G. S. Convent School vs State of U. P. Thru Its Secry Secondary Edu

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(All) 1672

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
AJAY BHANOT, J.
M/s. G.S. Convent School - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. Thru Its Secry Secondary Edu and Others - Respondent
Writ-C No. 56169, 3332 of 2010, 18878, 36458, 42845, 42870, 38374 of 2018, 4400, 16082, 16059, 23242, 26002, 25962, 26204, 11712, 11739, 24385, 23695, 21238, 22064, 19697, 26751, 11652, 19879, 23982, 23694, 23693, 6562, 10099, 5351, 3813, 6917, 8054, 8646, 8645, 26903, 27058, 23237, 27884 of 2019
Decided On : 20-09-2019

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Satya Prakash Sharma, Adv., Ram Bilas Yadav, Adv., Anil Kumar Srivastava, Adv., Yatindra, Adv., R.C. Dwivedi, Adv., Ghanshyam Das Mishra, Adv., Awadhesh Kumar, Adv., Ajay Kumar Srivastava, Adv., Samir Sharma, Adv., Bhanu Pratap Singh, Adv., Arvind Kumar Srivastava, Adv., Awadhesh Kumar Malviya, Adv., Manoj Kumar Singh, Adv., Sanjay Chaturvedi, Adv., Anand Mohan Pandey, Adv., Ashok Kumar Yadav, Adv., Prabhakar Awasthi, Adv., Brijesh Kumar, Adv., Raj Kumar Singh, Adv., Sunil Kumar Singh, Adv., Vinod Kumar Singh, Adv., Nisheeth Yadav, Adv., Utsav, Adv., Maithali Sharan Pipersenia, Adv., Krishna Chandra Sinha, Adv., Sunil, Adv., Yogesh Kumar Saxena, Adv., Vikram Bahadur Singh, Adv., Lavlesh Kumar, Adv., Dinesh Kumar Misra, Adv., Siddharth Khare, Adv., Ashok Khare, Adv., Sharad Sinha, Adv., Mahesh Sharma, Adv., Anil Kumar, Adv., Ajay Kumar Giri, Adv., Surendra Kumar, Adv., Virendra Kumar Yadav, Adv., Amulya Ratan Srivastava, Adv., Awadh Behari Singh, Adv., Manish Singh, Adv., Akhilesh Chandra Srivastava, Adv., Ravindra Pratap Singh, Adv., Pradeep Singh Sengar, Adv., Hinchh Lal Pandey, Adv., Sharda Babu, Adv., Pranesh Dutt Tripathi, Adv., Vinay Kumar Singh, Adv., Sanjeev Singh, Adv., Ashutosh Mani Tripathi, Adv., Daya Shanker Mani Tripahti, Adv., Mrigraj Singh, Adv., Umesh Vats, Adv., Rakesh Singh Yadava, Adv., Hawaldar Ram, Adv., Raghwendra Prasad Mishra, Adv., Anil Kumar Tiwari, Adv., Shyam Krishna Gupta, Adv., Madan Lal Srivastava, Adv., Gaurav Pundir, Adv., Vimal Chandra Pathak, Adv., Manoj Kumar Chaudhary, Adv., Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, Adv., Anita Srivastava, Adv., Ram Vishal Mishra, Adv., Bala Nath Mishra, Adv., Vijai Shanker Shukla, Adv., Niklank Kumar Jain, Adv., Bhupendra Kumar Yadav, Adv.

