Disposed

Modern Hind Sr. Sec. School v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Oct 2012CWP/10273/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of writ petitions by students of unrecognized schools seeking to appear in board exams. Courts held that institutions admitted students illegally despite specific directions to the contrary. While student results were regularized to prevent suffering, institutions were penalized with substantial costs for their violation.

What did the court decide?

Writs dismissed; student results regularized; petitioners burdened with costs of 6,000/- per student admitted without recognition.

Modern Hind Sr. Sec. School Vs State of… — Education and Admissions | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10273 OF 2010 :{ 1 }:

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 18, 2012

¶4

Modern Hind Senior Secondary School, Village Khori Lalan, Tauru, District Mewat

¶5

.....Petitioner

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

State of Haryana and others

¶8

....Respondents

¶9

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

¶10

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?

¶11

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶13

Present: Mr. Naveen Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶14

Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State.

¶15

Mr. Mohit Setia, Advocate for Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Advocate.

¶16

¶17

RANJIT SINGH, J.

¶18

This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.10273 of 2010 ( Modern Hind Senior Secondary School, Village Khori Lalan, Tauru, District Mewat Vs. State of Haryana and others) and 12151 of 2011 ( Saraswati Vidya Mandir Sr.Sec. School, Siha, District Palwal Vs. State of Haryana and others) . The facts are being taken from CWP No.10273 of 2010.

¶19

Sahil Education Society, which is running the petitionerschool seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant

¶20

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10273 OF 2010 :{ 2 }:

¶21

temporary affiliation for three years in accordance with Section 19(2) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. Prayer further is to permit the school to fulfill the requisite norms and standards for getting permanent recognition at their own expenses within a period of three years from the date of commencement of the Act. The petitioner-schools are seeking further direction for the respondents to allow the schools to function and take classes and to permit the students studying in the schools to appear in the Board examination.

¶22

This Education Society was registered in the year 200203. On 13.3.2009, permission was granted to upgrade the school upto 12^th class. Application for recognition with the requisite fees was sent by the petitioner-school in the year 2009. A request was sent to District Education Officer to inspect the school to see that it has fulfilled the requisite norms, so as to grant permanent recognition to the school for 10+2 (Senior Secondary) level.

¶23

In the year 2007, vires of Haryana School Education Rules, 2007 were challenged through CWP No.5891 of 2007 and during the pendency of this writ petition, this court directed Education Board to issue examination forms to the students. This writ petition alongwith other bunch of writ petitions was admitted and interim order was continued. In the year 2009, the right of children to free education was enacted. All the schools, who did not fulfill the norms specified in the schedule, were to take steps to fulfill these norms at their own expenses within a period of three years. Petitioner-school, thus, claims that they could fulfill these norms till 2013 for which they

¶24

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10273 OF 2010 :{ 3 }:

¶25

were ready and willing. Still, the respondents did not issue the examination forms to the petitioner-school on the ground that the school did not have the permanent recognition upto Senior Secondary level. Some of the schools, similarly situated, also approached this court through CWP No.9023 of 2010 where this court issued notice of motion and issued directions to the respondents to issue examination forms. The petitioner-schools accordingly have filed these writ petitions.

¶26

While issuing notice of motion, the respondents were directed to issue examination forms to the students of 12^th class. The writ petition is pending since 2010. In between, another application was filed and the respondents were directed to issue examination forms to the petitioners for 10^th and 12^th classes, so as to enable the students studying in the petitioner's school to sit for the examination. Subsequently, Deputy District Education Officer raised various objections in regard to NOC/CLU certificate of the land, building safety certificate, Hygienic & Fire Brigade Certificates, appointment letters and agreements etc. The petitioner was directed to file affidavit indicating that the school of the petitioner had complied with the conditions.

¶27

On 27.1.2012, the counsel for the petitioner undertook before the court that the school will fulfill the norms as prescribed by the respondents on or before 31.3.2012. The counsel further submitted that if the petitioner school was unable to do so, the recognition of the petitioner school may be withdrawn automatically and then the school may not be permitted to admit the students in the

¶28

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10273 OF 2010 :{ 4 }:

¶29

next session. On this basis, the only prayer made was that the result of those students, who were permitted to appear in the examination, be declared treating them as regular students.

