In a significant judgment regarding the funding of private educational institutions, the Allahabad High Court has ruled that Article 21-A of the Constitution of India and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), do not confer a fundamental right upon private primary schools to claim recurring grant-in-aid from the State Government.
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Arun Kumar, set aside the order of the Single Judge which had directed the State to release grants for payment of salaries to staff of private primary schools having more than 50% students belonging to Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST).
Background of the Case
The appeals were filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh challenging a common judgment of the Single Judge dated December 21, 2022. The respondents included Assistant Teachers and Committees of Management of various private recognized primary schools (Classes I to V).
The writ petitioners had approached the court seeking recurring grants from the Social Welfare Department, Government of U.P. Their claim was based on the premise that their institutions imparted education to a majority of students from SC/ST categories. They argued that in view of the 86th Amendment to the Constitution, which inserted Article 21-A, the State is obligated to provide free and compulsory education. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of U.P. vs. Pawan Kumar Dwivedi and others (2014) and the High Court’s decision in Paripurna Nand Tripathi, they claimed entitlement to salary from the state exchequer.
The State Government had rejected their representations citing a policy decision dated October 5, 2006, which withdrawn the earlier scheme of providing recurring grants to such private primary schools.
Arguments of the Parties
State’s Contentions: Additional Advocate General Anoop Trivedi, assisted by Standing Counsel Tej Bhanu Pandey, argued that the writ petitions were not maintainable. The State contended that the policy to provide recurring grants as incentives was withdrawn in 2006.
The State submitted that it has fulfilled its constitutional obligation under Article 21-A and the RTE Act by establishing a Primary School at every one kilometer and a Junior High School at every three kilometers. The State further argued that:
- The obligation to provide free and compulsory education does not imply funding private schools.
- Under the RTE Act, private schools are reimbursed for admitting 25% of students from weaker sections, but this does not equate to a recurring grant for the entire institution.
- The reliance on Pawan Kumar Dwivedi was misplaced as it related to primary sections attached to already aided Junior High Schools, not standalone primary schools.
Respondents’ Contentions: Counsels for the respondents, Rajesh Kumar Singh and Vivek Kumar Singh, argued that the institutions had been pursuing their claims since the issuance of the 1994 Government Order. They submitted that the Director of Social Welfare had recommended their inclusion in the grant-in-aid list. They contended that since the State had granted aid to similarly situated institutions pursuant to court orders, denying the same to the respondents was discriminatory.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
The Court framed several questions, primarily focusing on whether Article 21-A and the RTE Act create an obligation for the State to provide financial aid to all recognized private basic schools.
On Article 21-A and Right to Aid: The Bench analyzed the provisions of the RTE Act, 2009, specifically Section 12, which defines the extent of a school’s responsibility. The Court observed that the obligation of the State to provide free and compulsory education is primarily discharged through its own schools or by reimbursing private schools for specific admissions under Section 12(2).
The Court held:
“We do not find any right either under the Government orders issued from time to time or under the Act No. 35 of 2010, enacted to fulfill the rights under Article 21A, to any school for claiming recurring grant-in-aid… The obligation of the State to provide free and compulsory education, now enacted as fundamental right, is not to be enforced through such schools for giving recurring grants to meet the expenses of the salary of teachers and other incidental expenses.”
Citing the Supreme Court judgment in The State of U.P. and others vs. Principal Abhay Nandan Inter Colleges and others (2021), the Court reiterated that the right to receive government aid is not a fundamental right.
“Once we hold that right to get an aid is not a fundamental right, the challenge to a decision made in implementing it, shall only be on restricted grounds. Therefore, even in a case where a policy decision is made to withdraw the aid, an institution cannot question it as a matter of right.”
On the Applicability of Previous Judgments: The Court distinguished the present case from Pawan Kumar Dwivedi and Paripurna Nand Tripathi. It clarified that those judgments applied to primary sections that were an integral part of aided Junior High Schools or Intermediate Colleges.
“However, for institution exclusively imparting education to classes 1 to 5, there is no enactment under which salary is to be paid to its teaching and non-teaching staff.”
On Teacher Appointments: Addressing the claims for salary, the Court noted that the Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Schools (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1975, mandate a specific procedure for appointments, including advertisement and possession of minimum qualifications (such as TET). The Court observed that there was no material to show the respondents were appointed in conformity with these rules.
“In the absence of the aforesaid material on record, no positive direction can be issued in favour of petitioner-respondents for payment of salaries, even if the institutions… are found to be entitled for recurring grant.”
The Decision
The Court disposed of the appeals with distinct directions based on the status of the institutions:
- For Mahamana Malviya Ansuchit Jati Primary Pathsala (SPLA 213/2025): The Court noted that the State Government had already issued a Government Order dated January 3, 2024, accepting the institution’s claim for a recurring grant. The Court declined to interfere with this grant but imposed a strict condition on salary payments.
“The Special Appeal… are disposed of with a direction to the State Government to ensure that the petitioner-respondents… are paid salary only if they were appointed strictly in accordance with law, following the provisions of Act of 1975 and possessed requisite qualification…” - For Other Institutions (SPLA 214/2025 etc.): The Court set aside the Single Judge’s order accepting their claims. The Bench held that these institutions, which had not claimed grants before the 2006 withdrawal policy, had no fundamental right to aid.
“The institution imparting education to classes I to V, having more than 50% students belonging to scheduled caste and scheduled tribes, does not acquire any fundamental right for grant-in-aid from the Department of Social Welfare, Government of U.P., in the light of RTE Act, 2009…”
Consequently, Special Appeal No. 214 of 2025 and Special Appeal Defective No. 4 of 2025 were allowed, and the corresponding writ petitions were dismissed.
Case Details:
- Case Title: State of U.P. and 3 others Versus Ramesh Kumar Singh and 13 others (and connected appeals)
- Case Number: Special Appeal No. 213 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Arun Kumar
- Counsel for Appellants: Anoop Trivedi (Additional Advocate General), Tej Bhanu Pandey (Standing Counsel)
- Counsel for Respondents: Rajesh Kumar Singh, Vivek Kumar Singh
