Letters Patent Appeal No.484 OF 2001 (Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated 28.3.2001 passed by a learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 2314 of 1993) 1. DAROGA SHAHI AWASIYA SANSKRIT UCHCHA VIDYALAYA RAMPUR MUZAFFARPUR THROUGH ITS SECRETARY RAM PRAVESH SHAHI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAMPUR P.S.- HATHAURI, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR. 2. RAM PRAVESH SHAHI SON OF LATE BHOLA SHAHI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAMPUR, P.S.- HATHAURI DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR SECRETARY OF THE ABOVE NAMED SCHOOL. 3. SHAILENDRA MISHRA SON OF SOBHA KANT MISHRA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TARAJEEWAN P.S.- HATHAURI DIST- MUZAFFARPUR AT PRESENT HEADMASTER OF DAROGA SHAHI AWASHIYA SANSKRIT UCHCHA VIDYALAYA RAMPUR P.S.- HATHAURI DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR. 4. KRISHNA KUMAR SHANI S/O DAROGA SHAHI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAMPUR P.S.- HATHAURI DIST- MUZAFFARPUR. ------------------------------PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER HUMAN RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT PATNA. 2. THE JOINT SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR HUMAN RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR NEW SECRETARIAT PATNA. 3. THE SPECIAL DIRECTOR SECONDARY SCHOOL (SANSKRIT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRTETARIAT PATNA. --------------- RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTS ISET. 4. LAKSHMI NARAYA TRIPATHI VARAYAN SANSKRIT UCHCHA VIDALAYA ROKHWARI THROUGH ITS SECRETARY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAKHARI P.S.- ARTHAR THORIHI DISTT- MADHUBANI. 5. JAGAT NARAYAN SANSKRIT VIDYALAYA GORIAYA MATHY DIST- GOPALLGANJ THROUGH ITS SECRETARY. 6. SRI ANKHEE SANSKRIT UCHCHA VIDYALAYA GOARI DIST- SAHARSA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY. - 2 - 7. SANGHAMAL BHOJIYA SANSKRIT PRATHMIK SAH MADHYA VIDYALAYA KATMAKHOR THROUGH ITS SECRETARY DISTRICT- MADHUBANI --------------------RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT II SET 8. BIHAR SANSKRIT SHIKSHA BOARD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN GOVIND NARAYAN BHAWAN BORING CANAL ROAD , PATNA ---------------RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT –IIIRD SET For the Appellants: Mr. Ram Janam Ojha, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate, Mr. Bijay Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the State: Mr. Braj Kishore Pd. Sinha, G.P.-3 & Mrs. Sunita Kumari, J.C. For the Respondent No.5: Mr. Nand Kishore Pd. Sinha, Advocate P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRAMAULI KUMAR PRASAD THE HON'BLE (DR.) JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN Prasad & Ranjan, J.J. Writ petitioners-appellants aggrieved by the order dated 20th March 2001 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No.2314 of 1993, have preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present appeal are that by order as contained in Memo dated 29th of January 1987 Daroga Shahi Awasiya Sanskrit Uchcha Vidyalaya was granted recognition without financial aid by order as contained in memo dated 22nd of December, 1987. Four other Sanskrit School namely Lakshmi Narayan Tripathi Varayan Sanskrit Uchcha - 3 - Vidyalaya, Rokhwari, District- Madhubani, Jagat Narayan Sanskrit Vidyalaya, Goriaya Math, District- Gopalganj, Ankhee Sanskrit Uchcha Vidyalaya, Goari, District- Saharsa and Sanghamal Bhogiya Sanskrit Prathmik Sah Madhya Vidyalaya, Katmakhor, District-Madhubani, were also granted recognition without financial aid by order dated 22.12.1987.These schools have been impleaded as respondent nos. 4 to 7 in this appeal. Respondent nos. 4 to 7 filed C.W.J.C. No.3742 of 1987 (Laxmi Narayan Tript Narayan Sanskrit Uchcha Vidayalaya Vs. State of Bihar & others) before this Court. When the matter was taken up on 17.12.1988 respondent nos. 4 to 7 sought permission to withdraw the writ application which was granted and while doing so it was observed as follows: x x x x x x x x “As prayed for on behalf of the petitioner, this application is permitted to be withdrawn. The Respondent-State, is directed to conform to the rule of equality and withdraw the condition as to non-payment of any financial aid to the petitioner’s school unless it has got any special reason to impose this condition. In case the aid is not extended to the petitioner’s school, the State-Respondent must communicate accordingly, the reason to the petitioner within one month from today. It shall be - 4 - open to the petitioner to move this Court again, if so advised.” In the light of the aforesaid order it seems that the case of respondent nos. 4 to 7 for grant of financial aid was considered by the State Government and by resolution as contained in Memo dated 24th of October 1989, order dated 22.12.1987 granting recognition without financial aid was modified and those schools have been granted