Madras High Court
Maharishi Vidhya Mandir vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 11 January, 2019
Author: V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
Bench: V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 11.01.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
W.P(MD)No.14291 of 2018
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.12951 & 12952 of 2018
Maharishi Vidhya Mandir,
Rep. by its Secretary & Correspondent,
V.Bala Subramanian. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 9.
2.The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus,
College Road,
Chennai – 6.
3.The District Collector,
Madurai District,
Collectorate, Madurai.
4.The Chief Educational Officer,
Madurai.
5.The District Educational Officer,
Melur, Madurai. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records
pertaining to the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent in
Na.Ka.No.2611/A1/A4/2018, dated 20.06.2018 and quash the same.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Namasivayam
For Respondents : Mrs.S.Srimathi
Special Government Pleader.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition to issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent in Na.Ka.No.2611/A1/A4/2018, dated 20.06.2018.
2. The petitioner, who is a registered educational trust, is now running a School viz., “Maharishi Vidya Mandir”. The said school is affiliated with 'Central Board of Secondary Education' with provisional affiliation No.CBSE/Aff./SL-01219-1314/1930447/2013/545527, dated 05.04.2013 in accordance with law and also as per the by-law of CBSE. The CBSE is an organization functioning under the control of the Secretary (School Education and Literacy), Ministry of Human Resources Department, Government of India, who is the controlling authority of CBSE.
3. The petitioner stated that initially, the School was started upto 8th standard with 117 students and later, based on the equality of education, more students joined in the School. Now, the School is having upto 12th standard with 2271 students and 98 teachers, 36 non-teaching staffs, 1 Lab Assistant and 26 others including drivers and conductors got employed on the said School.
http://www.judis.nic.in 3
4. The petitioner's School was established in accordance with law and affiliated to the CBSE by obtaining provisional affiliation and the same is periodically renewed. The petitioner's School complies with all the norms and standards mandated by the law and by the by-law of CBSE guidelines issued by the appropriate Government authority and the School is periodically inspected by the CBSE for compliance. The CBSE has the main object of providing and monitoring quality education to the students of affiliated Schools including implementation of provisions of Right to Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act). The CBSE by-law requires the educational institutions seeking provisional affiliation to fulfill the essential condition of 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) to the effect that the State Government has no objection to the affiliation of School with CBSE. Further, once NOC is issued, it will be valid until it is withdrawn. The said NOC has to be submitted along with other required mandatory certificates including building stability/safety certificates required for public building and fire safety certificate etc. It is further stated that only after personal inspection of the educational institution and satisfaction of mandatory requirements, the CBSE affiliation is granted to the Schools.
5. The petitioner further stated that after enactment of the RTE Act, the CBSE is also committed to its effective implementation and has amended its by-laws periodically and issued circulars to that effect to its http://www.judis.nic.in 4 affiliated Schools. The CBSE has established Regional Offices to monitor continuously the affiliated educational institutions for the effective implementation of its objects and mandates of law including enquiry on complaints. Any educational institution affiliated to CBSE by obtaining 'NOC' from the appropriate State Government Authority for its affiliation to CBSE on verifying mandated requirements, then the said institution totally comes under the control of CBSE, in which case, the appropriate Government is Government of India. Therefore, affiliation certificate issued by the CBSE is a recognition required under Section 18(1) of RTE Act, 2009, as it is issued by the competent authority as mentioned in the Act.
6. The first respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.144, School Education Department, dated 18.09.2014, amending the Rule 12 of the RTE Rules by prescribing 'the Director of School Education', the second respondent herein as the competent authority for issuing recognition certificate to the Schools affiliated other than State Board of School Examinations (Secondary and Higher Secondary) of Government of Tamil Nadu. The said amendment is without any authority and without any sanction of law. The 'Association of Management of Private Schools (CBSE)', filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.5648 of 2018 before the Principal seat of this Court, challenging the said amendment and its consequent actions. This Court granted an order of interim injunction restraining the second http://www.judis.nic.in 5 respondent herein or any other person acting under them or any authority constituted under the Tamil Nadu Right to Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 from taking any action under the said Rules, challenging the competency of prescribing authority for CBSE affiliated Schools by the Government of Tamil Nadu and this Court extended the interim order till 31.07.2018 or until further orders whichever is earlier and adjourned the case by taking note of the fact that the issue is seized by the Honourable Supreme Court.
