Back
2007 Supreme(All) 3133
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD AT LUCKNOW BENCH
DEVI PRASAD SINGH, J.
Kumari Surya Shukla and Another - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondent
Decided On : 04-04-2007
SCHOOLS CANNOT EXPEL STUDENTS WITHOUT A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. SCHOOLS CANNOT COMPEL STUDENTS TO PURCHASE BOOKS AND DRESS MATERIAL FROM PARTICULAR SHOPS OR OPEN BANK ACCOUNTS IN A SPECIFIED BANK.
Headnote:
CHANGE OF DRESS, CURRICULUM, ADVANCE FEES, COMPULSORY PURCHASE OF BOOKS AND DRESS MATERIAL FROM PARTICULAR SHOPS, OPENING OF BANK ACCOUNTS IN SPECIFIED BANK, EXPULSION WITHOUT PRIOR NOTICE ARE UNJUSTIFIED AND VIOLATE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. STUDENTS CAN APPROACH COURTS FOR RELIEF.
Fact of the Case:
PETITIONERS, STUDENTS OF A CBSE AFFILIATED SCHOOL, WERE EXPELLED WITHOUT PRIOR NOTICE FOR RAISING THEIR VOICE AGAINST MALPRACTICES LIKE SELLING OF BOOKS FROM SCHOOL PREMISES, CHANGE OF DRESS IN MID-SESSION, AND CHARGING OF FEES FOR THE CLOSER PERIOD. THE SCHOOL ALSO COMPELLED STUDENTS TO PURCHASE BOOKS AND DRESS MATERIAL FROM PARTICULAR SHOPS AND OPEN BANK ACCOUNTS IN A SPECIFIED BANK.
Finding of the Court:
THE COURT FOUND THAT THE SCHOOL'S ACTIONS WERE UNJUSTIFIED AND VIOLATED THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. IT HELD THAT STUDENTS CANNOT BE EXPELLED WITHOUT A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. THE COURT ALSO HELD THAT SCHOOLS CANNOT COMPEL STUDENTS TO PURCHASE BOOKS AND DRESS MATERIAL FROM PARTICULAR SHOPS OR OPEN BANK ACCOUNTS IN A SPECIFIED BANK.
Issues: 1. WHETHER THE SCHOOL'S ACTIONS WERE JUSTIFIED? 2. WHETHER THE SCHOOL VIOLATED THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE? 3. WHETHER STUDENTS CAN BE EXPELLED WITHOUT A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING? 4. WHETHER SCHOOLS CAN COMPEL STUDENTS TO PURCHASE BOOKS AND DRESS MATERIAL FROM PARTICULAR SHOPS OR OPEN BANK ACCOUNTS IN A SPECIFIED BANK?
Ratio Decidendi: THE COURT HELD THAT THE SCHOOL'S ACTIONS WERE UNJUSTIFIED AND VIOLATED THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. IT HELD THAT STUDENTS CANNOT BE EXPELLED WITHOUT A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. THE COURT ALSO HELD THAT SCHOOLS CANNOT COMPEL STUDENTS TO PURCHASE BOOKS AND DRESS MATERIAL FROM PARTICULAR SHOPS OR OPEN BANK ACCOUNTS IN A SPECIFIED BANK. THE COURT RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES: 1. THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT. 2. THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE ARE IMPLIED IN ALL ACTIONS OF PUBLIC AUTHORITIES. 3. STUDENTS CANNOT BE EXPELLED WITHOUT A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. 4. SCHOOLS CANNOT COMPEL STUDENTS TO PURCHASE BOOKS AND DRESS MATERIAL FROM PARTICULAR SHOPS OR OPEN BANK ACCOUNTS IN A SPECIFIED BANK.
Final Decision: THE COURT ALLOWED THE WRIT PETITION IN PART AND ISSUED A WRIT OF MANDAMUS COMMANDING THE STATE OF U.P. TO TAKE NECESSARY STEPS TO CREATE EDUCATIONAL DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMITTEES IN EVERY DISTRICT OF THE STATE. THE COURT ALSO DIRECTED THE STATE GOVERNMENT TO ISSUE A DIRECTION OR CIRCULAR TO ALL INSTITUTIONS, WHETHER AIDED OR NON-AIDED, TO CONSTITUTE A BODY CONSISTING OF GUARDIANS, TEACHERS, AND MEMBERS OF MANAGEMENT TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE JUDGMENT. THE COURT DIRECTED THE CHIEF SECRETARY OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT TO FILE A COMPLIANCE REPORT WITHIN SIX WEEKS.
DEVI PRASAD SINGH, J.
1. Whether change in dress, curriculum or books and demanding advance fees for the closer period, compelling the students to purchase books and dress material from particular shops and Bookstall by the Schools or Colleges and also to compel the students to open Bank account in a specified bank, is justified and whether student can be expelled from an institution without serving prior notice in utter disregard of principle of natural justice, are some of the questions which have cropped up for adjudication by this Court in the present writ petition.
2. Petitioners, who are of tender age, being meted with unruly treatment imparted by the Principal and management of their institution and because of raising of their voice against certain malpractices, have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging their ouster from the school in question. The facts and circumstances, brought on record, also show, how cruelly and in unsystematic manner, the children are treated in some of the schools of the State of U.P. in the process of mending of money during the course of study through exploitation by the management while running the schools or colleges. The material and evidence on record also show that School and Colleges in the State have indulged into commercial activities to earn maximum income, may be at the cost of extreme hardships to the family of students.
3. Navyug Radiance Senior Secondary School Rajendra Nagar, Lucknow (in short hereinafter referred as the institution) is a college which has been affiliated with CBSE Board, New Delhi. The College is managed by a society registered under Societies Registration Act. Petitioners Km. Surya Shukla aged about 13 years has been the student of Class VII, Km. Saumya Shukla aged about 9 years has been the student of Class IV and Km. Surbhi Shukla aged about 7 years has been the student of Class II in the institution in question.
4. Shri Udai Shukla, who is natural guardian and father of the petitioners, appeared in person to argue the case that all the three children have got bright academic record and cleared the annual examinations of the Session 2004-05 but they have been expelled from the institution in an arbitrary manner for oblique purpose in violation of principle of natural justice. Their next academic session started from 1st of April, 2005.
5. According to petitioners, on 1st April, 2005, when they have gone to school they were restrained to pursue their further studies. Thereafter, on 2nd April, 2005 on the instruction of Principal of the institution in question, petitioners were stopped to attend the classes and they were compelled to return back from the college gate. Hence, petitioner's father had lodged a report in the police station Naka, Lucknow. Copy of the report lodged by the petitioner's father in the police station has been filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. On 5th April, 2005, a representation was submitted to Joint Director of Education to take appropriate action against the Principal of institution in question (Annexure-5). The application dated 6th April, 2005 was submitted to Director of Education (Madhyamik) raising grievance against the non-issuance of mark-sheet and permission to prosecute further studies in higher classes. The Director of Education on 7th April, 2005 had instructed the District Inspector of Schools (in short hereinafter referred as D.I.O.S.) to take appropriate action but D.I.O.S. had declined to take any action on the ground that he has got no jurisdiction. Applications were sent by the petitioners' father to other authorities, as evident from Para 9 of the writ petition, to ventilate his grievance. A notice was also sent on 11.4.2005 to the management of the college by the petitioners' father. Efforts made by the petitioner at various fronts failed to give any result. The guardian association had also sent the representation dated 7.10.2004 (Annexure-2) to the Assistan
