Disposed

The S M English High School v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Mar 2023WP/5225/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A minority school sought permanent recognition renewal; the State denied it due to a change in location. Students were tagged to a Government school for exams. The court protected students' exam rights but refused permanent recognition, directing the State to list the school name on current marks cards pending compliance with statutory requirements.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed. State directed to permit students to write 10th exam at Government High School but show petitioner school's name on marks cards subject to school complying with recognition requirem

The S M English High School Vs State of Karnataka — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 5225 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5225 OF 2023 (EDN-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE S M ENGLISH HIGH SCHOOL MANAGED BY SAJIDUN MUNEERA

¶9

EDUCATION SOCIETY HOODI, BENGALURU-560 048 BY ITS SECRETARY MR.SHEHZADE FURGUNDE NAZIR AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O.LATE M.NAZIR AHMED

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI G.R.MOHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY/PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY AND

¶14

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SECONDARY EDUCATION M.S.BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560 001

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS K.R. CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 001

¶17

THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS PRIMARY EDUCATION NRUPATHUNGA ROAD

¶18

¶19

WP No. 5225 of 2023

¶20

K.R.CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 001

¶21

THE DIRECTOR SSLC EXAMINATION BOARD MALLESWARAM BENGALURU-560 003

¶22

THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER BENGALURU SOUTH K.R. PURAM BENGALURU-560 036

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT.PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THEIR CASE FOR HAVING GRANTED PERMANENT RECOGNITION NOT TO INSIST FOR RENEWAL OF RECOGNITION TIME AND AGAIN IN THE LIGHT OF THE APEX COURT’S JUDGEMENT IN TMA PAI FOUNDATION VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS TO THE EFFECT THAT RIGHT OF CHILDREN TO FREE AND COMPULSORY EDUCATION ACT, 2009 AND RULES THEREUNDER WILL PREVAIL OVER THE KARNATAKA EDUCATION ACT, 1983 AND RULES THEREUNDER FOR THE PURPOSES OF RECOGNITION AND RENEWAL OF RECOGNITION ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE MINORITY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND ETC.

¶26

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned

¶29

Additional Government Advocate for respondents.

¶30

The petitioner is an English High School managed

¶31

by a Society called Sajidun Muneera Education Society, which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is a

¶32

¶33

WP No. 5225 of 2023

¶34

Private School which is an unaided private minority educational institution in Bengaluru South. The petitioner-School was given permanent recognition after the School got itself registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner-School is also a Religious Minority Educational Institution as per the Status Certificate issued by the Government of Karnataka i.e. State Minority Commission dated 30.12.1986.

¶35

The petitioner-School got its permanent recognition as per Section 38 of the Act to run English Medium School and for High School 9^th and 10^th standard from 2006-07.

¶36

It is the contention of petitioner that for every academic year, after coming into force of the Act in the year 1995, the petitioner-School submitted consolidated nominal roll for SSLC main examination to the Karnataka Secondary School Education Board after remitting requisite fee and submitting draft hall ticket and the petitioner-School was issued with hall tickets after incorporating corrections, if any. It is also the contention of petitioner-School that they had got valid permanent recognition and renewal upto 2022.

¶37

¶38

WP No. 5225 of 2023

¶39

This being the state of affairs, the petitioner-School applied for renewal of recognition by submitting online application for the academic year 2022-2023 and uploaded the details and paid the requisite fee in the month of August, 2022. The petitioner-School was in a shock after receiving the information that respondent No.5-Block Education Officer, Bengaluru South issued a letter dated 20.12.2022 stating that the School has not obtained permission to shift to another building and that the renewal of recognition is not granted and hence tagged on for 10^th standard SSLC exam students of the petitioner-School to Government High School, Hoodi, Bengaluru South Zone-4.

¶40

Pursuant to this, the petitioner-School sent a clarification to respondent No.5 dated 24.01.2023 stating that since 2015, the School was functioning in the same premises and as per the renewal of recognition letter issued by Deputy Director of Public Instructions dated 20.09.2017, the School is run in the same location. In view of issuance of letter by the Block Education Officer regarding the School not being recognized and 10^th standard students of the petitioner-School being tagged on to the Government High School, Hoodi, the

¶41

¶42

WP No. 5225 of 2023

¶43

petitioner is before this Court seeking appropriate remedy and relief.

