1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 27.05.2019 passed in W.P. Nos. 202037-38/2019 and the operative portion of the said order reads as under:

The respondents are hereby directed to reconsider the representation of the petitioner dated 22.11.2014, in the light of above said observations made by this Court, if necessity arises by taking opinion of the law department before passing such an order, the respondents are hereby directed to consider the said application afresh within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

2. Against the said order the Government has come in appeal stating that the earlier application was given under the old scheme where there was no facility for permitting the respondent/petitioner-society to increase the intake of students. The earlier application of the respondent/petitioner-society was dated 22.11.2014 and as there was difference between the old and the new scheme, said application for increase of intake was not considered.

3. Subject matter of the writ petitions was that the petitioner-society had started a residential school for blind girls and the Government, in its wisdom, had granted financial aid by order dated 06.03.2008 which included food and allowance for 25 students, salary for three teachers and non-teaching staff. Subsequently in view of increase of blind girls, the petitioner-society had sought for increase of intake of number of students from 50 to 75 in order to cater to the needs of the society. That application was rejected by the Government and thereafter, the petitioner-society had filed W.P. Nos. 206139/2015 and 204843/2016. This Court had directed the respondents to reconsider the said representation. As the said representation was not properly considered, petitioner society had approached this Court in another writ petition in W.P. No. 206139/2015 wherein this Court had directed the respondents to consider the said representation keeping in mind several observations of the Court. At the end of the day said writ petition came to be allowed with the following operative portion:

'Considering the fact that petitioner's representation is still pending with the respondents, considering the fact that two years have already lapsed, the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 22.11.2014, while keeping in mind that the State has large population of the visually challenged child including girl child, keeping in mind that, it is the duty of the State to educate such children, keeping in mind the two positive reports already given by District Disabled Welfare Officer, Respondent No.4 and the Karnataka State Legislative Council and keeping in mind that the State has a Constitutional obligation towards the physically challenged citizens of the State. This Court directs the respondents to decide the petitioner's representation within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In case, the petitioner-Society is still aggrieved by any decision, which may be adverse to its interest, the petitioner-Society is free to challenge the same before this Court.

4. Smt. Anuradha Desai, learned Government Advocate would submit that under the new scheme certain guidelines are formed and therefore certain documents were sought from the respondent/petitioner- society and so far said documents have not been furnished by the respondent/petitioner-society. She further submits that in this connection intimation was given on 25.01.2021 and there is only partial compliance of the said requirement.

5. Learned Government Advocate further submits that one of the prime requirements for a teacher of a blind school is he/she must possess separate skill to communicate with the blind children and the teacher must possess qualification of Special B.Ed. However, after filing of the second application a letter was addressed by the appellants/respondents to the District Disabled Welfare Officer wherein one of the requirements in respect of teaching and non-teaching staff for the said school was mentioned as, Head Master - 01, Graduate teachers (Science and Arts) - 03, skilled Teacher - 01, Attender - 01. A perusal of the said letter also indicates that on perusal of the documents submitted by the respondent/petitioner-society it is clear that both the teachers of the respondent/petitioner-society have done Diploma in visually impaired course and they have not done Special B.Ed. course.

6. Sri. Sharanbasappa K. Babshetty, learned counsel appearing for respondent/petitioner-society submits that as per the notification dated 23.01.2012 for appointment as a teacher in the blind school, the candidate must possess special B.Ed. degree and insofar as teachers in English and other language is concerned, the candidate should possess graduation in Arts with English language as optional and special B.Ed. (Blind Children Education Training). But, an alternate is also provided in the said notification. In case teacher possessing B.Ed. with special education training is not available, then a candidate who possesses Diploma with Blind Children Training can be considered.

7. On perusal of the said notification we notice that the Government is entitled to select the candidates in accordance with the established procedure. But, when the matter boils down to two teachers, when teachers with Special B.Ed. or B.Ed. with special blind education training are not available, said notification provides for considering the graduates with Diploma with Blind Children Education Training. However, learned Government Advocate submits that the said relaxation is in respect of appointment of teachers in the schools run by the Government. At this juncture, we notice that the school run by the respondent/petitioner- society is not a government school.

8. Having said that it is to be noted that it is a school established for blind girl students. It was started with grant of permission with the intake of 25 students and thereafter application seeking permission for extension of number of students came to be filed under the new scheme.

9. In the matter regarding management/ administration of an educational institution, if a particular detail is not clarified nor provided, then following the procedure of the Government may be permitted in the circumstances of the case. Under the circumstances what could be inferred in the context of this matter is that when the Government schools are permitted to consider the candidature of Diplomaholders there is no impediment for considering the candidature of Dipolomaholders to the institution run by the respondent/petitioner-society.

10. Though the said notification is not the subject matter of this writ petition, the meaning of that particular paragraph in the Notification dated 23.01.2012 which indicates that candidates with Diploma in blind children training can be considered, the same is found to be acceptable for private institutions also. If such process is followed, no prejudice will be caused to ends of justice.

11. Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed off.

12. The appellants/respondents can as well seek the requirements which are not yet furnished by the petitioner-society. The entire exercise be completed resulting in consideration of the application in accordance with law as stated above. The process at the office level of the appellants/respondents shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.