The autonomy of private unaided schools in fee determination and the authority's competence to enhance fees are subject to compliance with requirements and not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT

B.R. Sarangi, J.

1. The petitioners, who are claiming themselves to be the parents of some of the non-NTPC students of St. Mary’s School, Deepshikha, NTPC in the district of Angul, have filed this petition assailing the unusual hike of school fees for the session 2013-14, communicated with the notice dated 01.04.2014, vide Annexure-2 as in view of the judgment of this Court in Tapas Kumar Sahu and Others vs. Union of India & Others, 2012 (II) OLR 431, they are not liable to pay the enhanced fees.

2. St. Mary’s School, Deepshikha, NTPC in the district of Angul is a recognized unaided Christian Minority Institution (Primer Educational Institution) in the township of National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC), Talcher, which was established on 14th August, 1989 under the Management of the Handmaids of Mary, a Registered Religious Society, Sundargarh with classes from LKG to Class XII with Science stream in the Plus Two (+2) and was affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), New Delhi in 1994. Now more than 700 Students are prosecuting their study in the School, who have been admitted by fulfilling requisite admission criteria as envisaged by the institution and as such they are regular students of the School. The students are paying school fees including the Tuition fees, Examination fees, Admission fees, Annual fees, Smart Class fees etc. as per the fee book provided to them. But the students have been classified as NTPC and Non-NTPC (students whose parents are not working in NTPC). Consequentially there is a class within a class amongst the students. The petitioners are the parents of some of the Non-NTPC students, who are against the creation of such class within a class and have ventilated their grievance before the school authority. In spite of such grievance, the school authority pursuant to the notice dated 01.04.2013 enhanced the school fees unilaterally for the session 2013-14 and compelled the students to pay the same w.e.f. 01.04.2013. By issuance of such notification, the guardians of Non-NTPC students have been put to financial pressure. Though this fact was brought to the notice of the Executive Director, NTPC/TSTPS, Kaniha, P.O. Deepshikha, Angul, by way of filing a representation, no action was taken. Enhancement of such fees structure had come up for consideration before this Court in respect of Vinsent Convent School, Balasore, in Tapas Kumar Sahu (supra) and this Court set aside the hike in free structure as it was contrary to the provision of Right to Education Act, 2009 and Orissa Education Act, and the Code framed thereunder. In spite of such fact being brought to the notice of the authorities, since no action has been taken, the petitioners have filed this petition.

3. Pursuant to notice, opposite parties have entered appearance but no counter affidavit is forthcoming from opposite party No. 1 to 6, though they are represented through their counsel Mr. A.K. Bose, Assistant Solicitor General for the Union of India. Mr. T.N. Pattnaik, is appearing for C.B.S.E. Mr. Sangram Das, Additional Standing Counsel is appearing for State and Mr. B.S. Tripathy is appearing for opposite party Nos. 7, 8, & 9. Mr. B.S.Tripathy, learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 7, 8 & 9 has filed counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party No.9. Opposite party No.9 in his counter affidavit has specifically referred to Circular dated 17.07.2009 relating to quantum of fee chargeable from Non-NTPC wards. As a matter of fact, the said circular has been misinterpreted by the petitioners. Circular No. 6 of 2009 was issued by the Corporate HR Division on the subject of Education of children of project affected persons in NTPC Township Schools. The said circular stated that to encourage more and more children of the Project affected person to attend Schools in NTPC Township, a decision was taken to charge the same School fee from the children project affected as has been charged as is being charged from the c