¶44

It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for petitioner that the School is duly registered under Sections 30 and 31 and recognized as per Section 38 of the Act. It is further contended by learned counsel for petitioner that in the absence of issuance of any show cause notice to the petitioner-School, the students of unaided private educational institution for SSLC examination being tagged on with the Government High School for the purpose of writing the examinations and also the same would be reflected in their marks card eventually issued to the students of the petitioner-School of 10^th Grade is violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 21-A of the Constitution of India.

¶45

Learned counsel further contends that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TMA Pai Foundation vs. State of Karnataka, the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court, wherein the rights of minority institutions was upheld and the Right to Education Act, 2009 is not applicable to both aided and unaided minority Schools as reported and also the recent orders passed by the Full Bench of

¶46

¶47

WP No. 5225 of 2023

¶48

this Court in WP.No.3853/2022 which says that nothing in this Act or the Rules made thereunder shall apply to any minority educational institution to the extent they are inconsistent with the rights guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution of India.

¶49

It is the grievance of the petitioner-School that at the fag end of the academic year, if SSLC students are denied admission/hall tickets to them and now, in view of the letter issued by Block Education Officer, the students of 10^th Grade being tagged on to the Government High School for writing the exams and the same may reflect in the marks sheet of 10^th standard would be prejudicial to the interest of the School as well as the students of 10^th standard studying in the petitionerSchool and from the past 10 years. The students of the petitioner-School having taken admission in the said School with an intent to study in the said School i.e. S.M.English High School now cannot be relegated to the Government High School which would reflect in their marks card of 10^th standard and the

¶50

same would be prejudicial to their interest as they had not intended to join any Government High School, but the student of the petitioner-School having paid necessary fee and other

¶51

¶52

WP No. 5225 of 2023

¶53

tuition fee/annual fee, they are entitled to get the marks card in which the petitioner-School is shown rather than that of the Government High School. Learned counsel further contends that for the fault of the School, the students of 10^th Grade or other classes cannot be penalized. If there is any such deliberate fault on the School having known this aspect of derecognition or non-recognition of the School leading to such consequences; it is the School which has to be held responsible and the students cannot be blamed or held responsible. On these grounds, learned counsel for petitioner seeks to allow this petition and pass a suitable order by issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondent-State to grant permanent recognition and not to insist for renewal of recognition time and again, in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TMA Pai Foundation vs. State of Karnataka .

¶54

Per contra , learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the petitioner-School having applied for grant of recognition for the academic year 2022-2023, the recognition has been denied for the reasons stated therein in the online application form. It is not in dispute that initially, the petitioner-School was granted recognition and it had continued

¶55

¶56

WP No. 5225 of 2023

¶57

till the academic year 2021-2022. However, pursuant to the fresh renewal application being made by the petitioner-School and having shifted the School from one location to other location, which is not in dispute, the respondents have denied grant of recognition and rejected the application for recognition dated 30.01.2023 by virtue of online rejection. The petitioner has not bothered to approach this Court at the earliest point of time and has approached this Court at the fag end of the academic year, when already the respondents have tagged on the School pertaining to 10^th standard SSLC students to a Government High School due to non-recognition, so that, the students of 10^th Grade are not put into difficulty. However, the non-recognition continues and the rejection of renewal also continues.

¶58

It is seen that it is nobody’s case that the School did not have recognition earlier. The fact remains that the recognition was sought for the period 2022-2023 by the petitioner by paying necessary fee to the respondents. But in view of shifting of the School and for the reasons otherwise stated by the respondents, the recognition of the School has been withdrawn and the same has not been renewed. The

¶59

¶60

WP No. 5225 of 2023

¶61

petitioner-School and the students are in a predicament to the fact that having studied for past 10 years and so on and expecting the Board to issue the marks card to the students of SSLC as that of their original School namely, S.M.English High School are now in ‘a catch-22 situation’, in view of nonrecognition of the School and rejection by the State. Though they have been protected by the State to take up the examination in the Government High School, however, in the event of recognition not been granted, the students of 10^th Grade SSLC of the petitioner-School would be securing 10^th Class SSLC marks card showing the name of Government High School instead of SM English High School. This would certainly dent the morale and future of the children of the School as it is in the mind set of the students, so also the Society that studying in a Government School is inferior to that of SM English High School.