¶30

The case was adjourned from time to time for having instructions in this regard. On 14.8.2012, it was noticed by the court that the petitioner is a school, which is admitting students without seeking affiliation. Keeping the career of such students in view, the process was allowed to continue, but it was observed that action of the school in admitting the students without affiliation cannot be permitted to go unchecked. On 16.8.2012, the details of the students admitted in the school in 10+1 and 10+2 classes without affiliation were directed to be filed including the fee charged. The petitioner school has failed to furnish the same when directions were issued to District Education Officer to place such details on record. The said directions have been complied with.

¶31

Otherwise, a short reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4. It is stated that Secretary of the Society submitted an application on 26.5.2010 for grant of up-gradation of the school to senior level as it was recognised upto 10^th standard on 17.12.2010. The case of the school was examined and it was found that the school has a land measuring 2 acres. As per the rules amended in the year 2007, minimum norm for land and building as provided for a senior secondary school is 2.5 acres in Rural/Urban and 2 acres in the controlled area. As per the amended rules, in the year 2009 is 2 acres. The petitioner school was not having NOC/CLU. The school was also covered under the scheme of

¶32

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10273 OF 2010 :{ 5 }:

¶33

existing category and so could not claim benefit of the relaxed land norms laid down in 2009 Rules. The Deputy Commissioner had inspected the petitioner school as per the directions given by this Court and found these discrepancies, which are as under:-

¶34

“1. NOC/CLU Certificate of the land

¶35

At the time for inspection the school administration has not produced the NOC and CLU certificate of the land f the school.

¶36

2. Building Safety Certificate.

¶37

At the time for inspection the school administration not produced the Building Safety Certificate.

¶38

Hygienic & Fire Brigade Certificates:

¶39

The School Administration produced the Hygienic & Fire Brigade Certificates but the same were over dated. 4. Appointment letter & Agreements

¶40

The School administration has not produced Appointment letter & Agreements of the staff members mentioned in the staff statement.”

¶41

The petitioner-school has primarily relied on the permission which was statedly granted for 11^th and 12^th classes by the Directorate on 26.6.2009. It is, however, stated in the reply that the petitioner school did not submit its case for permanent recognition in Form-II alongwith requisite fees and instead approached this court for issuing direction to the respondents to issue roll numbers. Prayer in the petition is for grant of temporary recognition and in this context, reference is made to the rules, which

¶42

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10273 OF 2010 :{ 6 }:

¶43

regulate grant of such permission. It is pointed out that the petitionerschool without getting recognition has admitted the students in 11^th and 12 classes for which the school was not authorised as no such admission could be made without permanent recognition. Instead of taking legal action to seek this recognition, the petitioners have adopted a method to approach this court through the present writ petitions and were able to get the examination forms issued for the students admitted unauthorisedly. It is rightly pointed out that if the permission for recognition is refused, the petitioners may have a right to file appeal before the Appellate Authority and the petitioners have, thus, been able to avoid the process provided under the statutory provisions.

¶44

It is in this context that this court had observed that the petitioner schools had admitted the students for 11^th and 12 classes without recognition. Same counsel appearing in both the cases has based his submissions only on the permission which was granted for 11^th and 12^th classes. Copy of this permission letter is annexed with the reply as Annexure R/1. The State counsel has pointed out to that portion of the permission letter where it is clearly mentioned that the permission to add new proposed classes for higher stage is only `Inprinciple' approval of the Education Department to allow applicant to initiate steps and provide infrastructure to the new proposed classes of higher stage. Both the schools were clearly apprised in the permission letter itself that students were not to be admitted only on this permission without getting recognition. It is further mentioned that the recognition is granted by the Department on fulfillment of

¶45

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10273 OF 2010 :{ 7 }:

¶46

prescribed norms as provided in Haryana School Education Rules2003 in the interest of safety, health and welfare of the students under the requirements. Not only that, Mr.Nehra will point out to the specific mention made in the permission letter separately, where it is recorded as under:-

¶47

“This permission is only in principle approval of the intention of the applicant to add new proposed classes for higher stage school. It is not approval to start classes or functioning of school for which recognition is required which is granted on fulfilment of norms as prescribed under Haryana School Education Rules-2003.”

