Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. Learned senior counsel informed that Sections 6 and 7 of the Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Act, 2009, prescribed the mode of fixation of fee and took this Court through various paragraphs of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Lakshmi Matriculation School which have a bearing on the issue on hand. Learned senior counsel submitted that a more holistic approach is to be taken as the act of teaching cannot stand alone and be conducted without other supportive activities and expenditure. Learned senior counsel submitted that the narrow interpretation placed by the Committee was in contravention of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Modern School v. Union of India and others [2004 (5) SCC 583] and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Lakshmi Matriculation School. Learned senior counsel further submitted that no provision for escalation in expenditure on administration and maintenance had been made and unmindful of inflation, a fixed figure had been informed for the initial year and three successive years. Learned senior counsel submitted that owing to erroneous approach of the Committee the petitioner school had not been able to undertake any development or renovation work over a period of three years and was driven to exhaust all the fixed deposits built up by it over several years towards providing for future development. Learned senior counsel made further submissions on particular heads, reflected in the tabular statements and we duly will deal with the same.

Payment of the salary to staff hereinafter only through ECS. Any time on information or on inspection, if it is found that payment is not made under ECS in future, suitable action in accordance with law will be taken against the institution.

11. Learned senior counsel contended that the non-inclusion of EPF, ESI, pension and gratuity in computing the salary payable at 28 to 35% of the tuition fee had a cascading adverse effect on the institution. By such non-inclusion there is a restriction in the salary component to as much as Rs.66 lakhs and when 25% of the sums so calculated as salary is permitted towards surplus development fund, the institution would lose from year to year. Learned senior counsel submitted that the approach of the Committee amounted to restricting the rights of the minority institutions which was impermissible as against regulating the same, which was. Learned senior counsel submitted that the Committee disallowed the total claims of Rs.7,09,036/- towards building maintenance, Rs.4,23,252/- towards equipment maintenance and sum of Rs.1,16,461/- as against Rs.3,68,461/- towards security services placing an erroneous reading on the decision in Lakshmi Matriculation School case. Paragraph No.108 of such decision has been misunderstood by the Committee as one permitting restriction or disallowance. In paragraph No.110 in Lakshmi Matriculation School case the Division Bench has informed the percentage of development charges permissible in respect of institutions at different locations. It is pertinent to note that in so doing care has been taken to inform other than minority educational institutions. Therefore, there can be no restriction on the development expenses of minority institutions. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the Committee has erred in fixing an uniform sum of Rs.39,49,708/- for four years viz., 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 under the head miscellaneous expenditure without taking into account inflation and escalating costs.

12. Learned senior counsel submitted that the definition placed upon 'salary' by the committee is anomalous. Committee has, in computing annual expenditure informed salary and allowances as one head of expenditure but kept out of the ambit of salary that paid to non-teaching staff including EPF and ESI contributions.

13. Mr.Thankasivan, learned counsel for petitioner in W.P.Nos.38383 and 38821 of 2015, submitted that the Committee had restricted the number of teachers which could be employed by the School and had done so on the basis of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. Learned counsel submitted that The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, informs the minimum number of teachers necessary for a particular strength of students. In Lakshmi Matriculation School, the Division Bench of this Court had informed that the quality of education also depends on the number of teachers. Learned counsel submitted that applying G.O.Ms.No.231 dated 11.08.2010 to existing strength of teachers in Schools would have devastating effect and legal repercussions. Such application suggests retrenchment or alternatively payment to teachers in other ways. In Lakshmi Matriculation School, the Division Bench had not dealt with the issue of how staff found in excess were to be dealt with. However, it had been observed 92. Education is an important tool for all round development of an individual. Educational Institution is established to impart knowledge to the students to facilitate his development. In the beginning, even though educational institutions were established without profit motive, over the years, taking advantage of the demand, more number of private educational institutions were established, of course with profit motive. The rush for admission in private schools is occasioned by the standards maintained in such schools. It is in the interest of the public that such good quality schools are established. The schools should have autonomy in the right of appointment and selection of the teachers to maintain standards of education. For providing better quality education, private educational institutions have autonomy in selecting quality teachers. If quality teachers are not appointed, the standards will be lowered from excellence to a level of mediocrity.

155 (iii) There shall not be restriction regarding the salary payable to teaching and non-teaching staff, which, of course, is subject to the Government Scale of Pay and Government Orders. The Committee shall not interfere with the expenditure of the minority educational institutions on its cultural and religious activities to retain its character as minority institutions. The position is reiterated in Rosary Matriculation Higher Secondary School [2014 (1) CTC 636] stating 29. Certainly, the Committee cannot exercise its power in restricting the staff both under Teaching and Non-Teaching categories, in respect of the unaided minority schools. Such restriction imposed by the Committee on all these schools undoubtedly goes contra to the observations and guidelines made by this Court in the earlier decision reported in Lakshmi Matriculation School and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others (2012 (2) CWC 204). In such case, this Court, concerned that an erroneous interpretation should not be placed on the last sentence at paragraph No.139 in Lakshmi Matriculation School viz., any restriction regarding strength of teaching and non-teaching staff in minority schools is subject only to Government Orders, has cleared the air by stating :