Oral Judgment:

Pravin S. Patil, J.

1. By these petitions, the challenge is to the Government Resolutions dated 01.04.2026 and 02.04.2026, whereby the State Government, has disqualified Primary and Secondary Schools permanently from receiving grant-in-aid from State Government, as those schools repeatedly failed to satisfy the norms of assessments and directed them to submit applications under the provisions of the Maharashtra Self-Financed Schools (Establishment and Regulation) Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the “Self-Finance Act”) on or before 30.04.2026. It is further clarified in the said Resolutions that, in case the managements/schools failed to submit their applications on or before 30.04.2026, their recognition shall stand cancelled automatically, and the students in such schools will be absorbed into nearby grant-in-aid schools or other schools run by local authorities. The relevant extract of G.R. dated 01.04.2026 is reproduced as under :

                   

                   

2. The petitioners approached before this Court by raising various grounds to challenge the policy framed by the Government. However, their prime submission is that though the drastic action is taken by the State Government, no hearing opportunity were granted to them. Therefore, it is their submissions that on the sole ground of non-grant of hearing opportunity, the impugned drastic action of disqualification of concerned schools to receive grant-in-aid is unsustainable and same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

3. According to the petitioners, as per the settled principles of law, every action of the State must be informed by reasons. Any action not supported by reasons amounts to arbitrary action and, therefore, they are entitled to question the same before this Court to redress their grievance.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has strongly objected to the submissions made by the petitioners. According to the learned AGP, the perusal of the Government Resolution, itself demonstrates that the State Government while framing guidelines to provide grant-in-aid has already prescribed a due procedure. It is also pointed out that the present petitioners’ Managements/Schools failed to satisfy the assessment criteria laid down in the Government Resolution dated 15.11.2011 and, therefore, by giving opportunity to the present petitioners, the said action was taken by the Government. According to the learned AGP, there is no substance in the submission of the petitioners and, therefore, petitions deserve to be dismissed.

5. In light of the submissions of both the parties, we have first perused the policy of Government whereby norms of assessment to provide grant-in-aid to schools is laid down. The Government Resolution dated 15.11.2011, is the basic resolution by which guidelines were framed for assessment of the Primary and Secondary Marathi Schools, for their entitlement to grant-in-aid. The State Government, accordingly, under the chairmanship of Secretary, School Education Department constituted a Committee to implement the said guidelines for assessment. The perusal of the Government Resolution further demonstrates the fact that at every District Level, the Committee of 7 members has been constituted. The District Education Officer was made the chairman of the said Committee. As per the Annexures ‘A’ and ‘B’, enclosed with Government Resolution provides the format under which the Management has to submit their applications giving details of the school. The Committee members have to allot the marks to the school on the basis of availability of facilities in the school, by visiting the school and verifying the details stated by them in their application.

6. The Government Resolution dated 15.11.2011 further provides that after the verification of proposal by the District Level Committee, it is required to forward to the Verification Committee of which the Deputy Director of Education of the Region is the Chairman along with other two members. Then Education Officer is required to publish the list of qualified and disqualified schools within a period of one month after the decision of Verification Committee headed by Deputy Director of Education and also to communicate the marks obtained by each school. It is also clarified that those Schools which are for three consecutive year failed to satisfy the norms of assessment for receiving grant in aid will be held disqualified. It will be relevant to reproduce the relevant extract of G.R. dated 15.11.2011 as under :

                   

                  7. In the present case, the submissions of the petitioners is that they were never communicated any decision by Education Officer of the District. On the contrary, one group of the petitioners stated that their proposals of grant-in-aid has been accepted by the State Government and the schools were held entitled for grant-in-aid. For this purpose, the petitioners have relied upon the Government Resolution dated 06.02.2023. By this Resolution, the State Government has declared the names of the schools, which are entitled for grant-in-aid. In the said Resolution, it is also mentioned that non-declared schools (v*tt`ि”tr ‘ttGt) would be entitled for 20% grant-in-aid. Hence, the submission of one group of the petitioners is that once the State Government has held them entitled for grant-in-aid, then without granting opportunity of hearing, the Government cannot take adverse decision against them in the matter. The same is in violation of principles of natural justice.

