Allowed

Sree Deepthi Educational Trust (Regd) v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Sept 2022WP/8347/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing an order rejecting a school's application to start 9th and 10th standards. The Court held that Rule 5 of the 2018 Amendment Rules did not apply to institutions established prior to the rules' commencement in March 2018.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the impugned order dated 03.02.2022; direction to Respondent No.3 to grant permission to commence 9th and 10th standard classes for 2022-23.

Sree Deepthi Educational Trust (Regd) Vs the… — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 8347 OF 2022 (EDN-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SREE DEEPTHI EDUCATIONAL TRUST (REGD) NO.24 AND 25, 1^ST CROSS BMK LAYOUT, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560026 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN SRI J S MURALIDHAR S/O LATE S MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. SATISH.K., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶11

THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶12

THE DIRECTOR (SECONDARY EDUCATION) OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SMT. SHWETHA KRISHNAPPA, AGA)

¶15

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD: 03.02.2022 VIDE ANNX-T FROM THE R-3 AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD: 03.02.2022 ISSUED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNX-T AND DIRECT

¶16

²

¶17

THE R-3 TO ACCORD PERMISSION TO THE PETITIONERINSTITUION TO COMMENCE 9^TH AND 10^TH STD IN ENGLISH MEDIUM FROMT HE ACADEMIC YEAR 2022-23.

¶18

THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶19

ORDER

¶20

In this petition, petitioner has sought for the following

¶21

reliefs:-

¶22

“ a) Call for records pertaining to the impugned order dated: 03.02.2022 (Annexure-T) from the Respondent No.3;

¶23

b) Issue Writ or Order quashing the impugned order dated: 03.02.2022 bearing No. C8 shaShiAa.HoProu.ShaNoomAanu/2021-22 issued by the Respondent No. 3 (Annexure-T) and direct the Respondent No.3 To Accord Permission to the petitioner- Institution to commence 9^th and 10^th std. in English Medium from the academic year 2022-23, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶24

c) Pass any other Order including the cost of the writ petition, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶26

³

¶27

The material on record discloses that the petitioner-Trust started the subject Educational Institution “Little Angels Public School” in the year 2013 for prenursery classes and permission was granted to run classes from 1^st Standard to 5^th Standard in 2015 and also 6^th standard to 8^th Standard for the academic year 2017-18 without grant-in-aid. On 25.11.2019, respondent No.2 issued a Circular prescribing guidelines for recognition and registration whereunder exemption was given to Educational Institutions, which had already been established from applicability/application of the Karnataka Educational Institutions(Classification, Regulation And Prescription Of Curricula) Amendment Rules, 2018 (for short “the Amendment Rules, 2018”), which came into force with effect from 08.03.2018.

¶28

On 20.01.2020, petitioner submitted an application for permission to commence classes for 9^th and 10^th Standard in English medium and applied for recognition along with Third Party Inspection Report dated 08.02.2020. Petitioner also entered into a rental agreement

¶29

⁴

¶30

on 11.02.2020 for a period of 27 years and obtained building safety certificates from BBMP for an even date and made a request on 12.02.2020 for grant of permission to start 9^th and 10^th Standard. The Inspection Report dated 20.05.2020 was also submitted by the petitioner.

¶31

On 30.09.2020, respondent No.3 rejected the application of the petitioner by raising certain objections, which were complied with by the petitioner, who resubmitted the application on 26.12.2020 along with Building Stability Certificate dated 05.01.2021 and Fire Safety Report dated 06.04.2021. Respondent No.3 once again rejected the request on 03.09.2021 on the ground that the Building Safety Certificate had not been uploaded and the site on which the school was established was less than 2,000 sq.mtrs. On 07.01.2022, the petitioner once again uploaded the requisite documents. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the aforesaid facts and circumstances, respondent No.3 has proceeded to reject the application of the petitioner on the ground that the property had not been converted for non-agricultural purposes in addition to the fact that the sital area was less

¶32

⁵

¶33

than 2,000 Sq.mtrs. as required under Rule 5 of the Amendment Rules, 2018 as recommended by the Three Member Committee. Aggrieved by the impugned endorsement dated 03.02.2022, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶34

A perusal of Rule 5 of the Amendment Rules, 2018 as clarified in the Circular dated 25.11.2019 issued by the respondents will clearly indicate that the same would not be applicable to Educational Institutions established and commenced prior to 08.03.2018 when the said amended rules came into force. In the instant case, the material on record clearly establishes that the Institution run by the petitioner had been established in 2013 itself and classes from pre-nursery up to 8^th Standard were being run by the petitioner prior to 08.03.2018 and consequently, the said amendment rules 2018, in particular, Rule 5 would not be applicable to the Institution run by the petitioner. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the respondents clearly committed an error in rejecting the application of the petitioner on the ground that there was no

¶35

⁶

¶36

compliance of Rule 5 of the Amendment Rules, 2018 without appreciating that the said Rules were not applicable to the petitioner, which was established and started much prior to the Rules and as such, the impugned endorsement issued by the respondents deserves to be set aside and necessary directions are to be issued to the respondents in this regard.

¶37

In the result, I pass the following:-

¶38

ORDER

¶39

(i) Petition is hereby allowed .

¶40

(ii) The impugned endorsement/order at Annexure-T dated 03.02.2022 issued/passed by respondent No.3 is hereby quashed.

¶41

(iii) Respondent No.3 is hereby directed to accord/grant permission to the petitioner to commence and run 9^th and 10^th Standard (English Medium) Classes in its Educational Institution for the academic year 2022-23 without reference to Rule 5 of the Karnataka Educational Institutions(Classification, Regulation And Prescription Of Curricula) Amendment Rules, 2018 and in accordance with

¶42

⁷

¶43

law and also subject to all other compliances and other provisions of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983.

¶44

(iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to produce additional documents with regard to all other compliances within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

Srl/Bmc

Sree Deepthi Educational Trust (Regd) v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sree Deepthi Educational Trust (Regd) v. the State of Karnataka

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

Gmr Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Assistant Director of Income Tax

Kum. Madhuri S Vs Karnataka State Law University

Smt.Venkamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Hemabasavaraju Vs Smt. Honnamma

Sri Govindaraju Vs the Deputy Registrar of Co. -

Ananthu K P Vs the State of Karnataka