Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Students Parents Association vs Union Of India on 1 September, 2022
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Vinod Kumar Bharwani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D. B. Special Appeal No. 574/2022
In
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3791/2022
'Students Parents Association', BRN 8005220095000099, Add-
27, Patrakar Colony, Shanti Path, Jaipur
----Appellant/Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Education,
302-C, Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New
Rajpath Area, Central Secretariat, New Delhi, Delhi
110001. Email: [email protected]
2. Chairman, Central Board of Secondary Education, Shiksha
Kendra, 2, Community Centre, Preet Vihar, Delhi-110092
Email: [email protected]
3. State of Rajasthan, through Additional Chief Secretary,
School Education Department, Rajasthan Council of
School Education, IInd Floor, Vth Block, Shiksha Sankul,
J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur - 302017 (Raj).
Email: [email protected]
4. Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
5. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
Email: [email protected]
6. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Jaipur.
Email: [email protected]
7. District Education Officer, Secondary Education-I, Jaipur.
Email: [email protected]
8. Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur.
9. Managing Committee, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan's
Vidyashram, Jaipur.
10. Principal, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan's Vidyashram, Jaipur.
Email: [email protected]
----Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. Sandeep Kumar Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. S.S. Raghav Additional Advocate General.
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 06:49:57 AM)
(2 of 10) [SAW-574/2022] Mr. C.L. Saini Additional Advocate General with Ms. Srijana Shreshtha Advocate.
Mr. Prateek Kasliwal Advocate with Ms. Gauri Jasana Advocate.
Mr. Mohit Balwada Advocate.
Mr. Bhawani S. Saini Advocate on behalf of Mr. M.S. Raghav Advocate.
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Judgment 01/09/2022 Heard.
This appeal arises out of order dated 22.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, writ petition filed by the appellant-Students Parents Association, has been dismissed holding that the appellant has an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Schools (Regulation of Fee) Act, 2016 (for short 'the Act of 2016') by approaching Divisional Fee Regulatory Committee.
Assailing correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the learned Single Judge has not taken into consideration the entire scheme of the enactment and the rules framed thereunder known as the Rajasthan Schools (Regulation of Fee) Rules, 2017 (for short 'the Rules of 2017'). He would submit that the provision contained in Rule 8 of the Rules of 2017 deals with the procedure to refer proposal to Divisional Fee Regulatory Committee and procedure to file appeal before Divisional Fee Regulatory Committee and Revision Committee whereunder the management of the school is required to submit fee proposal to the School Level (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 06:49:57 AM) (3 of 10) [SAW-574/2022] Fee Committee and it is only in the event that if the School Level Fee Committee fails to decide the fee within specified period, management can make reference to Divisional Fee Regulatory Committee. It is also argued that under the said Rules, it is the management alone, which may exercise right of appeal against the decision of the School Level Fee Committee. Referring to Rule 8, sub-rule (4) of the Rules of 2017, it is also submitted that the provisions contained thereunder provide for remedy of appeal either to the management or School Level Fee Committee, if they are aggrieved by the decision of the Divisional Fee Regulatory Committee in appeal or reference before the Revision Committee. Therefore, it is argued, the provisions contained in Section 9 of the Act of 2016 have to be read with Rule 8 of the Rules of 2017 and, therefore, there is no remedy provided under Section 8 of the Act of 2016 to the petitioner Association in the matter of dispute relating to fee charged by the school management from the students.
Learned counsel for the respondents, per contra, would submit that the learned Single Judge has passed the order holding that the appellant has an efficacious statutory remedy, on the face of unambiguous and clear provisions as contained in Section 9 of the Act of 2016.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality in holding that there exists a statutory remedy for the appellant- Students Parents Association as provided under Section 9 of the Act of 2016 for the reasons, which are as follows: (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 06:49:57 AM)
(4 of 10) [SAW-574/2022]
The writ petition was filed by Students Parents
Association. The Act of 2016 has been enacted to provide for the regulation of collection of fee by schools in the State of Rajasthan and matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. Section 3 of the Act of 2016 prohibits collection of fee in excess of the fee fixed or proposed under the Act of 2016.