8. The second group of the petitioners submits that, they have forwarded their proposals in terms of Government Resolution dated 15.11.2011 and subsequent Government Resolution to the District Level Committee. According to them, their proposals are till date under process. The State Government till date not rejected their proposals nor communicated about the rejection of their proposals. Therefore, holding them disqualified by alleging that the respective schools repeatedly failed to satisfy the assessment criteria is per-se illegal. Therefore, according to them, impugned action de-hors the provisions of law and liable to be quashed and set aside.

9. The third group in the present petitions alleged that as per the policy of the State Government, their proposals for grant-in-aid are ready but the District Level Committee is not accepting their proposals. As such, till date, no proper assessment of their schools has been done. According to them, in absence of any assessment done by the District Level Committee, the State Government cannot disqualify them on the ground that they repeatedly failed to fulfill the assessment norms and, thereby permanently disqualified for grant-in-aid.

10. The perusal of Government Resolutions dated 01.04.2026 and 02.04.2026 shows that the State Government by its Resolution dated 01.04.2026 has disqualified 433 Primary Schools and 33 additional Classes running on non grant-in-aid basis of various schools. Likewise, as per the Government Resolution dated 02.04.2026, 324 Secondary Schools and 412 additional classes running on non-grant in-aid basis are held to be disqualified permanently from receiving grant-in-aid. Most of these Primary and Secondary Schools are Marathi Medium Schools and few schools are from other mediums. These schools are situated in a rural areas and some schools in a remote area, wherein the students have been admitted long back and the Management is discharging public function of providing education to the students of such Primary and Secondary Schools.

11. It is further pertinent to note that in each Primary and Secondary Schools, the management has already appointed the staff and with the help of those staff members, they are discharging public function of imparting education to the students at rural area. Therefore, State Government ought to have considered the fact that due to this drastic action, students at large and also the teaching and non-teaching staff working in the schools would be adversely affected. However, there is no consideration to this material aspects in the matter.

12. The perusal of the provisions of Self-Finance act, 2012 clearly demonstrates the fact that it is the prerogative of the management for moving an application to the State Government to start the schools under the provisions of Self-Finance Act 2010. It is well settled position of law, by executing order, statutory provisions can not be over-ride. On this count also we found that the directions given by the State Government to the schools, to move appropriate application under the provisions of the Self Finance Act, 2012 to run the school is not justified in the matter.

13. It is noted by this Court from the submission made by the parties that their schools received the permission from the State Government long back and after granting permission, Education Department has granted recognition to the schools by invoking the powers available under the provisions of Secondary School Code. As such, as on date, their status is of recognized schools. Under the provisions of Secondary School Code, the mechanism is provided for withdrawal of recognition of the schools. However, in the present case, without taking the recourse of said provisions, directly, the State Government has passed the order of withdrawing their recognition and absorbing the students in the other schools. In our considered opinion, before taking such decision, the respective schools and the teachers as well as students, who are prosecuting their studies in the schools, the fate of staff working in the schools, whether there are availability of neighboring schools to absorb the students ought to have been looked into the matter and for this purpose, hearing opportunity ought to have been granted to them. For the perusal, the details of the school when it was permitted to start and present status is reproduced as under:

                   

                 From these details, it can be seen that all these schools are having due permissions from State Government as well as recognition from Education Authorities. No record is available to the effect that before disqualification of them, for consecutive three years schools failed to satisfy the norms of assessment to receive grant-in-aid. The institutions are imparting education. The institutions are functioning for several years. Therefore, before taking a drastic action against them, without granting opportunity of hearing, is certainly illegal in the facts and circumstances of the matter.

14. It is noted by us that by these Government Resolutions, most of the school from 433 Primary Schools and 324 Secondary Schools are providing the education in Marathi medium at various places and more particularly, in rural areas are likely to be closed down by the impugned order. The State Government at one hand is insisting that Marathi language should be given importance in the entire State and on the other hand, by said action, trying to close down Marathi schools. As such, this action is not in accordance with the object, which State is trying to achieve in the State of Maharashtra. So also, the students, who belongs to poor family and prosecuting their studies in Marathi Medium Schools or other Medium Schools cannot be deprived from primary and secondary education, which the private management is trying to provide them through their institutions.

