Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI., R.V. RAVEENDRAN & J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.
SUPERSTAR EDUCATION SOCIETY - PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS - RESPONDENT
CIVIL APPEAL NO 1105 OF 2008
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.14768 of 2006)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1106 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.14770 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1107 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.14771 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1108 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.14772 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1109 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.14773 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1110 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.14774 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1111 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.14775 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1112 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.14776 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1113 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.14777 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1114 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.14778 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1115 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.14779 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1116 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.14781 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1117 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.19054 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1118 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.14398 OF 2007
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1119 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.16883 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1120 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.20088 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1121 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.3307 OF 2007
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1122 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.2424 OF 2007
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1123 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.2425 OF 2007
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1124 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.2427 OF 2007
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1125 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.1628 OF 2007
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1126 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.6723 OF 2007
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1127 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.5530 OF 2007
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1128 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.3201 OF 2007
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1129 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.8786 OF 2007
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1130 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.8428 OF 2007
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1131 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.9371 OF 2007
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1132 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.9372 OF 2007
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1133 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.20087 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1134 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.13885 OF 2007
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1135 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.16168 OF 2007
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1136 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.13887 OF 2007
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1137 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.16917 OF 2007
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1138 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.14034 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1139 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.15797 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1140 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.18621 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1141 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.18622 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1142 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.18624 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1143 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.18625 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1144 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.18627 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1145 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.19901 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1146 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.2395 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1147 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.21430 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1148 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.21431 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1149 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.21432 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1150 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.4052 OF 2007
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1151 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.5437 OF 2007
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1152 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.4829 OF 2007
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1153 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.5522 OF 2007
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1154 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.5523 OF 2007
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1155 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.5524 OF 2007
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1156 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.5525 OF 2007
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1159 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.10554 OF 2007
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1160 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.18990 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1162 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.18992 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1164 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.18993 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1165 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.18994 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1166 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.16178 OF 2007
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1167 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.16174 OF 2007
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1168 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.21700 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1169 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.19276 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1170 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.16891 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1171 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.20628 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1172 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.20629 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1173 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.1060 OF 2007
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1174 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.1075 OF 2007
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1175 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.1076 OF 2007
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1176 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.20923 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1177 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.1077 OF 2007
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1178 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.21416 OF 2006
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1179 OF 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.19055 OF 2006
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/01/2008
Education Code – Linguistic Based Schools – Norms – Public Interest Litigation was filed in the Bombay High Court complaining that large number of schools were being started in the State without following any norms. – A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court considered the matter in Gramvikas Shikshan Prasarak Mandal v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. – By judgment High Court directed the State Government to prepare a Master Plan, for granting permission to the Primary, Secondary and Higher Secondary Schools during 2000-2010, by reviewing and updating the existing state policies and schemes and by incorporating the guidelines suggested by the High Court, in its judgment. – Decision clarified that the master plan will be only for Marathi Medium Schools. – As regards English Medium Schools and other non-Marathi Medium Schools, no directions were issued. – It was also stated that schools established by religious or linguistic minorities will not be governed by the proposed Master Plan. – Held, It is the duty of the State Government to provide access for education. – Unless new schools in the private sector are permitted it will not be possible for the State to discharge its constitutional obligation. – Permission has been granted to 1495 new schools under the order on permanent no-grant basis without any financial commitment or liability on the part of the State Government, even in future, and at the same time ensuring that the schools follow the parameters and conditions prescribed by the Education Code, reserving liberty to the authorities to take appropriate action, should there be any violation. – Said order does not contravene any provision of law. – It was not even the case of the writ petitioner that the schools permitted did not fulfil the conditions and requirements relating to such schools – Assumption that the order violated the order in Gramvikas Mandal does not appear to be sound. – Even if the High Court wanted implementation of the decision in Gramvikas Mandal, it ought to have directed that the Master Plan should be prepared within a time bound schedule rather than quashing the permission granted to 1495 schools thereby denying access to a large number of students aspiring for higher secondary education. – Appeals Allowed
JUDGMENT
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.
Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra (Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3).
2. In the State of Maharashtra, there are three categories of schools - Marathi Medium Schools, English Medium Schools, other non-Marathi Medium Schools. Some schools in all three categories are established by religious or linguistic minority groups. Establishment of new Primary, Secondary and Higher Secondary Schools are governed by respective Education Codes.
3. In the year 2000 a Public Interest Litigation was filed in the Bombay High Court complaining that large number of schools were being started in the State without following any norms. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court considered the matter in Gramvikas Shikshan Prasarak Mandal v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (AIR 2000 Bombay 437). By judgment dated 11.4.2000, the High Court directed the State Government to prepare a Master Plan, for granting permission to the Primary, Secondary and Higher Secondary Schools during 2000-2010, by reviewing and updating the existing state policies and schemes and by incorporating the guidelines suggested by the High Court, in its judgment. The decision clarified that the master plan will be only for Marathi Medium Schools. As regards English Medium Schools and other non-Marathi Medium Schools, no directions were issued. It was also stated that schools established by religious or linguistic minorities will not be governed by the proposed Master Plan.
4. Due to several reasons, there was delay in finalizing the master plan. On considering the reasons assigned by the State Government, the Aurangabad Bench permitted sanctioning of all types of schools including Marathi Medium of Schools for 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 on permanent unaided basis even though the Master Plan was not ready.
5. In regard to the year 2005-2006, the State Government considered more than 3000 applications and the proposals/recommendations by the District Level Committees in regard to such applications, and granted permission for 1495 new Higher Secondary classes/schools by order dated 16.5.2006 on 'no-grant basis'. Such permission was granted subject to the following conditions:
(i) No financial assistance would be provided to any of the newly approved Higher Secondary classes even in future.
(ii) The Higher Secondary Schools should scrupulously follow the orders issued by the Government from time to time, as also the provisions of Secondary School Code and Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Act, 1977 and the 1981 Rules framed thereunder.
(iii) The School administrations should not charge any fee from students in excess of the fees approved by the Government.
(iv) The school administrations should maintain adequate and sufficient financial position.
(v) The Schools should display prominently a Board stating 'Higher Secondary School with permission on permanent no-grant basis' and also state in their letterheads 'School on permanent no-grant basis'.
(vi) The societies running the schools should furnish affidavits confirming that they are ready to run the Higher Secondary classes on permanent no-grant basis and such affidavits shall be permanently maintained. In pursuance of such permission, the Higher Secondary classes were commenced and were being conducted.
6. When matters stood thus, the fourth respondent (Maharashtra Rajya Shikshan Sansthan Mahamandal) filed a Public Interest Litigation (W.P.No.2897/2006) before the Nagpur Bench challenging the order dated 16.5.2006 on the ground that grant of permission to 1495 schools violated the direction issued by the High Court in Gramvikas Mandal (supra) for preparation of a master plan. None of the 1495 schools which were granted permission, were impleaded as parties to the writ petition
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
