Dismissed

Savari Muthu Micheal Selvan v. the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC9 Jan 2018PIL/11/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a notification limiting the 25% admission rule to specific school categories as discriminatory and sought fee reimbursement. The court dismissed the P IL, holding the statutory distinction was valid and the plaintiff was unfit to bring a P IL for own grievances.

What did the court decide?

The Public Interest Litigation was dismissed as having no merit, and the Notice of Motion was disposed of.

Savari Muthu Micheal Selvan Vs the State of… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

PIL-11-16.doc .

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.11 OF 2016

¶4

Savari Muthu Micheal Selven ..Petitioner

¶5

Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents

¶6

ALONGWITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.643 OF 2017 IN

¶7

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.11 OF 2016

¶8

Savari Muthu Micheal Selven ..Applicant

¶9

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

¶10

Savari Muthu Micheal Selven ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents

¶11

Mr. Sagar Ganpat Talekar, Advocate for the Petitioner/Applicant. Mr. L. T. Satelkar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. H. C. Pimple a/w Mr. Sagar Patil i/by Mr. Jernold Josep Xavier, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 and 5.

¶12

CORAM : B. R. GAVAI & B. P. COLABAWALLA, JJ. DATE : 9^th JANUARY, 2018

¶13

P.C.

¶14

1] It is the grievance of the Petitioner that the notification dated

¶15

15^th March 2013, by which the Rules called as Maharashtra Right of Children Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2010, the manner of admission of Minimum 25% Children in Class I or Pre-School at the entry

¶16

level for the children belonging to disadvantaged group and weaker

1 of 4

BGP.

PIL-11-16.doc .

section has made applicable only to the schools covered by Section 2(n) (iii) and (iv) as prescribed in Section 12(1)(c) of the Right to Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, and not being made applicable to the schools covered by clause (i) and (ii) of Sub Section (n) of Section 2 and such are discriminatory in nature.

¶21

2] The second grievance of the Petitioner is that the fees which are to be reimbursed to the schools covered by the said Rules are not reimbursed to the said schools within the stipulated period.

¶22

3] In so far as the first grievance is concerned, we find that the said grievance is without substance. The perusal of clause (iii) of Sub Section (n) of Section 2 would reveal that, said Section deals with the school belonging to specified category. In so far as clause (iv) is concerned, it deals with an unaided school not receiving any kind of aid or grants to meet its expenses from the appropriate Government or the local authority. It could thus be seen that, the said Rules have been framed pertaining to 25% admissions to be granted in schools belonging to the specified category and the unaided schools not receiving grant in aid from the State Government.

¶23

4] Perusal of Sub Section (1) of Section 12 would reveal that separate provisions have been made under clauses (a), (b) and (c) for BGP. 2 of 4

¶24

PIL-11-16.doc .

¶25

different types of schools.

¶26

5] In so far as schools specified in clause (i) of Sub Section (n) of Section 2 i. e. a school established, owned or controlled by the appropriate Government or local authority, clause (a) of Sub Section (1) of Section 12 provides that, such schools would be bound to provide free and compulsory elementary education to all the children admitted therein.

¶27

6] Clause (b) of Sub Section (1) of Section 12 is applicable to schools coming in clause (ii) of Section (n) of Section 2. The said schools are receiving aid or grants to meet whole or part of its expenses from the appropriate Government or the local authority. For these types of schools, it is provided that they shall provide free and compulsory education to such proportion of children admitted therein. In proportion to the grantin-aid received by them subject to minimum 25%. It could thus be seen that, the provision is made in the statute itself. If a school receives 100% grant-in-aid, such a school will have to provide free and compulsory education for all 100% students. Likewise, if it is receiving 50% grant-inaid, still have to provide free and compulsory education to 50% students. Only rider is that even if school receives grant-in-aid less than 25%, still it will be required to provide free and compulsory education to minimum

3 of 4

BGP.

PIL-11-16.doc .

25% students.

6] It could thus be seen that, when the statutory provisions contained in Section 12 themselves have made sufficient provision for schools covered under clause (i) and (ii) of Sub Section (n) of Section 2, there is no necessity to make any rules for regulating admissions therein. In so far as the schools covered under clause (iii) and (iv) of Sub Section (n) of Section 2 are concerned, they stand totally on different footing. We therefore do not find that there is any substance in the challenge with regard to the discrimination.

¶33

7] In so far as the second grievance is concerned, if any of the managements has a grievance that they are not receiving reimbursement of the fees, they can very well approach this Court. A Public Interest Litigation would not be tenable at the behest of the party who is competent enough to espouse its own cause. In that view of the matter, we find that there is no merit in the Petition. The same is dismissed.

¶34

8] In view of dismissal of Public Interest Litigation, Notice of Motion does not survive and accordingly stand disposed of.

¶35

[B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]

¶36

[B. R. GAVAI, J.]

¶37

4 of 4

¶38

BGP.

Savari Muthu Micheal Selvan v. the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Savari Muthu Micheal Selvan v. the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dnyaneshwar Dattatraya Dhere Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Narendra Gotu Pardeshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ratan Soli Luth Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sushma Kailash Dubey Vs the Chief Executive Officer Sra and 2 Ors.

Sunil S/O Pandhari Awchar Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department of Home, Mumbai and Others

Onkarnath Lalchandji Karva vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Surendrasinh Mohansinh Parmar Vs the Union Territory of Dadra Nagar Haveli and Ors.

Aniket Satish Amberkar S/O. Satish M. Amberkar Vs the State of Maharashtra Throiugh Its Principal Secretary Revenue Dept. and Ors.

Mr. Sunil Dayal Rajani Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Sunil Dinanath Dubey Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Anala Pandit Vs Director, Directorate of Technical Education and 4 Ors.

Mrs. Zakiya Mumtaz Khan @ Zakiya Abdul Malik Vs the Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay (Education Dept.) Annd 3 Ors.

Shri. Asif Adam Shaikh and Ors. Vs Administrative Officer, Primary Education Board, Municipal Corporation, Solapur and Ors.

Ganesh Subhash Dhore Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.