Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Provided that in the case of an unaided minority school, the proportion of such Fund which may be kept in the form of Government securities or as cash in hand shall be determined by the managing committee of such school."

177. Fees realized by unaided recognized schools how to be utilized -

(1) Income derived by an unaided recognized school by way of fees shall be utilised in the first instance, for meeting the pay, allowances and other benefits admissible to the employees of the school.

`177. Fees realised by unaided recognised schools how to be utilised-
(1) Income derived by an unaided recognised schools by way of fees shall be utilised in the first instance for meeting the pay, allowances and other benefits, admissible to the employees of the school.

Provided that savings, if any from the fees collected by such school may be utilised, by its managing committee for meeting capital or contingent expenditure of the school, or for one or more or the following educational purposes, namely:-

...

54. Assuming power to regulate fee etc. can be inferred from Section 24, a bare perusal of Section shows that it does not confer any general power on Director of Education. Reading of sub-section (3) and (4) of Section 24 shows that only specific directions in respect of a particular school in which a defect or deficiency may be found at the time of inspection or otherwise, can alone be issued. On failure to comply with any directions given under sub-section (3), the Director of Education, as contemplated by sub-section (4), can take suitable action including withdrawal of recognition etc. It was contended that assuming Section 24 could be applied, the 16 schools on inspection of which alleged defects and deficiencies were found then action against only those schools, after following the procedure laid down in the Act and the Rules, could alone be taken. We may also note another Rule which shows that if any school indulges in commercialisation of education, the Director of Education is not powerless to take appropriate action. Rule 50 in Chapter IV provide for condition for recognition of private schools. Under the said rule a recognised school has to continue to follow the conditions specified in the Rules. Sub rule (iv) of Rule 50 provides that the school is not run for profit to any individual, group or association of individuals or any other person. If the Director of Education finds that the school is being run for profit, such a school would be violating a condition of recognition and thus it can be asked to rectify it failing which to face the consequences which may be withdrawal of recognition as a result of not continuing to fulfill the condition of recognition. The Director of Education would be justified in asking the school to explain facts which according to Director of Education may show that the school is being run for profit. The school is obliged to explain facts to the satisfaction of Director of Education. If it is unable to do so, the Director of Education can ask the school to reduce the fee and other charges which according to the Director show that the school is indulging in the profit motives. In our view, it would not be open to the school to say that the Director of Education has no power to direct the school to reduce the fee and other charges as no such power vests in respect of unaided schools because Section 17(1) & (2) of the Act applies only to aided schools. The direction to reduce the fee and charges is to avoid straightaway taking the extreme step of withdrawal of recognition or taking over the school. It is an opportunity given to the school so that the Director of Education may not resort to withdrawal of recognition or steps for taking over of the management are not taken. It only amounts to granting an additional opportunity to the school so that on compliance the extreme action of withdrawal of recognition or taking over of management etc. may be avoided. But for the findings and recommendations of Raghvan report which makes the present case as quite peculiar and to which we will advert a little later, we find force in the submission that Section 24 and Rule 50 are applicable to specific schools which may be found to be violating these provisions. Despite this conclusion, we feel that the problem here is peculiar which necessitated issue of general order which per se cannot be held to be illegal in facts and circumstances of these cases.

8. As stated above, the Action Committee filed its special leave petition in this Court on 28.11.1998.

9. On 31.7.1999, Duggal Committee submitted its Report. Some of the findings and conclusions mentioned in the said Report are quoted hereinbelow:

"7.18 The Committee observed that in addition to the tuition fee, schools were also charging fees under various other heads as well. The Report of the J. Veeraraghvan Committee on `Fee Structure of the Delhi Private Schools' (1997), has listed as many as 50 heads under which the fee was being collected in the schools in Delhi. Furthermore, there is also no uniformity, among schools in regard to the nomenclature used for different types of levies under `other charges'. In addition to this, items charged under the same head also differ from school to school. This has resulted in avoidable ambiguities and distortions in the fee structure which could become a vehicle for exploitation where the schools were so inclined.