Back
"Promote Marathi, Close Marathi Schools?" Bombay HC Slams State's Grant-Aid Crackdown
In a sharp rebuke to the Maharashtra government, the 's Kolhapur bench has quashed the disqualification of several primary and secondary schools from receiving state grant-in-aid. Justices Madhav J. Jamdar and Pravin S. Patil ruled that the blanket policy—without individual hearings—flagrantly violates . The decision, delivered on , in a batch of led by , protects petitioners' institutions from closure and student displacement.
Roots of the Rural Education Crisis
The dispute stems from two government resolutions (GRs) dated . These permanently barred 433 primary schools (plus 33 additional classes) and 324 secondary schools (plus 412 additional classes)—mostly Marathi-medium in rural and remote areas—from grant-in-aid. Schools failing repeated assessments under a GR policy were directed to apply under the , by , or face automatic recognition cancellation and student relocation to nearby aided schools.
Petitioners, including societies like , , and , challenged this as arbitrary. Many had operated for decades with state permissions and recognitions under the . Some had pending grant proposals or prior eligibility declarations, like via a GR.
As media reports highlighted, the move threatened over 750 Marathi schools, drawing irony: the state pushes Marathi promotion while risking their shutdown.
Petitioners Cry Foul: "No Notice, No Fair Play"
Petitioners argued the GRs ignored —no hearings despite drastic impacts on students, staff, and rural access. Key claims: - No communication of failures : District Education Officers never shared assessment results or marks, as required by the GR. - Pending processes : Proposals were under review or rejected without finality; some schools were deemed eligible for partial aid in 2023. - Procedural flaws : District committees refused submissions; forcing self-financed conversion bypassed the 2012 Act's voluntary application process. - Human cost : Abrupt closures would strand poor rural students and unpaid staff, contradicting public education duties.
They invoked the GR's multi-tier assessment (district and verification committees) and stressed grant-in-aid as a state discretion, not a right, but revocation demands reasons and fairness.
State's Defense: "Procedure Followed, Delinquents Pay"
Assistant Government Pleaders countered that the GR outlined clear norms—100-point assessments on academics (50 marks), infrastructure (35), counseling (3), etc. Failing three consecutive years triggers disqualification. Petitioners had opportunities via district committees, online portals, and a prior notice to fix deficiencies. The GRs merely enforced this, offering self-financed paths; non-compliance leads to lawful cancellation.
Court's Razor-Sharp Reasoning: Over Caprice
Delving into the GR, the bench noted its district-level committees (7 members, chaired by Education Officer) and regional verification, with public notices and mark disclosures. Yet, for final disqualification—a "drastic action" closing long-recognized schools—the court found no individual hearings.
Drawing on
S.G. Jaysinghani v. Union of India
(AIR 1967 SC 1427), Justices emphasized:
"In a system governed by
, discretion... must be confined within clearly defined limits... If a decision is taken without any principle or without any rule it is unpredictable."
Absolute discretion breeds caprice, violating
equality.
The bench lambasted policy contradictions: Marathi promotion clashed with shuttering rural Marathi schools. It flagged ignored factors—staff absorption, student relocation feasibility, medium continuity—and procedural overreach on self-financed conversions. No evidence showed petitioners' three-year failures; many had permissions since the 1980s-2010s.
Key Observations
"The State Government at one hand is insisting that Marathi language should be given importance... and on the other hand, by said action, trying to close down Marathi schools."
"Before taking such decision, the respective schools and the teachers as well as students... ought to have been looked into the matter and for this purpose, hearing opportunity ought to have been granted to them."
"Any adverse order passed by the Government... must contain reasons to disclose as to how they arrived at such decision showing ."
A Reprieve for Classrooms, Roadmap for Reform
The court declared the GRs inapplicable to petitioners, directing the state to delete their names from disqualification lists. Schools may continue operations; no coercive steps under the GRs.
This interim shield safeguards education continuity but signals broader scrutiny: the state must now grant hearings per GR processes before mass disqualifications. For rural Maharashtra, it averts chaos, reinforcing that administrative swords demand . Future cases may test self-financed mandates and Marathi policy coherence.
