B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.

1. In W.P. 6136 of 2010, the Petitioner has commenced a Marathi medium primary school in 2008l. Arguments are advanced on the strength of this petition in remaining petitions. However, we find that in W.Ps.6153, 6155 & 6186 of 2010 the very same petitioner institution has started Marathi medium secondary schools. Permission was sought after the Schools were already established in 2008. Rejection of such permission vide communication dated 4.6.2010 in WPs. 6136,6153,6155 & 6186/10 by the State and letter of Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Ahmadnagar dated 28.5.2010 in WP 6136/10 and the letter dated 7.6.2010 by Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Ahmadnagar in WP 6153,6155/10 and dated 18.6.2010 in WP 6186 of 2010 are questioned in these matters. All these petitions also contain a prayer to declare part of Section 18(1),18(5),19(1) & 19(5) of the Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education Act,2009 (referred to as 2009 Act, hereafter) to the extent the same do not allow to “establish or function a school without obtaining a certificate of recognition” ultra-vires & violative of Art. 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India & Art. 19(2) of the 2009 Act itself. By other prayers, a direction to issue provisional certificate of recognition to respective Schools to enable them to run/function is also sought.

2. Perusal of the communication dated 28.5. 2010 at Exh. H in WP 6136 of 2010 shows that Petitioner had applied in pursuance of the circular dated 29.4.2008 and State Government has informed its policy decision dated 16.6.2009 that primary schools permitted on permanently no grant basis in mediums other than English were to be brought on grant by deleting word “permanent” from the permission. Hence, there was no policy permitting primary schools in other mediums except English medium schools to be established on permanent no grant basis. It is also informed that State had decided to consider population, number of existing schools, gross enrolment ratio etc. & had undertaken School mapping as per medium of instruction. A new policy was thus being chalked out & after examining the need of the particular area as per such School Mapping, the proposals for establishing a School as per need would be invited. Letter of dated 4.6.2010 is common in all these matters. It contains same reasons as briefly disclosed in forwarding letter and in addition also mentions Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education act, 2009 as an additional circumstance necessitating the School Mapping. It also rejects all proposals received whether with positive recommendations of either both or only one of the Committees ie District Level Committee or the State Level Committee or without such recommendation as also report received after cross verification were all considered and all proposals to start Marathi medium schools were rejected after individual scrutiny.

3. In WP 6153 of 2010, communication dated 28.5.2010 impugned in this matter is not by Education Officer but by the desk officer. Communication dated 7.6.2010 is the forwarding letter sent by the Education Officer(Sec) enclosing the impugned letter dated 4.6.2010 with it. This letter is same as mentioned above. In WP 6186/2010, impugned communication dated 18.6.2010 is the forwarding letter sent by the Education Officer (Sec) enclosing the impugned letter dated 4.6.2010 with it. Contents of both these letters are same as mentioned above. In WP 6155 of 2010, impugned communication dated 7.6.2010 is the forwarding letter sent by the Education Officer(Sec) enclosing the impugned letter dated 4.6.2010 with it. Both these letters are on same lines as stated above.

4. On 14.7.2010, this Court issued notices in the matter but observed—“No interim relief at this stage”. On 8.10.2010, prayer for interim relief not to take coercive steps to stop functioning/running of the Schools as the same