Back
2025 Supreme(Del) 456
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J.
G.D. Soni Dav Sr. Secondary School - Appellant
Vs.
Directorate Of Education & Anr. - Respondent
W.P.(C) 4476 Of 2017, CM APPL. 19526 Of 2017 & CM APPL. 19750 Of 2022
Decided On : 28-08-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Alok Kumar, Sr. Adv. with Dr. Surat Singh, Mr. Mayank Yadav, Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Mr. Tejaswin Suri, Mr. Varun Maheshwari, Mr. Manan Soni, Mr. Devvrat Sharma and Mr. Siddhant, Advs.
For the Respondent: Through: Mr. Anubhav Gupta, Adv. for DoE.
A school may refuse government aid and convert to an unaided status without legal prohibition, provided it does not compromise its obligations under the educational statutes.
Headnote:(A) Delhi School Education Act, 1973 - Sections 4, 6, and Rules 73, 74, 87, and 126 - Decision on petition regarding conversion from aided to unaided status - The school must continue to fulfill obligations under the Act despite discontinuation of aid - There is no provision compelling a school to accept aid against its wishes - The Court quashed impugned orders due to their legality and allowed discontinuation of aid. (Paras 55 and 56)
(B) Education law - Recognition and aid as distinct concepts - A recognized school does not necessarily have to receive aid - An aided school's status changes upon stopping recurring maintenance grant if no building grant was received - Implications on student admission and employment must be considered. (Paras 48 and 50)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a senior secondary school, sought permission to convert from an aided to an unaided institution due to the dilapidated condition of its building and the inability to take on new students during reconstruction. The authorities rejected this proposal citing potential detriment to students' interests.
Findings of Court:
The rejection orders limiting the school from ceasing to be an aided institution were found to be legally unsound, as there is no provision in law preventing such conversion.
Issues: Whether a school can be compelled to accept aid against its will, and the implications of changing its status on the interest of students and staff.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court maintained that schools could refuse aid without legal repercussions since recognition and aid are not mandatory correlating concepts and emphasized the responsibility of the institution to adhere to statutory requirements.
Result: Petition allowed, allowing the conversion of the institution from aided to unaided.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to denial of demolition and conversion. (Para 1) |
| 2. background on the school and its condition. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. history of permissions and communications regarding safety. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. rejection of petitioner's requests for operational changes. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. petitioner's argument against doe's opposition. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. respondent's reasons for opposing the petitioner's request. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 7. key question regarding status of assisted vs unassisted. (Para 35 , 36) |
| 8. legal distinction between recognition and aid. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51) |
| 9. assurances of maintaining student support post-aid. (Para 52 , 53) |
| 10. decisions relating to land and aid context. (Para 54) |
JUDGMENT :
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J.
1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner assails the impugned order dated 02.12.2016 whereby the representation of the petitioner for demolition and reconstruction of the school building and conversion it into an unaided institution, was rejected on the ground that the proposal submitted by the petitioner does not appear to be in the interest of the institute, students and staff. The challenge has also been laid to the order dated 09.05.2017 whereby the request of the petitioner school for not admitting new students was rejected. Further, prayer has been made to restrain the respondents from taking any coercive action, citing violations of their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
2. The case set out in the present petition is that the petitioner is a Senior Secondary School, located at Pusa Road, New Delhi. Presently, the school operates as a government-aided institution, receiving 95% financial assistance from the Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
3. In 1961, the land in question was allotted to the Dayanand Anglo Vedic High School Shahpur City Trust & Management Society by the respondent no.2/Land & Development Officer (L&DO), functioning under the then Ministry of Works, Housing and Supply (now the Ministry of Urban Development), Government of India, for the purpose of establishing a school. Pursuant to this allotment, the school commenced operations in 1965 under the name “DAV Sr. Secondary School,” which was later renamed “G.D. Soni D.A.V. Sr. Secondary School, Pusa Road, New Delhi.”
4. The school building was constructed between 1966 and 1967. In view of the passage of nearly six decades, the structure has significantly deteriorated and is presently in a dilapidated condition, thereby necessitating immediate remedial action to ensure the safety and functionality of the premises for educational use.
5. In 2012, the respondent no.2/L&DO granted permission for the demolition and reconstruction of the existing school building. The school currently accommodates 484 students in a total of 24 rooms, of which 8 are in a precarious state, posing a serious safety hazard to occupants.
6. In light of these circumstances, the school repeatedly informed the respondent no.1/Department of Education (DoE) about the deteriorating structural condition and concurrently requested for permission to relocate students to a nearby school. However, no response was received from the department for an extended period.
7. Eventually, the school received a communication from the respondent no.1/DoE Officer, Zone-28, advising it to submit a list of alternate schools for potential relocation of students. In compliance, the school provided the requisite list, but no formal approval was granted, leaving the matter unresolved.
8. On 31.08.2012, the petitioner-school deposited a sum of Rs.1,68,116/- with the respondent no.2/L&DO towards damage charges towards proposed demolition. Further, on 01.10.2012, an amount of Rs.1,54,99,162/- was deposited as additional coverage charges. Subsequently, on 25.10.2012, respondent no.2/L&DO granted formal approval for demolition and reconstruction.
9. In 2013, the school reiterated its concerns by way of rep