Section 4 of the Act of 2016 provides for constitution of Parent-Teachers Association. While Section 4(1)(a) of the Act of 2016 provides for the Parent-Teachers Association, sub-section (2)
(a) provides for the constitution of School Level Fee Committee. Section 4 of the Act of 2016, being relevant, is reproduced hereinbelow:
"4. Parent-Teachers Association.-
(1)(a) Every private school shall constitute the Parent-Teachers Association.
(b) The Parent-Teachers Association shall be formed by the head of the school within thirty days front the beginning of each academic year. Every teacher of the school and parent of every student in the school shall be a member of the Parent-Teachers Association and an annual amount of rupees fifty, in case of urban area and rupees twenty, in case of rural area, shall be collected from each member of such association.
(c) On formation of the Parent-Teachers Association, a lottery shall be conducted by drawing a lot of the willing parents to constitute the School Level Fee Committee and a notice of one week before such lottery shall be given to the member of the Parent-Teachers Association.
(2)(a) The School Level Fee Committee shall consist of,-
(i) Chairperson - representative of management of the private school nominated by such management;
(ii) Secretary - Principal of the private school;
(iii) Member - three teachers nominated by the management of private school;
(iv) Member - Five parents from Parent-Teachers Association. (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 06:49:57 AM)
(5 of 10) [SAW-574/2022]
(b) The list of members of the School Level Fee Committee shall be displayed on the notice board within a period of fifteen days from formation of the School Level Fee Committee and copy thereof shall forthwith be forwarded to the District Education Officer concerned.
(c) The term of the School Level Fee Committee shall be for one academic year and no parent member shall be eligible for drawing a lot by lottery within the period of next three years since the expiry of his/her last term as the member of the School Level Fee Committee.
(d) The School Level Fee Committee shall meet at least once in three months. The procedure to be followed for conducting the meeting of the School Level Fee Committee shall be such as may be prescribed.
(e) The Parent-Teachers Association shall have a general meeting at least once before the 15 th August of every year. The procedure to be followed for conducting the meeting of the Parent-Teachers Association shall be such as may be prescribed. The Parent- Teachers Association shall discharge such duties and perform such functions as may be assigned to it under this Act and as may be prescribed."
As is clear from above provision, the Parent-Teachers Association comprises of every teacher of the school and parent of every student in the school. By lottery system, School Level Fee Committee consisting of Chairperson, Secretary and two members is constituted from amongst willing parents.
Under Section 6 of the Act of 2016, management of the private school is declared as competent to propose the fee in the school by following the procedure prescribed therein. The management is required to submit the details of the proposed fee for approval to the School Level Fee Committee. However, if the School Level Fee Committee fails to decide the fee within the stipulated period, the management is obliged under the law to refer the matter to the Divisional Fee Regulatory Committee. Divisional Fee Regulatory Committee is obliged to decide the appeal or reference. Amongst other things, it has further been (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 06:49:57 AM) (6 of 10) [SAW-574/2022] provided that the management or the School Level Fee Committee, aggrieved by the decision of the Divisional Fee Regulatory Committee in appeal or reference, may prefer a further appeal before the Revision Committee.
Therefore, a comprehensive scheme of fixation of fee, adjudication of disputes through appeal or reference at more than one stages has been provided under Section 6 of the Act of 2016. Section 9 of the Act of 2016 provides for powers and functions of the Divisional Fee Regulatory Committee. It has, inter alia, been provided thus:-
"9. Powers and functions of Divisional Fee Regulatory Committee.-
(1) The powers and functions of the Divisional Fee Regulatory Committee shall be to adjudicate the dispute between the management and the Parent-
Teachers Association regarding fee to be charged by the school management from the students. (2) xxxxxxxxxx (3) xxxxxxxxxx (4) xxxxxxxxxx (5) xxxxxxxxxx (6) xxxxxxxxxx (7) xxxxxxxxxx (8) xxxxxxxxxx (9) xxxxxxxxxx"
Conjoint reading of the aforesaid statutory scheme of the Act of 2016 clearly shows that the Act of 2016 provides for remedies against fixation of fee by the management. As a matter of fact, the fee proposed by the management is required to be approved by the School Level Fee Committee, which consists of representatives of the management, i.e., Principal of the private school, three teachers nominated by the management of the private school and five parents from Parent-Teachers Association. Under Section 6 of the Act of 2016, as referred to hereinabove, remedy has been provided to the management, if it is aggrieved (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 06:49:57 AM) (7 of 10) [SAW-574/2022] by the decision of the School Level Fee Committee or where School Level Fee Committee fails to decide the issue within stipulated period. Against the decision taken by the Divisional Fee Regulatory Committee in appeal or reference, whoever is aggrieved, whether it be management or the School Level Fee Committee, further remedy of appeal before the Revision Committee is also provided.
