IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22936 of 2004 Between: Sri Venkateswara Junior College, Bhimadole, W.G.District, rep. by its Correspondent and Executive Officer, Sri Venkateswara Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Dwaraka Tirumala, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND State of A.P., rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Higher Education, Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to Issue a writ or order or direction especially one in teh nature of Mandamus to admit the S.V.Junior College, Bhimadole to grant-in-aid and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.VENUGOPALA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition has been filed by Sri Venkateswara Junior College, Bhimadole assailing the action of the respondents in not admitting its college to grant-in-aid. It is stated that pending the writ petition the representation of the petitioner came to be considered which ultimately culminated in issuance of G.O.Rt.No.169 Higher Education Department, dated 5.3.2002 whereby and where under the request of the petitioner- college to admit to grant in aid is deferred in view of the difficult ways and means as there was an additional commitment to the tune of Rs.37.00 lakhs. Consequently, the petitioner filed WPMP.No.19422 of 2007 seeking amendment of the relief sought for in the writ petition and the said petition came to be ordered on 10-8-2007. The petitioner-college came to be established under G.O.Ms.No.379, Education Department, dated 12.9.1983. The petitioner college is managed by Sri Venkateswara Swamy Devasthanam, Dwaraka Tirumala. Since the management of the college has become expensive, a representation has been made to the government to admit it for grant in aid. It is the grievance of the petitioner-college that many colleges have been granted grant in aid and whereas such benefit is not being extended to it. It is stated in the counter affidavit by the respondents that the proposal of the petitioner-college for grant in aid has been examined and found it no feasible to accede to the request of the petitioner and accordingly G.O.Rt.No.169 Higher Education Department, dated 5.3.2002 has been issued. It is further stated that the petitioner has no right to demand for admission to grant in aid. As per the provisions of Section 45(2) and (3) of Education Act, the Government may or may not sanction grant in aid. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-college submits that the Government considered to admit similarly situated colleges to grant in aid while refusing such a request of the petitioner-college which amounts to discrimination and therefore necessary direction is required to be given to the respondents to extend similar benefit to the petitioner-college. Learned Government Pleader for Higher Education submits that the petitioner-college has neither a constitutional right nor a legal right to get grant-in-aid. The issue is no more res-integra in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Y.SIDDA REDDY V. GOVERNMENT OF A.P[1], wherein it has been held that in respect of educational institutions other than those imparting education to children below 14 years, the State owes no legal obligtion to extend financial assistance either partially or wholly. Para 49 of the judgment reads as under: “ 49. With reference to educational institutions other than those imparting education to children below 14 years, the State owes no legal obligation to extend financial assistance either partially or wholly. If the State renders such assistance in any particular year that is a policy choice of the State for the particular year and the State in our view cannot be compelled to continue the assistance for ever to an educational institution which had received some assistance.” In view of the settled proposition of law, no mandamus can be issued to the respondents to admit the petitioner-college for grant in aid. However, since the request of the petitioner- college is stated to have been deferred, the petitioner-college is at liberty to make a fresh application and in which case the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders within four weeks thereafter. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 22nd June, 2009. (B.Seshasayana Reddy,J) tnb ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.22936 OF 2004 23RD JUNE 2009. [1] 2006(1) ALT 354 (DB)