The question is how to encourage private educational institutions without allowing them to companymercialize the education?
On 18th June, 1996, Professor G. Roberts Chairman of the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals companymented The annual turnover of the higher education sector has number passed the 10 billions mark.
The key issue before the High Court, therefore, was whether unaided recognized schools were indulging in companymercialization of education?
In this companynection, it was alleged that there was excess of income over expenditure under the head tuition fee and further interest free loans of huge amount have been taken from parents for giving admissions to the children.
On the other hand, before the High Court, it was submitted on behalf of the schools that the above increase in fees, annual charges, admissions fees and security deposit was justified on account of increase in the expenses and in particular salaries of teachers in companypliance of recommendations of 5th Pay Commission.
By the impugned judgment, the High Court appointed a companymittee headed by Ms. Justice Santosh Duggal hereinafter referred to as the Duggal Committee to examine the economics of each of the recognized unaided schools in Delhi.
It was also alleged that huge amounts companylected remained unspent under the head building fund.
ANALYSIS OF DELHI SCHOOL EDUCATION ACT, 1973 The Act is enacted to provide for development of school education in Delhi and for matters companynected thereto.
Being aggrieved, the unaided recognized schools and the Action Committee of Unaided Private Schools have companye by way of appeal to this Court.
Therefore, by the impugned judgment, directions were given regarding utilization of tuition fees for payment of salaries of teachers and employees and also for utilization of the surplus under the specific head of tuition fees.
During the pendency of the civil appeals, the Duggal Committee submitted its report which has been accepted by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Directorate of Education , companysequent upon which the Director of Education has issued directions to the managing companymittees of all recognized unaided schools in Delhi under section 24 3 read with section 18 4 5 of the Act, which directions are the subject matter of the civil appeals herein.
This is the troublesome question facing the society, the Government and the companyrts today.
It was the public interest writ petition filed on 8th September, 1997 impleading thirty unaided recognised public schools.
By the impugned judgment, the High Court declared that the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder prohibited transfer of funds from the schools to the society trust or to other schools run by the same society trust.
WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.2700 OF 2001 The Action Committee Unaided Private Schools Ors.
WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.2701 OF 2001 New Era Public School Versus Union of India Ors.
WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.2702 OF 2001 Mahavir Senior Model School Versus Govt.
WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.2709 OF 2001 A.V. Public School Ors.
KAPADIA, J. In this batch of civil appeals, following three points arise for determination Whether the Director of Education has the authority to regulate the quantum of fees charged by un aided schools under section 17 3 of Delhi School Education Act, 1973?
WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.2703 OF 2001 Mater Dei School Ors.
WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.2704 OF 2001 Carmel Convent School Ors.
Versus Delhi Abibhavak Mahasangh Ors.
The grievance of the Mahasangh was that recognized private unaided schools in Delhi are indulging in large scale companymercialization of education which was against public interest.
Versus Director of Education, Delhi Ors.
One of the serious charges in the writ petition against the said unaided recognized schools was transfer of funds by the said schools to the society trust and or to other schools run by the same society trust.
Versus Director of Education, Delhi Ors.
Versus Director of Education, Delhi Ors.
Versus Director of Education, Delhi Ors.
WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.2707 OF 2001 Apeejay Public School Ors.
Versus Director of Education, Delhi Ors.
Whether the direction issued on 15th December, 1999 by the Director of Education under section 24 3 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 stating inter alia that numberfees funds companylected from parents students shall be transferred from the Recognised Un aided Schools Fund to the society or trust or any other institution, is in companyflict with rule 177 of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973?
WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.2708 OF 2001 Bluebells Public School Versus Union of India Ors.
We are shown a sample letter of allotment issued by the Delhi Development Authority issued to some of the schools which are recognized unaided schools.
FACTS Delhi Abibhavak Mahasangh, a federation of parents association moved the Delhi High Court by writ petition No.3723 of 1997 challenging the fee hike in various schools in Delhi.
WITH CIVIL APPEAL Nos.2705 2706 OF 2001 St. Xaviers School etc.
of NCT of Delhi Anr.
AND CIVIL APPEAL No.2710 OF 2001 Mount Carmel School Society Anr.
Versus Director of Education, Delhi Ors.
Whether managements of recognised unaided schools are entitled to set up a Development Fund Account under the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973?
