LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Tuesday, September 4, 2012

whether the State is duty bound to grant recognition to an unaided educational institution on the touchstone of Article 21A of the Constitution of India overlooking the procedure laid down under Rule 2 and Rule 2A of Chapter V of the Kerala Education Rules (for short ‘KER’).-The State Government, in the instant case, has already granted recognition to the respondent school for conducting the classes from 1 to 10 in the academic year 2010-11 onwards, of course, subject to the result of this SLP. Considering the fact that the local body has also recommended recognition and large number of students are now studying in the school, and the same is situated in a Tribal area, we find no reason to interfere with the recognition already granted to the respondent school as a special case, but we make it clear that this order shall not be treated as a precedent. Appeal is disposed of as above. There will be no order as to costs.


                                                                  REPORTABLE
                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6267 OF 2012
               [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 34988 of 2010]


State of Kerala and Others                         .. Appellants
                                   Versus
The Tribal Mission                                 .. Respondent

                               J U D G M E N T

K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1.    Leave granted.

2.    We are, in this case, concerned with the question  whether  the  State
is duty bound to grant recognition to an unaided educational institution  on
the touchstone of Article 21A of the Constitution of India  overlooking  the
procedure laid down under Rule 2 and Rule 2A of  Chapter  V  of  the  Kerala
Education Rules (for short ‘KER’).

3.    Respondent established a school by name Betham English  Medium  School
in the year 2001 at Attappady in the Palakkad District, State of  Kerata  in
the unaided sector.  An application for recognition  was  submitted  by  the
respondent school in the  year  2003  before  the  Government.   The  Deputy
Direction of Education, however, forwarded a  report/letter  No.  B1/8863/07
dated 19.10.2007 to the State Government pointing out existence of  a  three
recognized schools within a distance of 5  km  from  the  respondent  school
following Tamil and Malayalam mediums having Standard 1 to 7, of  which  one
is situated within a distance of 2.5 km.  Further, it was pointed  out  that
the respondent school though was having sufficient infrastructure,  granting
recognition would adversely affect the other aided  schools  functioning  in
that area and the possibility of division fall in these  schools  could  not
be ruled out.

4.    The Government rejected the application for recognition on the  ground
that it would  violate  the  Government’s  Policy  referred  to  in  GO  (P)
No.107/07/G Edn dated 13.06.2007. Further, it was also pointed out that  the
procedure for granting recognition to new schools is laid down in Chapter  V
of KER and as per  sub-rule  (2)  of  Rule  2A  of  Chapter  V  of  KER,  an
application for opening a school should be in response to  the  notification
under sub-rule (1) of Rule 2A of Chapter V.  Consequently,  the  application
was rejected by  the  Government  vide  GO  (Rt)  No.  5321/07/G.Edn.  dated
22.11.2007.

5.    Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent along with various  others
approached the learned single Judge of the High Court who upheld the  order.
  Respondent took up the matter  before  the  Division  Bench  of  the  High
Court.  The Division Bench of  the  High  Court,  vide  its  judgment  dated
18.8.2010 allowed the appeal stating that the respondent has  satisfied  the
various conditions laid down in the Government’s Policy dated 13.6.2007  and
therefore, directed the Government to grant recognition  to  the  respondent
school as an unaided self-finance English medium school to run classes  from
standard 1 to 10 from the academic  year  2010-11  onwards.   The  State  is
aggrieved by that judgment and hence this appeal.

6.    We have heard Ms. Bina Madhavan for  the  appellant  and  Shri  M.  P.
Vinod for the respondent.   Chapter V of KER  deals  with  the  opening  and
recognition of schools. For easy reference, we may extract Rule 2  and  Rule
2A of Chapter V as under:


           “2.  Procedure for determining the areas where new  schools  are
      to be opened for existing schools upgraded -  (1)  The  Director  may,
      from time to time, prepare two lists, one is respect of aided  schools
      and the  other  in  respect  of  recognized  schools,  indicating  the
      localities were new schools or any or all grades are to be opened  and
      existing Lower Primary School or Upper Primary Schools or both are  to
      be upgraded.  In preparing such lists he shall take into consideration
      the following.


           (a) The existing schools in and around the locality in which new
      schools are to be opened or existing schools are to be upgraded; 26


           (b) The strength of the several standards and the  accommodation
      available in each of the existing schools in that locality;


           (c) The distance from each of the existing schools to  the  area
      where new schools are proposed to be  opened  or  to  the  area  where
      existing schools are to be upgraded;


           (d) The educational needs of the locality with reference to  the
      habit1ation and backwardness of the area; and


           (e) Other matters which he considers relevant and  necessary  in
      this connection.


