Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.
Benno Jacob - Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
WP (C) No. 16415 of 2016
Decided On : 26-07-2016
Fee Collection - School Affiliation - CBSE Bye-laws - Right to Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 - [FEE COLLECTION] - [School Affiliation] - [Affiliation Bye Laws of the CBSE, Right to Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009] - The court discussed the provisions of the Affiliation Bye Laws of the CBSE, which state that fees should be commensurate with the facilities provided by the institution and that no capitation fee or voluntary donations should be charged. The court also considered the Right to Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009, which prohibits the collection of capitation fees. The court found that the school's collection of fees was in accordance with the notifications published by the school and that the admission fee collected was permissible under the bye-laws of the school. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the question of whether the fees charged commensurate with the facilities provided is a matter for the Government to consider.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an association of parents of students in a school, alleged that the school was collecting excessive fees, including an admission fee of Rs.8,000, which they claimed was not in accordance with the school's published fee structure. The petitioner sought relief to prevent the school from collecting illegal charges and to ensure compliance with affiliation bye laws and the Right to Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the school's collection of fees was in accordance with the notifications published by the school and that the admission fee collected was permissible under the bye-laws of the school. The court also dismissed the petition, stating that the question of whether the fees charged commensurate with the facilities provided is a matter for the Government to consider.
Issues: The issues involved the alleged collection of excessive fees by the school, including an admission fee of Rs.8,000, and the petitioner's request for relief to prevent the school from collecting illegal charges and to ensure compliance with affiliation bye laws and the Right to Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the school's collection of fees was in accordance with the notifications published by the school and that the admission fee collected was permissible under the bye-laws of the school. The court also dismissed the petition, stating that the question of whether the fees charged commensurate with the facilities provided is a matter for the Government to consider.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, stating that the question of whether the fees charged commensurate with the facilities provided is a matter for the Government to consider.
The petitioner is an association of the parents of the students in the sixth respondent school ('the school' for short). The school is affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education ('the CBSE' for short) on the strength of the no objection certificate (NOC) issued by the State Government, as required by the bye-laws of the CBSE. According to the petitioner, the monthly fee of the students in standards I to XII of the school as published in the website of the school does not exceed Rs.1,350/- per month. It is alleged by the petitioner that, nevertheless, the school is collecting a sum of Rs.8,000/- from every students at the time of admission.
Ext.P2 is the communication issued by the school to the parent of a student who sought admission in the first standard. As per Ext.P2, the said parent was directed to pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- towards admission fee. Ext.P3 is the receipt issued by the school to a student named Yuan Sreejith, evidencing payment of Rs.8,000/- towards admission fee. It is the case of the petitioner that the tuition fee collected from the students is not in accordance with the tuition fee published in the website of the school. According to the petitioner, any amount collected by the school over and above the fee notified in the website of the school would amount to capitation, which is prohibited as per the terms of the bye-laws of the CBSE as also the guidelines issued by the Government for granting NOC to the schools. It is alleged by the petitioner that as per the bye-laws of the CBSE, the school is entitled to collect only fees and charges commensurate with the facilities provided by the school. It is also alleged by the petitioner that the conduct of the school in collecting more fees is contrary to the provisions contained in the Right to Children to Free and compulsory Education Act, 2009 as well.
The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs:-
(i) issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 5 to ensure that the 6th respondent is not collecting donations, capitation fee or other illegal charges from parents of the students at the time of admission or promotion or during the period of the study.
(ii) direct the respondents 2 and 4 to ensure that the 6th respondent school is functioning by complying the provisions of affiliation bye law of the CBSE and as per the provisions of the Right to Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009.
(iii) direct the 2nd respondent to give proper direction to the affiliated School to organise Parent Teachers Association and prescribe norms for its function.
2. On 29.4.2016, this Court passed an interim order in this writ petition directing the sixth respondent school to refrain from collecting any fee other than the fees prescribed in Ext.P1 website notification.
3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the school in this matter. It is contended by the school in the counter affidavit that the petitioner association is neither a recognised association of the parents of the students of the school nor an association registered under any law and that therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. It is also contended by the school in the counter affidavit that since the association is taking up the cause of the individual members of the association, the court fee has to be paid treating the writ petition as a writ petition filed for all its members. Without prejudice to the aforesaid contentions, on merits, it is contended that Ext.P1 is the information furnished by the school in the year 2012-13 and the same was deleted from the website of the school long before the institution of the writ petition. According to the school, the fees structure for each year is notified to the parents of all students by a circular, in addition to the communication sent to the parents through the school diary retained by the students. It is stated that the fees for the years 2016-17 was notified to the s
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