Headnote:
Constitution of India – Article 21A, 29 and 30 – Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 – Sections 6, 7, 8, 9,18,19,21,22,31,32,34 and 38 – Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection and Full Participation) Act, 1995 – Section 2 (i) – National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1992 – Uttar Pradesh Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 – Rules 7,8 and 19 – Petitions pray for grant of government aid and grant of recognition to schools from the U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad (U.P. Board of Primary Education) – Petitioners pressed Government Order in aid of their claim schools lack playgrounds – But requirement for playgrounds waived in Government Order need to playground in school premises is optional in Government Order – As per Government Order playground need not be in name of school, nor is it required to school – Petitioners satisfy the criteria for affiliation and grant of aid posited by Government Orders Grant of government aid and recognition – Held, This Court was minded to convert petitions into a public interest litigation to monitor implementation of Act, 2009 – State Government accords highest priority to imparting quality education to children of State and make all endeavours to implement with sincerity provisions of Act, 2009 and directions of this Court. Solemn statements by senior most law officers of State made at Bar, have to be given full weight by Courts – Matter remitted to State Government issued to Additional Chief Secretary, Basic Education, Government U.P. Lucknow and the authorities mentioned hereunder to execute directions – Petitions allowed. (Paras: 155 to 156)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners pressed Government Order in aid of their claim schools lack playgrounds – But requirement for playgrounds waived in Government Order need to playground in school premises is optional in Government Order – As per Government Order playground need not be in name of school, nor is it required to school – Petitioners satisfy the criteria for affiliation and grant of aid posited by Government Orders Grant of government aid and recognition.
Result: Petitions allowed

JUDGMENT :

AJAY BHANOT, J.

Introduction

1. The writ petitions in this bunch have been instituted by various schools and school managements. One set of writ petitions pray for grant of government aid. The second set of petitions pray for grant of recognition to the schools from the U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad (U.P. Board of Primary Education).

Submissions of the counsels

2. The learned counsels for the petitioners submit that the petitioners claim the reliefs in the writ petitions by virtue of the rights conferred by Article 21A of the Constitution of India read with the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the Rules framed thereunder and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Pawan Kumar Dwivedi, (2014) 9 SCC 692 and the judgment of this Court in Paripurna Nand Tripathi Vs. State of U.P., (2015) 3 ADJ 567. Learned counsels for the petitioners also pressed the Government Order dated 08.05.2013 and the Government Order dated 11.01.2019 in aid of their claims. Some counsels admit the schools lack playgrounds. But the requirement for playgrounds has been waived in the Government Order dated 08.05.2013. The need to have a playground in the school premises is optional in the Government Order dated 11.01.2019. As per the Government Order dated 11.01.2019 the playground need not be in the name of the school, nor is it required to be in the school premises. It is contended that the petitioners satisfy the criteria for affiliation and grant of aid posited by the Government Order dated 08.05.2013 and the Government Order dated 11.01.2019. Grant of government aid and recognition respectively, on the foot of the Government Order dated 08.05.2013 and Government Order dated 11.01.2019 as are applicable to the respective cases.

3. Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Shashank Shekhar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent-State would contend that the rights of the institutions are governed and regulated by the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 read with The Uttar Pradesh Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011. They further submit that the Government Orders dated 08.05.2013 and 19.01.2013 prescribe the mandatory criteria which need to be satisfied before the institutions can claim government aid or demand recognition.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. On the face of it, the prayers made in the writ petitions are innocuous and orders were passed routinely by this court to decide the representations of the petitioners for grant of aid or recognition as the case may be. I too was inclined to dispose of these writ petitions on similar lines. However, some facts were troubling.

6. Admittedly, many petitioners' schools do not have playgrounds. While others do not have playgrounds in the school premises or in their names. This deficiency as stated earlier, is defended on the strength of the Government Orders dated 08.05.2013 and 11.01.2019 respectively. However, this inadequacy does not seem to be consistent with the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and Article 21A of the Constitution of India.

7. Thus, in the course of arguments, fault lines were exposed in the respective cases of the petitioners and the Government Orders. These facts necessitated a more searching enquiry of the issues at hand.

8. It is important to be simple but dangerous to be simplistic. The issues may look innocuous on the surface but the provisions carry distant consequences. Avoiding an in depth consideration of the issues would amount to an abdication of judicial functions by this Court.

9. The State was given adequate opportunity to state their defence in regard to absence of playgrounds in schools in the Government Order dated 08.05.2013 and the vague provisions for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(All) 1672

Cases Referred (8)