IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No.519 of 2000. Judgment Reserved on:24.07.2006 Date of decision: 14.08.2006 Dr.Harish Lakhanpal & Ors. ….Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Petitioners: Mr.K.D. Sood, Advocate. For Respondents 1 & 2: Mr.M.S. Chandel, Advocate General with Mr.J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For Respondent No.3: Mr.V.D. Khidta, Advocate. For Respondent No.4: M/s.Anand Sharma & Tarlok Chauhan. Deepak Gupta,J. This judgment shall dispose of the writ petition filed by ten petitioners who are all working as Lecturers in Goswami Ganesh Dutt Sanatan Dharam College, Rajpur (Palampur), hereinafter referred to as “GGDSD College”. Their claim is that the Government should grant 95% Grant-in-aid to the said College and they should be paid the same salary in the same pay scale as is being paid to the Teachers in the Government Colleges with all other benefits. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 The case of the petitioners is based on the Rules known as “The Himachal Pradesh Non-Government Affiliated Colleges Grant-in-aid Rules, 1994, (Annexure P-2), hereinafter called the “Rules”. The State in its reply has taken the stand that the petitioners have no locus-standi to file the present petition since the Grant-in-aid is given to the College through its Management and not directly to the staff employed. It has further been stated that the Government is not under any obligation to assist all Private Colleges which are affiliated to the University and that the financial assistance to the Private Colleges is subject to the availability of funds. It is also the stand of the State that it is totally in the discretion of the State to decide as to which College is to be granted Grant-in-aid and there are no fetters on this discretion. The stand of the respondent No.4-College is that it has been continuously taking up the matter regarding Grant-in- aid with the respondents No.1 and 2, but Grant-in-aid has not been released to it, whereas the same has been released in favour of some other Colleges which were established after the respondent No.4-College and that the College has been discriminated against. At this stage, it would be pertinent to mention that earlier also a similar petition had been filed which was ordered to be treated as a 3 representation. This representation was rejected by the Director of Education on the following grounds:- “The govt. is not bound to release 95% grant to all the private colleges. It is subject to the availability of funds. This is the sole responsibility of the management to arrange, finance and gave pay/pay scales to the staff. The govt. is not under obligation to assist such college even if they are affiliated to H.P.U.” This decision is under challenge in this writ petition. At this stage, it will be pertinent to refer to some salient provisions of the Rules. Rule (4) of the Rules, which is relevant, reads as follows: “4. A non-government College having acquired the affiliation with the Himachal Pradesh University, shall be entitled to be governed by the provisions of these Rules automatically, but the State Govt.shall have such discretionary power to bring any college on the grant-in-aid list after careful consideration of merits of each case and position of the funds earmarked for the purpose of grant-in-aid”. It is not necessary to refer to other Rules in detail. However, the College or the Management has to apply to the Director of Education by 31st October 4 of the year for grant of assistance. Only the affiliated Colleges are granted such Grant-in-aid and the aid is paid only in respect of those lecturers/employees whose appointment has been duly approved by the University and the Director of Education is satisfied that the said employees/lecturers fulfill the educational and other elilgibility criteria. The petitioners, in my opinion, can have no vested right to claim that they should be given Grant- in-aid. In fact it is for the Management of the College to decide whether it wants to receive Grant- in-aid or not? Once a College agrees to receive Grant- in-aid, it has to comply with certain statutory obligations under the Rules. A College may not like to loose its autonomy and independence in these matters. Therefore, even if a College has applied for Grant-in-aid, but the application is rejected for whatever reason, it is only College which can challenge decision and not the staff of the College. In the present case, the College has supported the case of the petitioners and it is contended that the Government is granting aid in an arbitrary manner and has not framed any guidelines as to how the Grant-in-aid is to be distributed between the different Colleges and what is the criteria for bringing a college on the Grant-in-aid list,except for 5 the requirement of affiliation and having qualified staff as detailed above. It is well settled law that no authority can have absolute discretion in the matter of distribution of Government funds. There must be some rational and reasonable guidelines framed on the basis of which the Government largesse is to be distributed. This cannot be left to the whims or fancies of a particular officer or authority. The Rules only lay down the eligibility criteria, but do not lay down the norms as to how the aid is to be distributed or paid. From a perusal of the pleadings, it is apparent that seven Colleges are being given Grant-in-aid right from the very beginning. Thereafter, two more Colleges were added to the list and no other private College is being granted the aid and the rejection is only on the ground that it is for the Government to decide which College is to be given aid and which is not. In my opinion, it would be most salutary and appropriate if the Government frames certain guidelines and fixes the norms on the basis of which the grant-in-aid under the Rules is to be paid to certain Colleges. The said Grant-in-aid cannot be paid only to few private Colleges leaving all other private Colleges in a lurch. One can understand that the State is not in a financial position to give complete Grant-in-aid to all the Colleges in the State. However, that does not mean that only a few 6 chosen Colleges are to be given Grant-in-aid in perpetuity. There must be equitable distribution on the basis of well established criteria. Therefore, I am of the considered view that directions are required to be issued to the State in this regard and accordingly direct respondents No.1 and 2 to frame guidelines and lay down the norms and criteria for bringing a private college in the Grant-in-aid list and for distribution of the Grant-in-aid under the Rules. The Government has already fixed the eligibility criteria. The colleges which fulfill the eligibility criteria may through the Principal or the Management apply for Grant-in-aid on or before 30th October of the previous year for the subsequent financial year. The respondents No.1 and 2 shall prepare on or before 30th November of the previous year, a list of the colleges who have applied for the Grant-in-aid for the next financial year. Thereafter, keeping in view the amount available for being distributed as Grant-in-aid, the same shall be allotted equitably to all the eligible Colleges on the basis of some norms such as; (a) the date of establishment of the College; (b) the date since when the College has been granted affiliation. The State may also lay down other guidelines wherein preference may be given to Colleges which are opened in Backward Areas or areas where there is no 7 Government College existing. Similarly, the State may take a decision to give preference or weightage to the Colleges established in Rural Areas. In fact the State can go as far as to decide that Colleges privately established in Urban Areas where Government Colleges are already existing, shall not be given Grant-in-aid. The State in its wisdom may also frame the norms giving preference to those private Colleges which are either established in areas where a large number of students belong to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes or other backward categories. Other criteria, such as, the number of students, number of courses run, the academic results of previous years etc. can also be taken into consideration while framing the norms. It is obvious that in case such norms are framed, then the Rules will require certain amendments and the Colleges may not get (complete) 95% Grant-in-aid because of the equitable distribution involved. It is clarified that the various suggestions and guidelines enumerated above are some of those which have been suggested by the parties and which this Court felt necessary and appropriate. The State may while framing the norms take the suggestion of the Court into consideration and may also frame other guidelines in consonance with the suggestion given hereinabove. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms with 8 direction that the guidelines and norms be framed on or before 30th September, 2006. An affidavit in compliance be filed alongwith the guidelines in this Court on or before 10th October, 2006, when the matter be listed in the Court only for this purpose. No order as to costs. August 14, 2006. (Deepak Gupta) (aks) Judge.