Recognition of schools under the Right to Education Act requires adherence to specified norms, and rejection based on playground inadequacy and proximity to other schools is lawful.

JUDGMENT :

(D. K. SINGH, J.)

The petitioner school is represented by its manager, Fr.Betson Thukkuparambil. According to the pleadings made in the writ petition, the said school is an English medium school situated in Thathamangalam, Palakkad, and has been running since 2013. It is also stated that the said school is recognized by the Kerala State Educational Department vide order dated 14.05.2015. The petitioner had made a representation for recognition from class I to class VII. But the recognition has been granted only for classes from V to VII.

2. The petitioner had made an application on 14.10.2024 to grant recognition for classes from I to IV. The said application has been rejected vide order dated 19.12.2024 (Ext.P2). The said order of rejection for recognition of classes from I to IV is under challenge before this Court in this writ petition. The two grounds have been stated in the impugned order in Ext.P2; 1. The school does not have a sufficient playground 2. Within 5 Kilometres vicinity of the school, there are 15 Government Aided schools.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the State Government has not laid down the norms of sufficiency in respect of the playground of the school, and in absence of such a norm, the decision of the 4^th respondent for rejection of the application of the petitioner on the ground of insufficiency of playground is wholly unjustified and not germane to the criteria which could have been laid down by the State Government.

4. In respect of the second ground taken for rejection regarding the 15 Government Aided schools situated within the vicinity of 5 Kilometers, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a child must be given the choice of studying in a school of his choice and the State Government cannot restrict the number of the schools in an area. He has also placed reliance on some of the judgments of this Court in support of his submissions, which I find absolutely have no relevance inasmuch as the relevant Rules and the provisions have not been considered in the aforesaid judgments.

5. Section 18 of the RIGHT TO EDUCATION ACT , 2009, mandates a Certificate of Recognition for running a school, and it prohibits any school which does not have recognition to run. Section 18 of the RIGHT TO EDUCATION ACT reads as under:

18. No School to be established without obtaining certificate of recognition.—(1) No school, otherthan a school established, owned or controlled by the appropriate Government or the local authority, shall, after the commencement of this Act, be established or function, without obtaining a certificate of recognition from such authority, by making an application in such form and manner, as may be prescribed.

(2) The authority prescribed under sub-section (1) shall issue the certificate of recognition in such form, within such period, in such manner, and subject to such conditions, as may be prescribed:

Provided that no such recognition shall be granted to a school unless it fulfils norms and standards specified under section 19.

(3) On the contravention of the conditions of recognition, the prescribed authority shall, by an order in writing, withdraw recognition:

Provided that such order shall contain a direction as to which of the neighbourhood school, the children studying in the derecognised school, shall be admitted:

Provided further that no recognition shall be so withdrawn without giving an opportunity of being heard to such school, in such manner, as may be prescribed.

(4) With ef