WP(C) 6156/2007 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. P Mahanta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr . UK Goswami, learned Standing Counsel for the Education department appearing fo r the respondents 1 to 4. 2. The Bhomoraguri Middle English Madrassa School was established on 1.12.2 009 and has filed WP(C) 6158/2007. The Siruwani Chapari M.E. School was establ ished on 24.12.1988 and is the petitioner in WP(C) 6156/2007. Both the schools a re located in interior Char area of Sonitpur district. The grievance of the p etitioners is that the schools arrayed as respondent 5 & 6 although were establi shed subsequently, have been preferred for sanction of financial assistance unde r the policy of the Assam Government. 3. The learned counsel refers to the communication dated 20.8.2004 of the J oint Director of Elementary Education, Assam to show that selection of education institution for financial assistance is to be made on the basis of need, perfor mance and seniority and it is contended that the authorities have disregarded th e seniority criteria in preferring the respondent schools for sanctioning of fin ancial assistance. 4. On the other hand, Mr. UK Goswami, learned Standing Counsel submits that seniority of the school is not the sole criteria for granting of financial assi stance. In so far as Middle English Schools are concerned, seniority is to be co unted from the date of recognition of the claimants’ schools and it is pointed o ut by the departmental counsel that since all these schools were recognized on t he same date i.e. 1.1.2005, all the schools are at par with each other on the se niority criterion. 5. The preference given to the 2 respondents schools is contended to be on the basis of the performance and the need as the schools of respondents 5 & 6 ar e situated in a Char area dominated by the scheduled caste persons. Mr. Goswa mi submits that enrolments of students in the respondent schools are far higher than the petitioner schools. Accordingly respondent schools are contended to be more deserving of financial assistance than the petitioner schools. 6. In reply Mr. Mahanta submits that the petitioner schools are located in an extremely under developed Char area and naturally the enrolment of student s in such area can’t compare with enrolment of students in a better located scho ols. Accordingly the learned counsel submits that the authorities were not justi fied in ignoring the petitioners’ schools for sanctioning financial assistance a nd preferring the respondent 5 & 6 schools. 7. A perusal of the speaking order passed by the Commissioner, Elementary E ducation Department recorded on 18.6.2007 indicates the basis on which the relat ive merit of the claimants’ schools was decided by the authorities. On the senio rity criteria, since all the schools were recognized on the same date, they are considered to be at par with each other. 8. It is also found that there is another school at a ‰ k.m. distance from the Bhomoraguri Middle English Madrassa School while tilted the balance away fro m one of the petitioner. 9. The performance criteria was considered on the basis of the student enro lment and the need aspect was taken into account by considering that the respon dent schools are located in a Char are where predominant populace belongs to the scheduled caste community. 10. Considering the manner in which the criteria have been applied for prefe rring the respondent schools for financial grants, it can’t be said that the sai d consideration is unreasonable or unfair. Relevant factors have taken into acco unt and on the basis of the performance, need and seniority the schools have be en selected for financial grants on reasonable basis. 11. In the above circumstances, this Court does not find any justification t o interfere with the decision taken by the State authorities to grant financial assistance to the Kaliabhomora Model M.E. School (respondent No.5) and Gandhi As ram M.E. School (respondent No.6). 12. However since it is recorded in the counter affidavit that financial ass istance to the petitioners’ schools will be considered in future, these cases is are disposed of by asking the official respondents to consider such grant for t he petitioners’ schools, when fresh considerations are made. Naturally the claim of the petitioners shall be considered along with the other similar schools, by scrupulously following the criteria and the policy, laid down by the Government . 13. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.