7. In the above circumstances, the petitioner's School is established by obtaining 'NOC' from the second respondent herein on fulfilment of the mandated requirements and affiliated to the CBSE and regularly renewing the affiliation periodically by complying with all the requirements. There is no lack or contravention of any of the provisions of law or mandates of CBSE and appropriate Government including the provisions of RTE Act. Further, the competency of the first respondent to prescribe authority to CBSE Schools is under challenge and interim orders were issued by this Court. Therefore, while complying with all the required norms and standards prescribed under the RTE Act, the petitioner's School bonafidely believed that there will be no further action pursuant to the notice issued by the fourth respondent regarding recognition of the School.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6
8. The fourth respondent came to the School campus for inspection and verified all the requirements and found satisfied with the existence of compliance of requirements and questioned about obtaining certificate of recognition from him as per law. The petitioner's School explained the above said pendency of challenge before the Principal Seat, but the fourth respondent required individual orders in favour of the petitioner's School. Thereafter, no notice of any contravention was issued to the petitioner's School after the inspection.
9. In the meantime, the fourth respondent, by order dated 20.06.2018 issued the impugned order levying a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- on the ground that non-obtaining of recognition certificate from the State Government Authority is contravention of provisions of RTE Act and also directed to take necessary action for shifting of students to neighbourhood Schools and also imposed to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- daily, if the School is continued to function further. Though the petitioner's School explained the status of pending cases on the issue and fulfillment of all the requirements of norms and standards prescribed by the law and CBSE, the fourth respondent is proceeding with further action without affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.
http://www.judis.nic.in 7
10. The fourth respondent filed a counter-affidavit and stated that as per Section 18(1) of the RTE Act, no educational institution can be established without getting recognition from the State Government. Without recognition, the educational institutions cannot avail any benefit flowing out of various beneficial schemes implemented by the Central Educational Institution. It is further stated that vide proceedings, dated 20.10.2017, the petitioner's School was informed to submit proposals for granting recognition.
11. It is further stated that when the Association of Management of Private Schools (CBSE) filed writ petition in W.P.No.32108 of 2014 and batch, for declaring G.O.Ms.No.144, School Education (GE) Department, dated 18.09.2014 as illegal and unconstitutional and the said writ petition was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 19.07.2018, which is squarely applicable to the present case and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
12. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
13. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that since the petitioner's School is affiliated to Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) by obtaining provisional affiliation and the http://www.judis.nic.in 8 same is periodically renewed, the petitioner's School has complied with all the norms and standards as prescribed by CBSE and there is no necessity for getting recognition from the State Government as the State Government has also issued 'No Objection Certificate' for the affiliation under the CBSE. In fact, the learned counsel also vehemently contended that 'No Objection Certificate' from the appropriate State Government authority by which Section 18(1) of the Tamil Nadu Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education, Rules, 2011 (RTE Rules), the competent authority mentioned under the Act has issued affiliation certificate which is sufficient.
14. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further contended that the State Government amending Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education, Rules, 2011 (RTE Rules) and prescribed the Director of School Education as the competent authority. The learned counsel also drew the Court's attention that the amendment to Rule 12 is under challenge by the Association of Management of Private Schools in W.P.No.5648 of 2018, in which, this Court had granted an order of interim injunction restraining the second respondent from taking any action under the said Rules.
15. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further contended that the impugned order levying Rs.1,00,000/- on the ground http://www.judis.nic.in 9 of not obtaining recognition from the State authority is contravention to the provisions of RTE Act and prayed for quashing the impugned order. The learned counsel also relied upon the Judgment rendered in a batch of writ petitions by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.32108 and batch etc., on 19.07.2018.
16. In contrary to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that irrespective of the affiliation by the CBSE Board, the petitioner's School has necessarily need to get permission or recognition from the State Government for continuing the School Education.
17. On a perusal of the documents filed by the petitioner and on appreciation of the arguments putforth by the learned counsels, the petitioner's School seems to have been imparting education through a Trust called “Mathi Educational Trust” and the said Trust is now running the School in the name and style of “Maharishi Vidya Mandir”, which is affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education with affiliation No.VBSE/Aff./SL-01219-1314/1930447/2013/545527, dated 05.04.2013 and at present, the petitioner's School is having 2271 students upto +2 th standard.
http://www.judis.nic.in 10
18.This Court is not able to accept the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that merely because the School is affiliated to CBSE or in other words, the Central Board of Secondary Education, to which, the petitioner's School is subscribing to the syllabus prescribed by the CBSE not necessity to get recognition from the State Government. The affiliation granted by the CBSE to the petitioner's School is only for the syllabus prescribed by the CBSE and not stand in the way of recognition of the School Department. The 'No Objection Certificate' issued by the Director of School Education, the second respondent herein by letter, dated 29.06.2012 informing the Department of School Education, Government of Tamil Nadu has no objection for the affiliation of Maharishi Vidya Mandir, which is located in Survey Nos.69/3, 69/4 and 70/2, Kovil Pappakudi Main Road, Kovilpappakudi, Near Koodal Nagar, Maudrai District.
