Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Our attention has been invited to several other decisions, but it is not necessary to multiply the authorities as by now it is well established position that the right to start a school or college would no doubt include the right to close the same. Such right, however, will be controlled by the reasonable restrictions imposed in the interests of the general public.

25. The question is: whether the existing law provides for any restrictions. Reliance has been placed on the provisions of Rules 25A and 26 of the said Rules, as also on Rule 7.5 of the Secondary School Code. In so far as the Secondary School Code is concerned, it is well established position that it is only a compendium of administrative instructions and do not have force of law. It is in the nature of administrative instructions without statutory force of law. The Full Bench of our High Court in the case of Shikshan Prasarak Mandal V/s. State of Maharashtra & ors.

28. Suffice it to observe that both Rule 25A and Rule 26 operate in different fields and are mutually exclusive. Both the Rules were introduced simultaneously by the same amendment but it is only in the latter Rule i.e. Rule 26, the Legislature has provided that "prior approval" of the Education Officer or the Deputy Director as the case case may be shall be obtained by the Management in each case of retrenchment justifying the situations provided therein. Since Rule 26 has no application at all to the situation arising out of voluntary closure of the school, which situation is governed by Rule 25A of the Rules, the question of taking any "prior approval" of the Competent Authority is not contemplated by Rule 25A- as in the case of situations specified in Rule 26. To that extent, the Management is right that atleast the Rules of 1981 will be of no avail, as it do not provide for taking "prior approval" of the Competent Authority before implementing the decision of voluntary closure of a School/Junior College. That however, does not mean that the Management has absolute right to close the Junior Colleges unilaterally. Inasmuch as, Rule 7.5 of the Secondary School Code as amended on 17th December, 1990 will have to be kept in mind while examining this aspect. Rule 7.5 reads thus:

At the same time, period of one academic year intimation is sufficiently long enough to enable the Authority to make suitable alternate arrangement for the students and employees concerned. It is not possible for us to accept the extreme argument of the State and the employees as well as the Petitioners espousing the cause of students that "prior permission" of the Appropriate Authority is the quintessence for allowing the Management to close down the school. The language of Rule 7.5 does not support that position. Indeed, it is always open to the Legislature to introduce such requirement expressly in the Act governing the subject or the statutory Rules. The validity of such a provision however, can be tested when occasion arises. For the present, we would proceed on the basis that the Management of the school has a right to close the school but it is subject to complying the obligation of giving advance notice of one academic year and the restrictions which are likely to be imposed by the Appropriate Authority, which ought to be just and reasonable restrictions and in the interests of general public. We are conscious of the fact that Rules of 1981 are essentially in relation to the conditions of service of employees of private schools. However, at the same time, the Secondary School Code, which is compendium of executive and administrative instructions, is ascribable to the executive power of the State under Article 162 of Constitution and the provision such as Rule 7.5 of the Code is primarily intended to further the interests of the general public and not limited to the service conditions of employees. Thus understood, right to close a School/Junior College of Management is not an absolute right and moreso, when the School is a government aided school. The extreme argument of the State that Rule 7.5 of the Code empowers the competent Authority even to refuse permission and force the Management to continue to run the School for all times to come, if accepted would render the said provision unconstitutional as it would interfere with the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution-to start a school which includes right to close the school when the Management decides to do so.

as also by the affidavit of Appaji Chandrakant Sawant, Administrative Office in the office of Joint Director, Higher Education sworn on 12nd February, 2002. It is stated that as per the Annexure (70) (xx) of the Secondary School Code an amount not exceeding 80% of the actual expenditure incurred other salary allowances or Rs.2400/- per division of science stream and Rs.2000/- per division of Arts/Commerce stream whichever is less is payable as non-salary grant. It is stated that as per the said policy, colleges run by the Petitioner Trust have been compensated as is mentioned in the statement in respect of non-salary grant during the academic years 1995-1996 to 2000-2001. Further, it was noticed that amount of Rs.99,952/- is payable in respect of Chinai Junior College whereas, nothing was due and payable to the L.U.& M.V.Junior College. In fact, an amount of Rs.3,71,770/- was recoverable from junior college.