15. At the cost of repetition, we again reiterated that while closing down the schools, various factors are required to be considered by the State Government. Such as, whether the schools can be converted as the Self-Finance Schools by the direction under the Government Resolution, particularly when provisions of Self-Finance Act is having altogether different procedure to grant permission. Secondly, whether the teaching and non-teaching staff working in the Marathi Primary and Secondary Schools can be absorbed in the Self-Finance School, particularly there is no provisions of absorption of staff working in non grant-in-aid school. Thirdly, if the students, those are in large numbers can be accommodated in the nearby schools, particularly, when in the rural and remote area, there are no sufficient schools for the students to prosecute their studies. Whether the medium in which students are prosecuting their studies can be continued in same medium in other schools. However, these facts are totally ignored by the State Government while taking this decision. Therefore, in our considered opinion, it is absolutely necessary for the Government to conduct the individual hearing of each schools before taking any drastic action against them by at least adopting the procedure which is contemplated under the Government Resolution dated 15.11.2011.

16. It would be relevant to refer the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of S.G. Jaysinghani Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1967 SC 1427. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically observed in this judgment that in a system governed by rule of law, discretion, when conferred upon the executing authorities, must be confined within clearly defined limits. The decision should be made by application of known principles and rules and, in general, such decisions should be predictable and the citizens should know where he is. If a decision is taken without any principle or without any rule, it is unpredictable and such decision is the antithesis of a decision taken in accordance with the Rule of law. It would be relevant to refer the paragraph No.14 in this regard, wherein observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as under.

                    “14. In this context it is important to emphasize that the absence of arbitrary power is the first essential of the rule of law upon which our whole constitutional system is based. In a system governed by rule of law, discretion, when conferred upon executive authorities, must be confined within clearly defined limits. The rule of law from this point of view means that decisions should be made by the application of known principles and rules and, in general, such decisions should be predictable and the citizen should now where he is. If a decision is taken without any principle or without any rule it is unpredictable and such a decision is the antithesis of a decision taken in accordance with the Rule of law. (See Dicey Law of the Constitution -10th Edn., Introduction ex). "Law has reached its finest moments," stated Douglas, J. in United States v. Wunderuck, "when it has freed man from the unlimited discretion of some ruler.... Where discretion, is absolute, man has always suffered". It is in this sense that the rule of law may be said to be the sworn enemy of caprice. Discretion, as Lord Mansfield slated it in classic terms in the case of John Wilkes, "means sound discretion guided by law. It must be governed by Rule, not by humour: it must not be arbitrary, vague, and fanciful.”

17. In view of this decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and subsequent catena of judgment, it is time and again held that any adverse order passed by the Government, though need not contain the reasons like the Court order but, it must contain reasons to disclose as to how they arrived at such decision showing application of mind. As such, appropriate reasons are necessary for a valid order in support of action or decision taken by the authority or by the State.

18. In the present matter, learned AGP failed to point out from the impugned Government Resolution that any such hearing opportunity was given to the petitioners in the matter, the factors which we have noted above are considered and after due consideration of the relevant aspects the decision is taken in the matter. The lame attempt has been made by stating that the Government has issued one letter dated 20.12.2022, whereby the petitioners were given one month notice to satisfy the deficiencies in their assessment proposal. However, the petitioners came with a specific submission that no such notice of any kind was issued to them by the State Government. It is clear from the record that said notice which is relied by the State Government came to be issued before issuing the Government Resolution dated 06.02.2023, by which most of the schools were held entitled for grant-in-aid. Here the challenge is to the Government Resolutions dated 01.04.2026 and 02.04.2026 which are issued about 4 years later than the communication dated 20.12.2022, which according to us is not related in the matter.

19. In light of the above reasons, we are satisfied that the action taken under the impugned Government Resolutions dated 01.04.2026 and 02.04.2026 of closing down the primary schools without granting them opportunity of hearing is in violation of principles of natural justice, hence, both these Government Resolutions are held to be not applicable to the extent of petitioners. Government is hereby directed, to delete the names of petitioner institutions from the list of the schools which is published along with the Government Resolutions dated 01.04.2026 and 02.04.2026.

20. Needless to mention that the petitioners would continue their respective schools and no action as contemplated under the Government Resolutions dated 01.04.2026 and 02.04.2026 can be initiated against them in the matter.

21. In terms of above directions, the Writ Petitions stand disposed of. No order as to the costs.