SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 12105

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Nirzar S. Desai, J
VASANTSHERI KELAVANI SAMITI THROUGH PRESIDENT /TRUSTEE/AUTHORISED SIGNATORY ALPESH VIKRAMBHAI SHAHV/sSTATE OF GUJARAT
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9229 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: AD Oza, Meet Shah
For the Respondents: Henil Shah

The court held that the expansion of classes 6 to 8 in an existing school is a progressive process, not the opening of a new school, and the Appellate Authority erred by not applying this judicial ratio to the petitioner's case.

Headnote:(A) Education Law - School Expansion - Progressive Opening of Classes - The expansion of an existing school to include classes 6 to 8 is to be viewed as a progressive step rather than the opening of a new school, and requirements applicable to new schools should not be rigidly applied to the detriment of existing institutions. (Para 6, 9)

(B) Administrative Law - Appellate Authority - Failure to consider or correctly apply the ratio of a relevant judicial precedent when deciding an appeal constitutes an error of law, warranting the quashing of the order and remand for fresh consideration. (Para 9, 10)

Issues: Whether the Appellate Authority erred in rejecting the petitioner's application to open classes 6 to 8 by failing to apply the ratio of the Podar International School case regarding progressive expansion.

Table of Content
1. the petitioner challenged the rejection of their application to expand an existing school to include classes 6 to 8. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. argument that the ratio of the podar international school case regarding progressive expansion should apply to the petitioner. (Para 4 , 5)
3. the court found that the appellate authority erred by not applying the principle that expanding an existing school is not 'opening a new school'. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
4. the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration by the appellate authority. (Para 10 , 11)

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal today itself.

2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.6.2025 passed by respondent No.2 – Director of Primary Education and the order dated 9.12.2024 passed by respondent No.3 – District Education Officer, Ahmedabad and prayed for a direction to the respondents to grant the permission to the petitioner for opening classes of Standard 6 to 8.

Vide order dated 9.12.2024, the application of the petitioner to start primary classes i.e. Standard 6 to 8 at existing school i.e. Krishna Care English Medium School was rejected and by the order dated 19.6.2025, the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order was rejected.

3. The facts stated by learned advocate Mr. A. D. Oza are as under :-

3.1 The petitioner is a registered Charitable Trust carrying out the charitable activities including activities to run and manage the schools. The petitioner is running and managing C. K. Balmandir since 1959 and N. K. Prathmik Shala (Gujarati Medium) from Standard 1st to 8th since 1965 and currently, there are total 1284 students registered for the academic year 2025-26 in the above two schools.

3.2 The petitioner sought permission to open and run the primary school, namely, Krishna Care English Medium School from Standard 1st to 5th in English Medium from June 2018, for which the permission was granted vide order dated 19.3.2018 and since then, the petitioner is running the aforesaid School.

3.3 As the petitioner’s school does not have the permission to open and run classes of Standard 6 to 8 in the existing school i.e. Krishna Care English Medium School, the petitioner made an online application for the same. However, the said application was rejected.

3.4 Again the petitioner upon satisfying all the conditions made an online application on 21.11.2024 requesting the authority to grant permission to open Standard 6 to 8. However, vide order dated 9.12.2024, the said application was rejected and when the petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order, the Appellate Authority also rejected the appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 19.6.2025.

3.5 Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied with the said two orders i.e. order dated 9.12.2024 and 19.6.2025, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

4. Mr. A. D. Oza, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that in identical set of facts, when one School, namely, Podar International School preferred Special Civil Application No.10183 of 2019 and as the vires of Bombay Primary Education (Gujarat Amendment) Rules, 2019 and more particularly, Rule 106(7)(iv) was also challenged, the Division Bench of this Court vide interim order dated 21.6.2019 granted relief to the said School in terms of para 9 (D) of the petition and the respondent – State was directed to permit the petitioner to impart education to the students of the school from classes 6 to 8 subject to the condition that the school otherwise fulfills the requisite criteria.

4.1 According to Mr. Oza, by way of the aforesaid amendment which was challenged by way of Special Civil Application No.10183 of 2019, what was challenged was the requirement brought

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top