framing a comprehensive policy for grants-in-aid to special schools and to consider the petitioner's schools in accordance with such policy, thereby granting relief to the petitioner.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Policy Formulation - State obligated to frame uniform policy for grants-in-aid to special schools for disabled children - Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - Coordinate Bench in Writ Petition No.10180/2012 directed State to evolve appropriate policy within three months; State issued Government Resolution dated 08.04.2015 approving only 123 named schools without prescribing eligibility criteria for all schools. Held that such Resolution did not amount to framing of policy and the judicial direction remained unimplemented (Paras 3-6). B) Education Law - Grants-in-Aid - Selective Sanctions Cannot Substitute Policy - Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - State intermittently sanctioned grants by Government Resolutions dated 03.07.2019 and 17.09.2019 to five schools as special cases while denying petitioner in absence of policy. Held that such intermittent and selective sanction amounted to arbitrary exercise of power and failed to comply with requirement of evolving a uniformly applicable policy (Paras 7-8). C) Administrative Law - Equal Treatment and Non-Arbitrariness - Absence of Policy Cannot Justify Denial - Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - Respondent State admitted in affidavit that no policy existed to sanction petitioner's schools but simultaneously granted aid to select schools, revealing inconsistent and discriminatory stand. Held petitioner's demand could not be rejected merely because no policy existed when State itself had failed to frame policy despite binding judicial direction (Paras 5-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether State Government framed a policy for grants-in-aid to special schools as directed in Writ Petition No.10180/2012; Whether selective sanction of grants-in-aid to named special schools without general policy is lawful and non-arbitrary; Whether petitioner's demand for permanent grants-in-aid can be rejected merely due to absence of policy.
Final Decision
The High Court found that no policy for grants-in-aid to special schools had been framed by the State Government despite prior judicial direction; Government Resolution dated 08.04.2015 approving only 123 named schools did not constitute such policy; subsequent Government Resolutions dated 03.07.2019 and 17.09.2019 sanctioning select schools as special cases were arbitrary and violated the requirement of uniform policy. Accordingly, the Court directed the State to frame a comprehensive policy and consider petitioner's schools in accordance with such policy, thereby allowing the writ petition.
Law Points
- State must frame uniform policy for grants-in-aid to special schools for disabled children
- government resolution naming select schools does not constitute policy
- prior judicial directions binding on State
- selective sanction of grants-in-aid arbitrary
- persons with disabilities act mandates equal opportunities
- no policy cannot justify denial
- special schools entitled to consideration under general policy