recognition with the financial aid. The Secretary of Daroga Shahi Awasiya Sanskrit Uchcha Vidayalaya as also its Head Master (hereinafter referred to as the writ petitioner) filed writ application inter alia praying that they may also be given financial aid and condition while granting the recognition that it is without financial aid, be deleted. The aforesaid writ application was registered as CWJC No. 9414 of 1989 (Daroga Shahi Awasiya Sanskrit Uchcha Vidayalaya Versus State of Bihar and Others) before this Court. By order dated 7.8.1990 the aforesaid writ application was disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to file representation and direction to respondents to dispose of the same within stipulated time. While doing so this Court observed as follows:- - 5 - x x x x x x x x “This writ application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners making a grievance that their school has been recognized by the State Government but without any financial aids. No provision has been brought to our notice under which when a Sanskrit School is recognized, financial aid has to be given to such school by the State Government.” x x x x x x x x x The prayer of the writ petitioners was considered by the State Government and by letter dated 18th of February, 1981 it was communicated that its application for grant of recognition with financial aid has been turned down by the State Government. Writ petitioners, thereafter filed CWJC No. 3139 of 1991 (Daroga Shahi Awasiya Sanskrit Uchcha Vidayalaya Versus State of Bihar & Others) and this Court by order dated 30th of October, 1991 disposed of the writ application with a direction to the State Government to examine the matter afresh. While disposing of the writ application this Court observed as follows:- x x x x x x x x “We are not inclined to record any finding at this state because the impugned order itself is without any valid reason. In that view of the matter, we direct the Joint Secretary, Government of Bihar, Department of Human Resources, to examine the matter - 6 - afresh and pass an speaking order. However, it will be open to the petitioners to point out any legal provision which is available to them, in support of their contention.” x x x x x x x x Thereafter the case of the writ petitioners for grant of recognition with financial aid was considered by the State Government and relying on its Resolution No. 2001 dated, 2.12.1982, it was turned down in view of the decision of the State Government that the financial aid shall be given only to those Schools which have been recognized prior to the date of said resolution. Writ petitioners challenged the aforesaid order which has given rise to the impugned order. It was mainly contended before the learned Single Judge that respondent Nos. 4 to 7 who have been granted recognition later than the writ petitioner and having been granted financial aid, the action of the State Government in denying the same to the writ petitioner is discriminatory. It was also contended that in view of Sections 13 and 14 of the Bihar Sanskrit Education Board Act 1981, the State Government is under an obligation to give financial aid. Both the submissions did not find favour with the learned Single Judge. While doing - 7 - so the learned Single Judge observed as follows:- x x x x x x x x “From the facts stated above, one thing is at least clear that before 18th December, 1982 the State Government used to grant recognition to new Madarsa and Sanskrit School on the recommendation of the concerned Board and according to declared policy, the entire financial liabilities of such Schools used to be borne by the State Government. However, it came to the notice of the State Government that said liberal policy was being misused and new Schools and Madarsa were being established for personal gains and not in public interest and accordingly, the State Government, vide said resolution no. 2001 dated 18th December, 1982, decided that it will bear the expenses of teaching and non- teaching staff of only those Schools with respect to which recognition had already been granted before the said decision but if after the said decision recognition is granted to any school, the expenses will have to be borne out by the concerned school and the State Government shall bring such schools in the category of aided schools with the approval of the Finance Department only where it will find fit and proper.” x x x x x x x x Mr. Ramjanam Ojha, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that if Sections 13 and 14 of the Bihar Sanskrit Education Board Act, 1981 is read together, it would be evident that the State has the obligation - 8 - to give financial aid to the Sanskrit School. Sections 13 and 14 of the Bihar Sanskrit Education Board (hereinafter referred to as the Act) reads as follows:- - 9 - The creation of the aforesaid fund by Sections 13 and 14 of the Act enables the State to utilize that fund for the purpose of giving financial aid but from that it cannot be inferred that the State