1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3901 OF 2007. (Sunil Pruthviraj Devgade and others -: versus :- The State of Maharashtra and another ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND F.M. REIS, JJ. Date of Reserving the Order : 09.09.2009. Date of Pronouncement : 23.09.2009. 1. Heard Shri P.C. Madkholkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri V.A. Thakre, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents. 2. Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are students of Ashram School i.e. the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4. The prayer made is to direct the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to frame a policy for granting permission to open standards/classes above 7th standard by Ashram Schools for V.J./ N.T., O.B.C., S.B.C. on account of natural growth and to make such policy decision uniformly applicable without any discrimination or political interference. 3. Grievance is while for Ashram Schools run by O.B.C., S.B.C. etc. managements, there is no ceiling of any 2 type. For Ashram Schools meant for V.J./N.T. Students, High School is permitted for every three primary schools. The ratio is stated to be not only arbitrary, but also amounting to hostile treatment. Articles 46 and 21A of the Constitution of India and relevant case law is being pressed into service for this purpose. 4. During arguments it is pointed out that subsequently such ratio has also been extended to Ashram Schools meant for Scheduled tribe students. The judgments relied upon are 1993 [1] SCC 645(Unni Krishnan and others .vrs. State of Andhra Pradesh); 2001 [1] Mh.L.J. 776 (Gram Vikas Shikshan Prasarak Mandal .vrs. State of Maharashtra) and 2009 [6] SCC 398 (Avinash Mehrotra .vrs. Union of India and others). 5. After hearing the parties for some time on 11.08.2009, we had given time to State Government to file appropriate affidavit in this respect. The said affidavit has been filed by Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai on 07.09.2009 before us. On the strength of the said affidavit, the learned Assistant Government Pleader has stated that the State Government has taken adequate steps to see that the students passing out of primary ashram schools are accommodated in the high school and shall not be denied education. If in any high school the sanctioned classes are found to be insufficient, sanction to additional division will be considered and students are entitled for benefit of prosecuting their further education in such schools from standard 8th onwards. It is 3 further pointed out that if such occasion arises, additional division will be allowed in existing secondary ashram school for V.J./N.T. 6. The policy of Government not to sanction Higher Secondary Ashram School to institutions running primary school by way of natural growth is sought to be justified by pointing out that, Secondary Ashram Schools are a different entity, governed by different set of Rules. 7. Perusal of the Writ Petition as filed, particularly paragraph no.8 thereof, reveals that the contention of petitioner is about discrimination between Ashram Schools meant for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes and Ashram School meant for V.J./N.T. The petition does not show that the decision to sanction one Secondary Ashram School for every three Primary Ashram Schools is not being uniformly applied. Fact of existence of Secondary Ashram Schools and different set of Rules applicable to them are not in dispute before us. It is to be noted that there cannot be any straight jacket formula in this respect and only when number of students passing out of primary schools is sufficient to sanction an independent secondary school, such decision can be taken. The petitioners have not pointed out that they have been deprived of education in secondary school because of the ratio prescribed in this respect. In absence of this material, it is not possible for this Court to look into the grievance, as sought to be ventilated in the present Writ Petition. There is nothing on record to show that further education of petitioner students is jeopardized in any way. 4 Facts do not justify insistence that every primary school much be allowed to open classes from 8th standard onwards due to natural growth. 8. In view of the affidavit mentioned above filed in response to our earlier orders, we are satisfied that the policy being applied at present cannot be held to be either arbitrary or un-constitutional in facts presented to us. We do not find any merit in the Writ Petition, the same is therefore, dismissed. No cost. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd.