1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3020/2005 Gandhi Girls Senior Secondary School Versus The State of Rajasthan & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 24.10.2007 HON'BLE DR. VINEET KOTHARI,J. Mr.B. L. Maheshwari, for the petitioner. Mr.O. P. Boob, G.A., for the respondent State. BY THE COURT: 1. Heard learned counsels. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner, which is Gandhi Girls Senior Secondary School inter alia claiming the relief against the State Government, whereby the State Government refused to provide grant-in-aid to the petitioner institution with respect to one teacher Smt. Snehlata, music teacher, on the ground that her appointment was not in accordance with the rules. 3. The alleged reasons given by the State Government for refusal of grant-in-aid with respect to this one teacher are two fold:- “(i) that the concerned teacher Smt. Snehlata did not possess the qualification of B.Ed./STC; and (ii)that there was no sanctioned post of music teacher in the said school.” 2/3 On these two reasons, the grant-in-aid was refused to the said institution. 4. Mr. B. L. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the requisite qualification for a music teacher is not B.Ed./STC but B.A.(Music) and the said qualification was duly possessed by the concerned teacher Smt. Snehlata and the Committee, which finalized her appointment in the said institution, one of the Government representative was also present and had consented to her appointment. Secondly, he submits that for the five sanctioned posts for the purpose of grant-in-aid for the said institution, since no separate classification was made, the post of music teacher could not be arbitrarily excluded by the State Government for the purpose of grant-in-aid. He submits that grant-in-aid has been refused to the institution only with respect to this one music teacher. The said submissions are opposed by learned G.A. for the aforesaid reasons. 5. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the record, this Court is of the opinion that there is no justifiable reason for the State to refuse the grant-in-aid to the petitioner institution with respect to the music teacher appointed by the petitioner institution on the alleged reasons assigned by the respondents. Firstly, as rightly pointed-out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the qualification for the appointment 3/3 of a music teacher is B.A. (Music) rather than B.Ed./STC with other subjects other than music. There seems to be no rationale in insisting upon the qualification of B.Ed./STC for appointment of a music teacher in the school for imparting the eduction on the subject of music to the students. Secondly, if five posts have been sanctioned by the State Government without specifying the subject wise classification of the teachers, there was no justification in denying the grant-in-aid on the ground that post of music teacher was not separately sanctioned by the State Government. Thus, both the reasons assigned by the respondent for refusal to provide grand-in-aid with respect to the concerned music teacher are found to be unsustainable. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to provide the grant-in-aid with respect to concerned music teacher of the petitioner institution right from the day when the petitioner institution was entitled to receive such grant-in-aid in respect of the said music teacher from the date of her appointment in the year 1992. The same may be done expeditiously not later than a period of three months from today. 7. With these observations, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. (Dr. VINEET KOTHARI) J. preety ITEM NO. 17