Unaided minority schools affiliated to central board but accepting state NOC and RTE approval cannot expel students aged 6-14 for fee non-payment before elementary education completion; limited to late fees only.

JUDGMENT :

RAJ D. WAKODE, J.

Heard learned counsels for the respective parties.

2. A short question which falls for consideration is whether the student of 7^th standard can be denied education in the school on the ground that she has not paid the fees as asked by the school?

3. For answering the aforesaid question, few facts would be necessary. The petitioner No.1 is a minor student and petitioner No. 2 is her father. The petitioner No. 1 was admitted in respondent No. 7 school in 6^th standard from academic year 2023-24 and she was promoted to 7^th standard in the academic year 2024-25.

4. It is the case of the petitioner No. 2 that since he lodged his protest with respondent Nos. 2 to 6, that respondent No. 7 school was not following the norms and law and had been engaged in profiteering and exploitation of the children, more particularly, by fixing the fee arbitrarily and by not using NCERT books, transfer certificate was issued. According to petitioners, since the grievance was raised, drastic action was taken by respondent school. The petitioner No.1 had appeared in the final examination of Standard VII and has passed the aforesaid examination. The respondent Nos.7 and 8 on 24.03.2025 had issued a notice to the petitioner No.1 that if she fails to pay the outstanding fees of Rs.23,900/- within three days of the receipt of this notice, the School shall issue Transfer Certificate/Leaving Certificate as against the petitioner No.1 alongwith marksheet for the academic year 2024-25. In pursuance to the aforesaid notice, the respondent No.7 – School issued Transfer Certificate to the petitioner No.1 and thus, expelled her from the School.

5. It is the case of the petitioners through their learned counsel Mr. Nitin Lalwani that since the school is governed by the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, (for short, “Act of 2009”), the act of the respondent school in issuing transfer certificate was contrary to the law.

6. Per contra, Mr. Sathianathan learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 7 and 8 have contended that it is the petitioner No. 2, who is to be blamed for creating various problems. According to him, petitioner No. 2 has unnecessarily indulged into creating problems for respondent No. 7 school since the petitioner No. 2 had not only filed incorrect complaints with various authorities but had also tried to outrage the modesty of one of the teachers which resulted into registration of First Information Report. He submitted that the petitioner has in fact, given threat to self immolate which is nothing but a striking example of arm twisting tactics.

7. According to Mr. Sathianathan, the provisions of the Act of 2009 cannot be made applicable to it since respondent No. 7 school is affiliated with Central Board of Secondary Education and is also registered and recognized as minority institution by State of Maharashtra, which is unaided. He thus, submits that since the petitioner No. 2 has not paid the fees for petitioner No.1, in spite of several notices, the transfer certificate was rightly issued.

8. He further submitted that on 18.2.2024, for non payment of school fees, notices were issued to 32 parents and since ini