Section 9 of the Act of 2016 confers power on the Divisional Fee Regulatory Committee to adjudicate the dispute between the management and the Parent-Teachers Association regarding fee to be charged by the school management from the students. This remedial provision for resolution of dispute as between the management and the Parent-Teachers Association is independent of and distinct from the remedies available to the management or to the School Level Fee Committee under Section 6 of the Act of 2016. Section 6 of the Act of 2016 does not talk of resolution of dispute or any remedy involving Parent-Teachers Association, but the dispute between the management and the School Level Fee Committee. On the other hand, Section 9 of the Act of 2016 confers power on the Divisional Fee Regulatory Committee to adjudicate a dispute where it has been raised or exists between the management and the Parent-Teachers Association. Parent-Teachers Association and School Level Fee Committee are two different bodies recognised and constituted under the Act of 2016.
Section 2(n) of the Act of 2016 defines Parent-Teachers Association to mean the Parent-Teachers Association constituted under Section 4 of the Act of 2016. As we have already referred (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 06:49:57 AM) (8 of 10) [SAW-574/2022] to hereinabove, constitution of Parent-Teachers Association is provided under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act of 2016, according to which, the Parent-Teachers Association comprises of every teacher of the school and parent of every student in the school. Thus, Parent-Teachers Association is a larger body comprising of all the teachers and parent of every student of the school. School Level Fee Committee is representative body of the management, teachers and parents.
It would, thus, be seen that the Act of 2016 is a complete code in itself as regards regulation of fee in private schools and resolution of disputes relating to fee structure. Management of the school, School Level Fee Committee as also Parent-Teachers Association, all have been provided remedy under the Act of 2016, as provided under Sections 6 and 9 of the Act of 2016.
The appellant appears to be association of students' parents which seeks to raise dispute with regard to fixation of fee by the management. In view of the comprehensive mechanism provided under the Act of 2016, which involves representation of the management in the School Level Fee Committee and all the parents of every student forming part of Parent-Teachers Association, a dispute can always be raised at the instance of the parent of a student through Parent-Teachers Association before the Divisional Fee Regulatory Committee irrespective of whether School Level Fee Committee has approved or not approved the fee proposed by the management. The interference of the writ court in the matter of examination of fee structure is sought to be invoked bypassing the statutory mechanism of resolution of (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 06:49:57 AM) (9 of 10) [SAW-574/2022] disputes. Such a mechanism cannot be allowed to be bypassed at the instance of the appellant, which is an association of students' parents alone.
It appears that writ petition was filed because several representations were made by large number of aggrieved parents to the Chairperson (the Principal) and the Parent-Teachers Association, no reference had taken place and the dispute was not referred to the Divisional Fee Regulatory Committee.
While parent of every student is bound by the statutory mechanism of the Act of 2016 in the matter of regulation of fee and all disputes connected therewith to be resolved in accordance with the laid down mechanism, it is not within the authority of the Principal to withhold the representations received from the parents. Once, parents raised dispute with regard to the fee structure proposed by the management, whether approved or not approved by the School Level Fee Committee, the same is required to be referred for adjudication of the Divisional Fee Regulatory Committee. The Principal or for that matter, the management of the school do not have discretion to refer or not to refer the dispute as it is the dispute between the management and the Parent-Teachers Association.
During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents informed this Court that Divisional Fee Regulatory Committee has already been constituted and functioning.
In view of above considerations and for the reasons additionally assigned, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, though we hereby direct Respondent No. 10, Principal, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan's (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 06:49:57 AM) (10 of 10) [SAW-574/2022] Vidyashram, Jaipur to refer the dispute raised by the parents to the Divisional Fee Regulatory Committee for its adjudication.
Appeal is, accordingly, disposed off in the manner as stated above.
(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ MANOJ NARWANI / (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 06:49:57 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)