WP(C) 3114/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY The grievance registered is against the denial of financial assistance t o the petitioners’ School in terms of the Government policy promulgated therefor . Heard Mr. A. K. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as M s. Mary Gogoi, learned Standing counsel for the Education Department. The petitioner school is located under Nagaon Sub-Division, pertaining t o 85 Rupahihat Legislative Assembly in the District of Nagaon. The petitioner’s School was established in 1989, while the School of the private respondent was established in the year 1993. Its grievance is that, though, under the aforemen tioned policy, needy venture Lower Primary Schools have been decided to be exten ded financial assistance, it though, senior in terms of its establishment, has b een left out and vide the impugned select list Annexure 4 to the writ petition f inancial grant has been sanctioned to the private respondent school i.e. respond ent No.5, which are admittedly junior to it, for the year 2007-08. On the said pleadings, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respon dent authorities to provide financial assistance to it as per the policy and cri teria prescribed therein. The state respondents have not filed any affidavit to rebut the above av erments. The learned counsel for the respondents have fairly submitted that in the face of the Government policy and the parameters contained therein for deter mining the eligible educational institutions to be entitled to the financial ass istance comprehended therein, the respondent authorities are obliged in law to c onform to the same. I have extended my consideration to the rival submissions and the materi als available on record. This Court amongst others in W.P.(C) No. 4278/2004, All Assam Recognized Middle English Teachers Association VS. The State of Assam & o thers, while exhaustively dwelling on the Cabinet Memorandum dated 09.06.2005, e ngrafting the policy to provide financial grant to educational institutions and the criteria adopted therefor, had ruled that the selection of such institutions would be primarily on the basis of seniority as per the date of recognition/con currence as applicable deviation wherefrom would be permissible in respect of in stitutions with disadvantageous locations like border areas, char areas, tea and ex-tea garden areas, areas predominated by weaker sections of the society like SC, ST, OBC and minorities, where in the opinion of the Government, there is urg ent need to set up educational institutions. Relaxation on this count may also be considered keeping in view the specific need for girls’ education in some are as. Performance of the educational institutions and their enrolments shall also be taken into account into in selection of the schools for financial assistance . This Court, however, made recording of reasons to be obligatory in case of fle xing of the fundamental criteria of seniority in the above eventualities. Incide ntally, a Division Bench of this Court has also upheld the said determination. In the above factual premise there is no escape from the conclusion that for ascertaining an educational institution to be eligible for the financial gr ant, the primary touchstone would be that of seniority thereof determinable by t he date of its establishment/recognition/concurrence, as the case may be and tha t the relaxation thereof, on other consideration can be resorted to for reasons to be recorded. In the above view of the matter, I consider it to be in the interest of justice to close this petition with the direction to the state respondents, more particularly, the Commissioner and Secretary, Government of Assam, Education De partment and Director of Elementary Education, Assam to cause immediate steps to be taken to examine the petitioners’ claim in the touchstone of the extant Gove rnment policy and if on such scrutiny, it is found to satisfy the conditions of eligibility mentioned therein, they would take appropriate decision(s) to redres s its grievances in accordance with law. This exercise as ordered above, should be completed within a period of 3 (three) weeks, from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. It is however made clear that if such a scrutiny has already been made pursuant to any earlier order of this Court and a decision has been taken, thereafter, the same ought not to be repeated. No costs.