           Explanation:-  for the removal of doubts it is hereby  clarified
      that it shall not be necessary to prepare the two lists simultaneously
      and that it shall be open to the Director to prepare only one  of  the
      lists.


           (2) A list prepared by the Director under Sub-rule (1) shall  be
      published in  the  Gazette,  inviting  objections  or  representations
      against such list. Objections, if any, can be filed against  the  list
      published within one month from the date of publication of  the  list.
      Such  objection  shall  be  filed  before  the  Assistant  Educational
      Officers or the District Educational Officers  as  the  case  may  be.
      Every objection filed shall be accompanied  by  chalan  for  Rs.  10/-
      remitted into the Treasury.  Objections filed  without  the  necessary
      Chalan receipt shall be summarily rejected.


           (3)  The  Assistant  Educational  Officer   and   the   District
      Educational  Officer  may  thereafter  conduct  enquiries,  hear   the
      parties, visit the areas and send their report with their views on the
      objections raised to the Director within two months from the last date
      of receipt of the objections.  The Director, if found  necessary,  may
      also  hear  the  parties  and  finalise  the   list   and   send   his
      recommendations with the final list to Government  within  two  months
      from the last date of the receipt of the report from  the  Educational
      Officers.


           (4) The  Government  after  scrutinizing  all  the  records  may
      approve the list with or without modification and forward the same  to
      the Director within one month from the last date for  the  receipt  of
      the recommendations of the Director.  The  list  as  approved  by  the
      Government shall be published by the Director in the Gazette.


           (5) No appeal or revision  shall  lie  against  the  final  list
      published by the Director.


           Provided  that  the  Government  may  either  suo  motu  or   on
      application by any person objecting  to  the  list  published  by  the
      Director under sub-rule (4) made before the expiry of thirty days from
      the date of such publication review their order finalizing  such  list
      and make such modifications in that list as they  deem fit by  way  of
      additions or omissions, if they are satisfied that any relevant ground
      has not been taken into consideration or  any  irrelevant  ground  has
      been taken into consideration or any relevant fact has not been  taken
      into account while finalizing the said list:


           Provided further that no modification shall be  made  under  the
      preceding proviso without giving any  person  likely  to  be  affected
      thereby  an  opportunity   to   make   representation   against   such
      modifications.


           2A. Applications for opening of new  schools  and  upgrading  of
      existing schools - (1) After the publication of the final list of  the
      areas where 8[new school of any or all grades  are  to  be  opened  or
      existing Lower Primary Schools or Upper Primary schools or both are to
      be upgraded the Director shall, by a notification in the Gazette [x  x
      x] call for applications for the opening of New schools of any or  all
      grades] and for raising of the grade of existing Lower Primary Schools
      or Upper Primary Schools or both] in the areas specified.


            (2) Applications for opening of  new  schools  or  for  raising
      schools shall be  submitted  only  in  response  to  the  notification
      published by the Director.  Applications received otherwise shall  not
      be considered.  The applications shall be submitted  to  the  District
      Educational Officer of the area concerned in form No. 1 with 4  copies
      of the application and enclosures within one month from  the  date  of
      publication of the notification under sub- rule (1).


            (3) On receipt of the applications for permission to  open  new
      schools or for upgrading of existing schools, the District Educational
      Officer shall make such enquiries  as  he  may  deem  fit  as  to  the
      correctness of the  statements  made  in  the  application  and  other
      relevant  matters  regarding  such  applications   and   forward   the
      applications with his report thereon to the Director within one  month
      from the last date for submitting applications under sub-rule (2).


            (4) The Director on receipt of the applications with the report
      of the District Educational Officer  shall  forward  the  applications
      with his report to Government. within one month from the last date for
      forwarding the report by the District Educational Officer.


            (5) The Government shall consider the applications in the light
      of the report of the District Educational Officer and the Director and
      other relevant matters which the  Government  think  necessary  to  be
      considered in this connection and shall  take  a  final  decision  and
      publish their  decision  in  the  Gazette  with  the  list  containing
      necessary particulars.  within  one  month  from  the  last  date  for
      forwarding the report by the Director.”




