Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose out of a Government Resolution dated 15 November 2011 issued by the State of Maharashtra for bringing permanent non-grant in aid primary and secondary schools on grant in aid basis. Clause (2)(b) of the said resolution imposed a condition that schools seeking aid must follow the State's reservation policy in employment, with an exception for minority schools. A batch of writ petitions was filed by various educational trusts and societies running such schools, challenging the validity of this condition as arbitrary, irrational, and illegal. The petitioners relied on the Supreme Court decisions in T.M.A. Pai Foundation, P.A. Inamdar, and Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust to argue that unaided schools cannot be compelled to implement reservation. They further contended that under Article 21A of the Constitution, the State is obligated to reimburse schools acting as its agents in providing free and compulsory education, and the condition of reservation should not be a bar. The petitioners also pointed to an earlier Division Bench order of this Court dated 7 January 2015 in Civil Application No.2367/2014 which had held that the Government cannot insist on reservation policy based on Ashoka Kumar Thakur. The State, represented by Senior Advocate R.S. Apte, argued that the 2015 order was per incuriam because the earlier Division Bench decision in Bormalnath Shikshan Sanstha (17 September 2013) had upheld the very same condition and was not brought to the notice of the later Bench, and because Ashoka Kumar Thakur had been expressly overruled by the Supreme Court in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust. The State also relied on a subsequent Supreme Court order in State of Maharashtra v. Trimurti Shikshan Sanstha (SLP No.11639-11640/2016, dated 9 December 2016) where the condition was held valid. The High Court, after hearing both sides, emphasized the serious issue of judicial propriety. It observed that the 2015 order was clearly per incuriam as it ignored a binding coordinate Bench decision and relied on an overruled judgment. The Court reaffirmed that schools established on permanent non-grant basis have no inherent right to government aid; they can only avail the benevolent policy by complying with all eligibility conditions, including the reservation requirement. Article 21A does not mandate unconditional aid. The Court also held that the Supreme Court's order in Trimurti Shikshan Sanstha constituted binding precedent under Article 141, and the petitioners' argument that it was limited to that case was rejected. Accordingly, the writ petitions were dismissed, upholding the validity of Clause (2)(b) of the Government Resolution dated 15 November 2011.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Reservation in Employment - Condition for Grant-in-Aid - Constitution of India, Article 21A and related jurisprudence - Government Resolution dated 15 November 2011, Clause (2)(b) imposed a condition that schools must follow reservation policy to be eligible for grant-in-aid. Petitioners argued that unaided schools cannot be compelled to follow reservation policy as per T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust. Held that schools have no inherent right to government aid and must comply with eligibility criteria if they seek benefits of the government policy. (Paras 3-4, 8) B) Constitutional Law - Reservation in Education - Mandate of Article 21A - Constitution of India, Article 21A - Petitioners contended that after Article 21A, the State is obligated to reimburse schools providing free and compulsory education, and cannot deny aid on ground of reservation. Held that Article 21A does not create an inherent right to government aid; schools were established on permanent non-grant basis and can only avail aid if they meet the conditions of the government policy. (Paras 5, 9-10) C) Judicial Precedent - Per Incuriam Doctrine - Binding Effect of Earlier Division Bench - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and principles of stare decisis - A subsequent Division Bench in Civil Application No.2367/2014 in Writ Petition No.8478/2013 (order dated 7 January 2015) had held that the Government cannot insist on reservation policy based on Ashoka Kumar Thakur. However, that order was per incuriam because (i) the earlier Division Bench in Bormalnath Shikshan Sanstha (2013) had upheld the same condition and that judgment was not cited, and (ii) Ashoka Kumar Thakur had been overruled by Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust. Held that judicial discipline requires that later Bench should follow or distinguish earlier coordinate Bench judgment; failure to do so renders the later order without binding precedent. (Paras 7-8) D) Precedent - Ratio Decidendi - Distinguishing Obiter Dicta - Supreme Court Rules, 2013 - The petitioners argued that the observations of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Trimurti Shikshan Sanstha (SLP No.11639-11640/2016, order dated 9 December 2016) were restricted to that case and not binding ratio. The Court held that the Supreme Court had in that order clearly stated that the condition of following reservation policy for grant-in-aid is valid, and such clear declaration constitutes binding precedent on this Court under Article 141. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State Government can impose a condition of following reservation policy for permanent non-grant in aid primary and secondary schools to become eligible for grant-in-aid, particularly in light of Article 21A and Supreme Court precedents; Whether the earlier Division Bench order dated 7 January 2015 holding the condition invalid was per incuriam.
Final Decision
The writ petitions were dismissed. The Court upheld the validity of Clause (2)(b) of the Government Resolution dated 15 November 2011, holding that schools established on permanent non-grant basis have no inherent right to government aid and must comply with all eligibility conditions, including the reservation policy. The earlier Division Bench order dated 7 January 2015 was declared per incuriam and not a binding precedent.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- unaided schools have no inherent right to government aid
- eligibility conditions for grant-in-aid are valid
- reservation policy as a condition for aid is not arbitrary
- per incuriam order has no binding effect
- earlier coordinate bench decision must be followed
- Article 21A does not mandate unconditional aid
