Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

specified in sub-clause (iv) of clause (n) of Section (2) providing free and compulsory education as specified in clause (c) of Sub- section 1 ................ " shall identifies the school and not the education for which reimbursement will be given.

When one reads Section 11, it is quite clear (23 of 56) [CW-8567/2023] that the responsibility is thrust upon the appropriate Government which in the present case will be the Government of Maharashtra, for providing free preschool education for children between age group of 3 to 6 years to prepare them for elementary education and to provide early childhood care. The moment, the appropriate Government, i.e., the State of Maharashtra makes arrangements for free pre-school education for such children and directs the schools including schools specified in sub-clause (iv) of clause (n) of Section 2, it is the responsibility and obligation of the State Government to reimburse such schools. In this case, the State Government has issued a directive to all schools imparting elementary education and pre-school education to admit in pre-school to the extent of at least 25% of the strength of that class, children belonging to weaker section and the disadvantaged group in the neighbourhood and provide free and compulsory education. Therefore, the State Government is bound and liable to reimburse such schools to the extent of the amount mentioned in Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act.

20. In Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India & Anr. (2012) 6 SCC, the Apex Court has already interpreted Section 12(1)(c) and (b) read with Section 2(n)(i) to (iv) read with Section 18(3) along with constitutional provision as under

covering the pre-school education by the school as under:
"14. Chapter IV of the 2009 Act deals with responsibilities of schools and teachers. Section 12(1)(c) Sections (2(n)(iii) mandates that every recognised school imparting elementary education, even if it is an unaided school, not receiving any kind of aid or grant to meet its expenses from the appropriate Government or the local authority, is obligated to admit in Class I, to the extent at least 25% of the strength of that class, children belonging to weaker section and disadvantaged group in the neighbourhood and provide free and compulsory elementary education till its completion. As per the proviso to Section (24 of 56) [CW-8567/2023] 12(1)(c), if the school is imparting pre-school education, the same regime would apply.

The clarificatory circular dated 21 January 2015 has taken note of situation where quota seats remained vacant, in either of the classes.

47. The purpose and object and specifically of Section 12(1)(c) with proviso is crystal clear, positive affirmation for the "school" to admit children of 25% of the schools strength of every class of entry level. Therefore, the "schools" in question and/or which runs both classes of pre-primary school and elementary school, they are under obligation to have reservations of 25%, based upon the strength of the respective first entry classes. There is no specific intention expressed and/or no such (27 of 56) [CW-8567/2023] choice and/or option is provided to such schools to select one out of these two entry classes, for providing admission and reservation in question. The mandate is to provide reservation irrespective of the classes i.e. pre-primary, at both levels."

35. He further relied upon the judgment passed by the High Court of Bombay in the matter of Dr. Vikhe Patil Foundation's Vikhe Patil Memorial School Pune and Ors. (supra) where in paras No.50 to 51, it has been held as under:-

"50. The RTE Rules so referred and appears to be made to address the situation where the schools run either pre-school and/or elementary school, then one level entry would be sufficient. But the situation like the present one, in our view, as the provisions are clear, therefore, the State Government Circulars including 21.01.2015 and such other communications and earlier action to insist upon 25% quota at both levels is correct reading of Sections in the background of purpose and object of providing free education and related benefits/facilities to children of "disadvantage group" and/or "weaker section". The submission and the propositions so made by the counsel appearing for the Petitioners are unacceptable as are contrary to the provisions of law and, therefore, the same are rejected.