7.    The scope of the above mentioned rules came up  for  consideration  in
the case of State of Kerala & Others v. K. Prasad &  Another  (2007)  7  SCC
140, wherein this Court held as follows:

           10. The two  Rules,  quoted  above,  lay  down  a  comprehensive
      procedure for opening  of  new  schools  in  particular  areas,  their
      recognition and upgradation. It is manifest that a  decision  in  this
      behalf has to be taken primarily by the Government on  an  application
      made for that purpose under Rule 2-A. The  Rules  also  lay  down  the
      guidelines which are to be taken into consideration for preparing  the
      list in terms of sub-rule (1) of Rule 2. On the lists being finalised,
      after their publication and consideration of objections, if  any,  the
      same have to be sent to the  Government  for  its  approval,  with  or
      without modification. Nevertheless the  decision  by  the  Government,
      whether opening of new school  is  to  be  sanctioned  or  whether  an
      existing school is to be allowed to be upgraded has  to  be  taken  on
      consideration of the matters enumerated in Clauses (a) to (e) of  Rule
      2(1) of the Rules. Similarly, an application for either opening of new
      school or for upgradation of an existing aided school can be submitted
      only after the Director publishes a final  list  of  areas  where  new
      schools are to be opened or existing schools are to be upgraded  under
      sub-rule (4) of Rule 2. Any application received otherwise  cannot  be
      considered. In view of such comprehensive procedure laid down  in  the
      statute, an application for upgradation has necessarily to be made and
      considered strictly in a manner in consonance with the Rules. It needs
      little emphasis that the Rules are meant to be and have to be complied
      with and enforced scrupulously. Waiver or even relaxation of any rule,
      unless such power exists under the rules, is bound  to  provide  scope
      for discrimination, arbitrariness and favouritism,  which  is  totally
      opposed to the rule of law and our constitutional values.………….”



8.    The Government’s Policy issued vide GO(P) No.107/07/G  Edn.  dated  13
June, 2007 with regard to up-gradation of existing schools  and  recognition
of unaided schools applies to respondent  school  as  well.   The  operative
portion of the same which applies to unaided schools and grant  of  NOC  for
CBSE/ICSE Schools reads as follows:
           “Recognition of Un-aided Schools and NOC for CBSE/ICSE Schools:


     1.  As  a  policy  unaided  recognized  Schools  need  not  be   given
        recognition in future.


     2. For those schools functioning in the state now whether they may  be
        considered for recognition at all a policy decision may be taken at
        Govt. level.



     3. Since many of them may be  answering  to  the  demand  for  English
        medium and better quality  education  in  the  rural  areas,  those
        having facilities as per Kerala  Education  Rules  and  maintaining
        better academic standards may be considered for recognition, if the
        local bodies also recommend recognition of a  school  acknowledging
        the need for such  a  school  in  the  local  body’s  jurisdiction.
        Further steps can be as in Chapter V Kerala Education Rules,  which
        also envisages the setting up of recognized schools.”



9.    Para 3 above will not give any Carte Blanche to start a school in  the
unaided sector and then seek recognition as a matter of right  because  para
1 above indicates that as  a  policy  unaided  schools  need  not  be  given
recognition in future.  In the  instant  case,  it  is  after  starting  the
school in  the  unaided  sector,  the  respondent  school  is  pressing  for
recognition which, in our view, is not a correct  procedure.  Assuming  that
the respondent school has satisfied all the requirements stipulated in  Para
3, still it has to undergo the procedure laid down under Rule 2 and Rule  2A
of Chapter V, otherwise, as held by this Court in K.  Prasad  case  (supra),
it is bound to provide scope for discrimination, arbitrariness,  favouritism
and also would affect the functioning of other  recognized  schools  in  the
locality.

10.   The Division Bench of the High Court has expressed the view that  once
the respondent satisfies Para 3 of the Policy, the State Government  has  to
grant recognition which in our view would go contrary to the view  expressed
by this Prasad Case (supra) and violates Rule 2, 2A of  Chapter  V  of  KER.
The question, as to whether, the  grant  of  recognition  would  affect  the
existing schools is also a relevant consideration.  The State  spends  large
amounts by way of aid, grant etc. for running schools in  the  aided  sector
as well as the State owned schools.  Indiscriminate grant of recognition  to
schools in the unaided sector may have an adverse affect on the State  owned
schools as well as the existing schools in  the  aided  sector,  by  way  of
division fall, retrenchment of teachers etc.  Therefore, the procedure  laid
down in Rules 2, 2A of Chapter V of KER cannot be overlooked.

11.   The State  Government,  in  the  instant  case,  has  already  granted
recognition to the respondent school for conducting the classes  from  1  to
10 in the academic year 2010-11 onwards, of course, subject  to  the  result
of this SLP.  Considering the fact that the local body has also  recommended
recognition and large number of students are now  studying  in  the  school,
and the same is situated in a Tribal area, we find no  reason  to  interfere
with the recognition already granted to the respondent school as  a  special
case, but we make it clear that  this  order  shall  not  be  treated  as  a
precedent.  Appeal is disposed of as above.  There will be no  order  as  to
costs.

                                             ……………….……………………..J.
                                             (K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN)






                                             ………………………………….…..J.
                                             (DIPAK MISRA)
New Delhi
September 4, 2012