19. The arguments putforth by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the State Government has given 'No Objection Certificate' for affiliation and the petitioner relying on the 'No Objection Certificate' cannot be accepted that 'No Objection Certificate' issued by the second respondent is only with regard to the affiliation of the petitioner's School with CBSE, New Delhi, whereas, the impugned order is pertaining to the non-compliance of the petitioner's School with regard to the recognition from the State Government. Merely because, the second http://www.judis.nic.in 11 respondent/State Government has given 'No Objection Certificate', it does not mean that the second respondent has recognised the petitioner's School. The recognition to any School established within the State Government, the first respondent is the appropriate authority to issue such recognition. Affiliation to one syllabus of a particular Board is different from recognition of the School which comes under the jurisdiction of the first respondent. The reliance made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to the Judgment rendered in a batch of writ petition in W.P.No.32108 of 2014 and batch etc., the Division Bench of this Court has rendered the Judgment when challenge was made to the amendment to Rule 12 of the RTE Act, wherein, the Government of Tamil Nadu has framed Tamil Nadu Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education, Rules, 2011 (RTE Rules).
20. The main contention before the Division Bench of this Court was with regard to the apprehension that the Director of School Education might interfere with the syllabus and curriculum followed by the Schools which are affiliated to the CBSE as per the CBSE guidelines. By reason of incorporation of Director of School Education as the competent authority in respect of Schools affiliated to Boards, such as CBSE, while deciding the above batch of cases, the Division Bench of this Court has held as follows:-
http://www.judis.nic.in 12 “21.There can be no doubt that any private School to be established in the State has to apply for permission and/or no objection from the State Government as mandated under the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and the RTE Act. However, when the State Government recognizes a School which is affiliated to CBSE and/or permits a School to seek affiliation from CBSE, the State Government necessarily gives its approval to the School concerned to follow the syllabus and curriculum prescribed by CBSE. It cannot interfere with the syllabus.”
21. Under these circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court has categorically held that any private School established in the State has to apply for permission. It is also clear that CBSE is only a Board of examination which follows certain syllabus for the examination conducted by the CBSE. However, it is merely because such Schools are affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education, the Board has no control or not administered by the Central Government. The affiliation to a particular Board is totally different from the recognition, in other words permission to establish such School in the State. Any School for it to be established in a State certainly required to comply with the conditions enumerated under the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Regulation Act, 1973. http://www.judis.nic.in 13
22. The permission or recognition by the School Education Department is governed by the above Act and which does not speak about the affiliation to one particular Board of Education. Any School established has to get permission from the State Government and after the apply, the State Government upon verification and fulfilment of the requirements under the statute, grants recognition to the particular School. The approval of the concerned School to follow any syllabus or curriculum not only by CBSE even other Boards such as ICSE or State Board, whichever the Schools have been affiliated with. It is not the case of the petitioner that the respondents are interfering with the syllabus of the petitioner's School. It is a case where the petitioner's School has not obtained any recognition from the first respondent under the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Regulation Act, 1973. The petitioner's School necessarily have to apply for permission from the State Government under the Statute.
23. Under these circumstances, the impugned order issued by the fourth respondent do not crave interference from this Court and the Writ Petition fails and accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
11.01.2019 V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J.
24. After pronouncing order, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's case was not considered http://www.judis.nic.in 14 regarding the fine amount, which he was not entitled to pay as per the order of the Division Bench of this Court.
25. The petitioner has not produced any material to show that he is not liable to pay the fine amount, even though no affiliation has been granted by the respondents. The petitioner submits that he has only applied for the same and still it is in consideration. Such being the case, this Court is not inclined to accept the plea of the petitioner and the said plea is rejected.
11.01.2019
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ps
http://www.judis.nic.in
15
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 9.
2.The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus,
College Road,
Chennai – 6.
3.The District Collector,
Madurai District,
Collectorate, Madurai.
4.The Chief Educational Officer,
Madurai.
5.The District Educational Officer,
Melur, Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
16
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J.
ps
W.P(MD)No.14291 of 2018
11.01.2019
http://www.judis.nic.in