¶62

Be that as it may, the point for consideration is that the students have all along studied from 1^st standard to 10^th standard in the said petitioner-School namely, SM English High School. At the fag end of the academic year of 10^th standard i.e. 2022-2023, if the students are given to the Government

¶63

10 -

¶64

WP No. 5225 of 2023

¶65

High School, then it may not be correct on the part of the State as the Government High School has not provided them the education and students have not attended the said School. It is also a fact that the petitioner-School has not sought for renewal on time and the application made on 30.01.2023 for recognition and renewal has been rejected by respondentState.

¶66

The petitioner has approached this Court on 02.03.2023 seeking for the afore stated reliefs. The petitioner has not approached this Court on time, however, that cannot be a ground to reject the petition of the petitioner considering the fact that the students of 10^th Grade will be put into several difficulty morally and also on the career front if their marks card reflect the School as Government High School rather than SM English High School. It is the bounden duty of the petitioner-School to obtain the recognition by complying with all the requirements stipulated by the State and prescribed by the State Government which is a necessary requirement under the statute.

¶67

11 -

¶68

WP No. 5225 of 2023

¶69

Be that as it may, the question before this Court is the students of 10^th class would be taking their crucial examination of 10^th class/SSLC Board exams. The petitioners now before this Court and the students who are not before this Court would be at difficulty and alleged inferiority for mentioning the School as Government High School rather than S.M.English High School. This aspect will have to be protected for the students of 10^th Grade and also the School. Though the petitioner has made a prayer to grant permanent recognition and not to insist for renewal of recognition, the said prayer cannot be granted when the law prescribes certain requirements and same will have to be fulfilled and the petitioner will have to seek necessary recognition by complying with such requirements prescribed under the statute. Therefore I am not inclined to interfere with the rejection of the application made by the respondent to the petitioner-School for the reasons assigned therein. However, the interest of 10^th Grade students of the petitioner-School requires to be protected.

¶70

Learned Additional Government Advocate also contends that the students of 10^th Grade of the petitioner-

¶71

12 -

¶72

WP No. 5225 of 2023

¶73

School shall not be disturbed from prosecuting their 10^th class Board examination and they shall be permitted to take up 10^th class Board examination. However, since the School is derecognised and recognition has not been granted, the School will be shown as Government High School which would not effect the students from taking 10^th class Board examination shall not be deprived of losing one year of their education. Accordingly, I pass following:

¶74

ORDER

¶75

(i) The petition is disposed of;

¶76

(ii) The respondent-State shall permit the students to take up 10^th class Board examination as stated by the learned Additional Government Advocate in the Government High School, which shall not be disturbed. However, at the time of issuance of marks card to 10^th class students of SSLC board, the respondents shall show name of the petitioner-School i.e. S.M.English High School subject to the condition that the petitioner-School complies with the requirements of seeking recognition and on such recognition

¶77

13 -

¶78

WP No. 5225 of 2023

¶79

being granted for renewal, the respondent-State shall issue the marks card of SSLC students showing the name of S.M.English High School rather than showing the Government High School in the marks card and results sheet.

¶80

(iii) However, it is made clear that a positive direction is given to the State subject to condition that the petitioner-School shall obtain proper recognition/renewal upon submitting all the required credential/information and approvals for grant of such recognition.

¶81

(iv) The respondent-State is also directed to open the portal to facilitate the petitioner-School to submit its application and all other required documents seeking recognition/renewal. The same shall be opened in order to facilitate the petitioner-School to upload required documents.

¶82

Sd/JUDGE

¶83

The S M English High School v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The S M English High School v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Vijayalaxmi Vs Rajasehkar Desai

N Vasu Vs Union of India

Smt Nagarathna Vs S Anil Kumar

Mrs. Arshiya Farheen Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ramesh S Y Vs the State of Karnataka

Sunrise College of Physiotherapy Vs the Registrar Rghus