IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vipin Sanghi, Sachin Datta, JJ.
Master Divyam Bhateja - Appellant
Versus
Bhai Parmanand Vidya Mandir & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 8466 of 2022
Decided On : 27-05-2022
RULES - Delhi School Education Rules - 35, 167 - The court examined the validity of Rule 35 and 167 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 in relation to the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection Act, 2015. The court rejected the challenge to the vires of Rules 35 and 167, stating that they do not impinge upon the operation of the RTE Act or the Juvenile Justice Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought various reliefs related to the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, including challenging the validity of certain rules and orders issued by the director of education.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the challenge to the vires of Rules 35 and 167 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, stating that they do not impinge upon the operation of the RTE Act or the Juvenile Justice Act. The court also directed the other prayers of the petitioner to be examined by the Ld. Single Judge on their own merits.
Issues: Validity of Rule 35 and 167 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 in relation to the RTE Act and the Juvenile Justice Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The RTE Act is a self-contained legislation and the operation thereof is unhindered by the Delhi School Education Act and Rules framed thereunder. The impugned Rules 35 and 167 of Delhi School Education Rules do not impinge upon or affect in any manner the operation of Sections 75 of Juvenile Justice Act.
Final Decision: The challenge to the vires of Rules 35 and 167 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 was rejected. The other prayers of the petitioner were directed to be examined by the Ld. Single Judge on their own merits.
ORDER
CM APPL. 25533/2022
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 8466/2022 & CM APPL. 25532/2022
1. The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:
a. Pass an order to declare rules 35 and 167 of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, ultravirus to article 19(1)(a), 21 and 21A of constitution of India read with provisions of Right of Children to free and compulsory Education Act, 2009 and contrary to the provisions of section 75 of Juvenile Justice care and Protection Act, 2015.
b. Pass an order to declare the impugned order dated 18.04.2020passed by the director of education along with subsequent circulars reiterating the same to facilitate the private schools of Delhi to collect the tuition fee without filing of the revised statement of fee and charging for the expenses neither occurred nor any probability of occurring during the lock dawn ultra virous to section 17(3) and 18 of Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and also ultravirus to rule 165 of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973.
c. to pass an order writ or direction to quash the impugned communication of striking down the name of petitioner from the role of school in the violation of undertaking given by the school through their association and in the deliberate disobedience of direction issued by the division bench of this Hon'ble court based on fee bill generated contrary to the provisions of rule 165 of Delhi School Education Rules 1973.
d. To pass an appropriate writ order or direction to quash the demand of fee without prior sanction of director of education government of NCT of Delhi and without following the orders passed by the division benches of this Hon'ble court in LPA No. 230 of 2019 & W.P.(c) No. 11265 of 2017 and order passed by Ld. Single Judge in W.P.(c) No. 6161 of 2019.
e. to pass an appropriate order writ or direction to direct the respondent school not to force the petitioner for charity by paying the fee for the education of children belonging to weaker section and disadvantage group which is being already funded by the appropriate government and direct there is provision of arrangement of fund from sources other than the school fee mentioned under rule 175 of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973
f. pass an appropriate writ order or direction to direct the respondent director of education and the Delhi Development authority to ensure that the school should not be allowed to increase the fee without prior sanction form the Director of Education govt of NCT of Delhi and initiate appropriate action against the school management for the violation of terms of allotment of the land allotted to them at highly concessional rates.
g. Pass an order directing the respondent comptroller and auditor general of India for the timebound audit of the account of the respondent school and determine the fee to be payable by the petitioner.
h. Allow the writ petition with cost.
2. At the outset, we must note that with regard to prayers (b)-(h) reproduced herein above, a Single Judge of this court is already seized of an identical matter in Writ Petition No.3330/2022. It has been brought to our attention that the challenge in the said Petition is to the fees demanded by the same school qua another child of the father of the petitioner herein. We, thus feel that it would be appropriate that prayers (b) - (h) be considered alongwith Writ Petition No.3330/2022.
3. We now proceed to examine prayer (a) of the petitioner with regard to the validity of Rule 35 and 167 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973.
4. Rules 35 and 167 of the Delhi School Education Rules are reproduced below:-
35. Striking off the name from the rolls
(1) The name of a student may be struck off the rolls by the head of the school on account of:
(a) non-payment of fees and other dues for 20 days after the last day for payment: Provided that nothing in this rule shall apply in case students of class VIII and below, studying in Govern
The RTE Act is a self-contained legislation and the operation thereof is unhindered by the Delhi School Education Act and Rules framed thereunder.
Unaided recognized schools - Prohibition for not collecting part of annual charges not justified – School dependent only on fees collected to cover their salary, establishment and all other expenditu....
Private unaided schools hold the autonomy to set fee structures; regulatory actions must stem from clear evidence of profiteering, not general circumstances like a pandemic.
(1) Director, Secondary Education has no authority to issue direction in respect of fee structure in respect of private unaided schools.(2) It is for school Management to reschedule payment of school....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the direction to postpone collection of Annual Charges and Development Fee was illegal and ultra vires the powers of the Directorate of Educat....
The court upheld that the Directorate of Education exceeded its statutory powers by directing the suspension of Annual Charges and Development Fees from private schools, violating contractual agreeme....
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 la....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.