Topic
Bombay High Court directs Maharashtra government to extend 100% grant-in-aid to Adarsh Madhyamik Vidyalay, Beed within six months, citing arbitrary denial despite eligibility and absence of distinguishing factors. The ruling underscores constitutional non-discrimination principles in education funding policies.
Karnataka High Court rules that a private engineering college receiving less than 85% grant-in-aid is not a 'public authority' under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, quashing orders of the Karnataka Information Commission.
Karnataka High Court clarifies that private colleges receiving less than 85% grant-in-aid do not qualify as 'public authorities' under the RTI Act, quashing the Information Commission's order. The ruling establishes a quantitative threshold for grant-in-aid dependency, impacting transparency obligations for aided institutions.
Private schools cannot demand retroactive grant-in-aid payments merely because they later qualified under updated state policy. The Bombay High Court affirmed that such funding is a policy choice, not a legal entitlement, safeguarding state fiscal autonomy and preventing unpredictable liabilities in public education financing.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that teachers appointed to sanctioned posts in 95% aided schools are entitled to state grant-in-aid even if appointment procedures deviated from formal rules, provided the hiring served the public interest in uninterrupted education. This sets a precedent protecting educators hired to fill critical vacancies where bureaucratic delays threatened student welfare.
CESTAT rules that reimbursement of capital expenditure under government grant-in-aid schemes does not constitute 'consideration' for taxable services under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994. The decision clarifies that such grants, even with counter-obligations, are not subject to service tax under the reverse charge mechanism, providing relief to businesses availing government subsidies.