¶48

State counsel, thus, is justified in saying that the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner-schools that they could admit students on the basis of this permission is totally unjustified. Rather, the petitioner-schools have acted in violation of the conditions for which the permission was granted and have acted in violation of the legal position which was specifically brought to their notice by pointing out for the schools were not to admit the students on the basis of such permission.

¶49

The State counsel has also relied on orders passed in CWP No.11416 of 2011 (G.C.Model Senior Secondary School, Tauru, District Mewat and another Versus State of Haryana and others) , decided on 27.9.2012 whereby 12 civil writ petitions were disposed of by this court where similar action of the schools has met with a punitive action of burdening the said schools with costs of `5,000/- per student admitted by such institutions in those classes for

¶50

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10273 OF 2010 :{ 8 }:

¶51

which such institutions did not have the proper recognition or affiliation from the competent authority as per the statute. The case of the present petitioner-schools is not different. Rather, the action of these two schools in admitting the students despite specific directions not to admit students brought to the notice of the schools would aggravate the conduct of these schools when these schools still went ahead by admitting the students despite the clear directions conveyed to the contrary. While disposing of Civil Writ Petition in the case of G.C.Model Senior Secondary School (supra), a reliance was placed on a decision in the case of C.B.S.E. Versus P.Sunil Kumar, ( 1998) 5 Supreme Court Cases, 377 where an identical question was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The issue was whether the students studying in the Institution not affiliated to the Board of School Education can be permitted by the High Court by an interim order to appear in the examination conducted by the Board and if the Board could be compelled to issue certificates to those students. This prayer was negated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following terms:-

¶52

“The Court cannot by it fiat direct the University to disobey the statute to which it owes its existence and the regulations made by the University itself as that would be destructive of Rule of Law. In the case of State of T.N. Vs. St.Joseph Teacher Training Institute, this Court held that the directions of admitting students of un-authorised Educational Institutions and permitting them to appear at the examination has been looked on with disfavour and

¶53

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10273 OF 2010 :{ 9 }:

¶54

students of un-recognized institutions who are not legally entitled to appear at the examination conducted by the Education Department of Government cannot be allowed to sit at the examination and the High Court committed error in granting permission to issue students to appear at the public examination.”

¶55

In Regional Officer, CBSE Vs. K.Sheena Peethambaran and others, (2003) 7 Supreme Court Cases 719, the practice of permitting students to pursue their studies and appear in the examination was deprecated. In the instant case, the petitioner-schools have admitted the students despite having been directed not to do so till they got affiliation. The permission was only to enable the schools to commence the process of seeking affiliation. Accordingly, the petitioners cannot be allowed to escape responsibility for their illegal action and the illegal act, which is aggravated by an intentional conduct of the petitioner-schools in admitting the students despite having been told not to do so till they got affiliation.

¶56

The students, who have been admitted without any fault on their part, cannot be made to suffer for this illegal action of the petitioner schools. Accordingly, their result which has been declared is ordered to be regularised but this is no reason to permit the petitioner schools to escape responsibility for this action which is required to be curbed so as to avoid its reoccurrence in future by any Institution. The case, thus, is made out to burden the petitionersInstitutions with costs of `6,000/- per students admitted by petitioner-

¶57

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10273 OF 2010 :{ 10 }:

¶58

institutions in those classes for which the petitioner-institutions did not have recognition or affiliation from the competent authority as is required by the statute. Half of the cost imposed shall be deposited in the accounts of Legal Services Authority, Haryana and the remaining half shall be deposited in the Medication and Conciliation Cell functioning in this Court. The writ petitions otherwise are disposed of with the above directions.

¶59

The copy of the order be sent to the Director, School Education, Haryana, for ensuring compliance of the order. The copy be also forwarded to the Advocate General, Haryana to ensure that the orders are properly complied with and implemented to recover the costs/damages and these are deposited in the appropriate head as directed above.

¶60

October 18, 2012 (RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE

Modern Hind Sr. Sec. School v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Modern Hind Sr. Sec. School v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hoshiar Singh Vs State of Punjab

Jaspreet Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Srishti Bajaj and Anr. Vs U.T. Chandigarh and Ors.

Baljit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Mukhtiar Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Babe Ke College of Education Vs Panjab University, Chandigarh