Vikhe Patil Memorial School, Pune vs Union of India

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2015 Supreme(Bom) 1273

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ANOOP V. MOHTA & V.L. ACHLIYA, JJ.
Vikhe Patil Memorial School, Pune – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 1582, 4457, 4654, 4655, 4656, 4657, 4658, 4659, 4660, 4661, 4662 of 2015 & A.S. Public Interest Litigation (Stamp) No. 16769 of 2015 & O.S. PIL (L) No. 64 of 2015 & O.S. Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 1831 of 2015 & O.S. Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 1858 of 2015
Decided On : 14.8.2015

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. A.V. Anturkar, Mr. Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate, Mr. S.B. Deshmukh, Mr. Prathamesh Bhargude, Mr. K.S. Bapat, Mr. M. Nilesh S. Patil, Dr. Birendra Saraf, Mr. Piyush Raheja, Mr. Vishesh Malviya, Ms. Nikita Mishra, Ms. Avisha Kulkarni, Mr. Rahul Deodhar for the Petitioners.
Mr. R.A. Rodrigues, Mr. N.V. Masurkar, Mr. S.G. Thakur, Mr. D.R. More, Mr. Prashant Kamble, Mr. Vishwanath Patil, Mr. Y.S. Bhate, Mr. Dushyant Kumar, Ms. Neeta Masurkar, Mrs. Surekha Sonawane, Mr. Rajdeep Suresh Khadapkar for the Respondent.
Mr. Nitin Deshpande, Ms. S.S. Bhende, Ms. Anjali Helekar, Mr. H.S. Venegaonkar, Mr. Anurag Gokhale, Mr. J.S. Saluja, AGP for the Respondent-State.

Headnote:
The High Court of Bombay held that the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) mandates the compulsory admission of a minimum of 25% of children belonging to specific classes/groups/sections in both Class I and preschool at both entry levels. The Court also held that the simultaneous two or both entry levels are permissible and that the circulars dated 23 July 2015 and 21 January 2015 and other related communications are valid and within the framework of the law.
Fact of the Case:

The Petitioners, who are unaided schools, challenged the Government Resolution dated 21 January 2015 and the circular issued by the Education Officer (Primary, Zilla Parishad, Pune) dated 13 April 2015, which directed that there will be two entry points viz. the first entry point as Nursery level of preschool education and the second entry point at the First standard level. The Petitioners also challenged the Government Resolution dated 30 April 2015, which cancelled the Government Resolution dated 21 January 2015 and directed that admissions be given only in Class I.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the RTE Act mandates the compulsory admission of a minimum of 25% of children belonging to specific classes/groups/sections in both Class I and preschool at both entry levels. The Court also held that the simultaneous two or both entry levels are permissible and that the circulars dated 23 July 2015 and 21 January 2015 and other related communications are valid and within the framework of the law.
Issues: Whether the RTE Act mandates the compulsory admission of a minimum of 25% of children belonging to specific classes/groups/sections in both Class I and preschool at both entry levels.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the RTE Act mandates the compulsory admission of a minimum of 25% of children belonging to specific classes/groups/sections in both Class I and preschool at both entry levels. The Court also held that the simultaneous two or both entry levels are permissible and that the circulars dated 23 July 2015 and 21 January 2015 and other related communications are valid and within the framework of the law. The Court interpreted the provisions of the RTE Act and the relevant rules and held that the State Government's circulars and resolutions providing for two entry levels are in accordance with the law and do not violate the rights of the Petitioners.
Final Decision: The Court disposed of all the Writ Petitions except Original Side PILST No. 64 of 2015 and Appellate Side PILST No. 16769 of 2015. The Court directed the State Government to constitute an advisory council and/or appoint and/or form the other authorities as contemplated under the RTE Act, at the earliest, if not already appointed and/or constituted. The Court also directed the State Government to consider and decide the issue of providing reimbursement for the vacant reserved seats and issue appropriate Govt. Resolution/circular accordingly.

JUDGMENT

ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.

1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. The issues are common and interconnected and therefore, this common judgment/order.

2. The Petitioners are imparting preprimary and elementary education in their respective unaided schools. Some are unaided minority schools also. The Respondents-State of Maharashtra (State) and its officers are in-charge to control the schools and take effective steps to provide and or to make arrangement for primary and elementary school education till its completion in the State, as contemplated under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short, RTE Act) and The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2010 (the RTE Central Rules), The Maharashtra Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 (for short, RTE State Rules of 2011) and Maharashtra Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (Manner of admission of Minimum 25% children in Class I or Preschool at the entry level for the children belonging to disadvantaged group and weaker section) Rules, 2013 (RTE State Rules, 2013).

3. The relevant prayers in Writ Petition No. 4457 of 2015 dated 15 April 2015 as illustrated, are as under:-

“(A) That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a writ mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ direction and order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, directing the Respondents herein to recommend the names under the Provision of the Right of Children to the Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 to the Petitioners schools under the Provision of Section 12(1)(c) of the Act. Only of those students who comply with all the three 9/69 conditions mentioned in section 12 (1) (c) viz.

(a) That the child must belong to the weaker section within the meaning of section 2(c) of the Act.

(b) That the child must belong to the disadvantaged group within the meaning of section 2(d) of the Act.

(AA) Quashing and setting aside the Government Revolution, dated 23rd July 2015 and the Government Resolution dated 21st January 2015 as illegal, bad in law and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, being vague and without application of mind and also contrary to the provisions of Right of Children to the Free and Compulsory Education Act of 2009. (Added subsequently)

(B) Quashing and setting aside the Government Resolution dated 21st January 2015 bearing No. RTE-2014/PTA.KRA.174/S.D1 issued by the Government of Maharashtra viz. Respondent No. 2 and 3 and the circular issued by the Education Officer (Primary Zillha Parishad, Pune dated 13th April 2015, directing that there will be two entry points viz. the first entry points and the nursery level of the Preschool Education and the second entry point at the first standard level as illegal and bad in law.

(C) Quashing and setting aside the Circular dated 13th April 2015 issued by the Education Officer Primary Zillha Parishad, Pune (and similar circulars issued by the Education Officer (Primary) Zillha Parishad, Solapur and Nashik) directing that the backlog of the year 2012-2013 against the 25% RTE quota for the Nursery school or KG should be came forward and satisfied by making the Provision at a second entry point, viz. at the I standard for the current Academic Year 2015-2016.

(D) To direct the Respondent to constitute the State Advisory Council under section 34 of the Act of 2009 and implement the Provision of the Act, only in accordance with section 34(2) of the Act, and not by issuing any Government Resolution under Article 162 ignoring the Provision of Section 34 of the Act of 2009.”

4. The similar challenge appeare except certain more raised in other Writ Petitions also. Both the Public Interest Litigations are based only for supporting the State action. The relevant provisions of The RTE Act are as under:

“2 (a) Appropriate Government means:-

(i) In relation to a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 Supreme(Bom) 1273

Cases Referred (3)