Government has the obligation to give aid to every Institutions. Provision enabling the State to - 10 - utilize its fund cannot be construed to mean that it has to give aid to every Sanskrit School. Mr. Ojha, contends that the impugned order is vitiated only on the ground that while turning down the prayer to grant financial aid no reason at all has been assigned. We do not find any substance in this submission of Mr. Ojha and the very assumption that reason has not been assigned is mis-conceived on fact. While turning down the prayer, State Government has clearly stated that in view of the resolution of the State Government dated 2.12.1982 not to grant financial aid to the Sanskrit Schools recognized after 2.12.1982, financial aid can not be given. Hence, it cannot be said that the writ petitioner’s prayer has been turned down without any reason. Mr. Ojha, then submits that several Sanskrit Schools particularly respondent Nos. 4 to 7 have been granted recognition later than the writ petitioners School and they have been granted the financial aid, hence the action of respondents suffers from the vice of discrimination. He points out that the respondents cannot be allowed to pick and chose a particular School for grant of - 11 - financial aid. We do not find any substance in this submission of Mr. Ojha also. It is relevant here to state that these Schools came to this Court for a direction to delete that portion of the order by which financial aid was denied while granting recognition. This Court without adjudicating the same left the issue to be decided by the State Government. Learned Standing Counsel No.1 submits that if, those Schools have been given financial aid illegally that itself shall not entitle the petitioner to get the financial aid. According to him this Court cannot compel the State to pass an illegal order for granting financial aid to the writ petitioner School on the ground that some other Schools have been granted financial aid by the State. Having given our most anxious consideration to the submissions advanced, we do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Ojha. Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 , in view of the resolution of the State Government dated 2.12.1982 may not be entitled to receive financial aid, but that itself shall not entitle the writ petitioner to claim the financial aid on the principle of equality. Article 14 of the Constitution of India is a positive concept which cannot be enforced in a - 12 - negative manner. It is well settled principle of law, hallowed by time and sanctified by precedents that when any authority is shown to have committed any illegality or irregularity to favour any individual or group of individuals, others cannot claim the same benefit on the plea of discrimination. Reference in this connection can be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. Versus Kameshwar Prasad Singh & Anr. (2000 (3) PLJR 81 SC) in which it has been observed as follows:- “The concept of equality as envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution is a positive concept which cannot be enforced in a negative manner. When any authority is shown to have committed any illegality or irregularity in favour of any individual or group of individuals other cannot claim the same illegality or irregularity on ground of denial thereof to them. Similarly wrong judgment passed in favour of one individual does not entitle others to claim similar benefits. In this regard this Court in Gursharan Singh & Ors. Vs. NDMC & Ors. (1996 (2) SCC 459) held that citizens have assumed wrong notions regarding the scope of Article 14 of the Constitution which guarantees equality before law to all citizens. Benefits extended to some persons in an irregular or illegal manner cannot be claimed by a citizen on the plea of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution by way of writ petition filed in the High Court. The Court observed: “Neither Article 14 of the Constitution conceives within the equality clause this - 13 - concept nor Article 226 empowers the High Court to enforce such claim of equality before law. If such claims are enforced, it shall amount to directing to continue and perpetuate an illegal procedure or an illegal order for extending similar benefits to others. Before a claim based on equality clause is upheld, it must be established by the petitioner that his claim being just and legal, has been denied to him, while it has been extended to others and in this process there has been a discrimination.” In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, we are of the opinion that the complaint of discrimination is absolutely mis-conceived. We do not find any error in the order of learned Single Judge calling for interference in this appeal. In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal and it is dismissed accordingly, but without any order as to costs. Patna High Court Dated 12th of December, 2008 P.K./A.F.R. (Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)