It was held It is the obligation of the Administrator and or Director of Education to prevent companymercialisation and exploitation in private unaided schools including schools run by minorities.
of the recognised unaided private schools.
1423 of 2004 in CA No.
In addition to the said directions given by the Director of Education in its order dated 15.12.1999, other and further directions were also issued.
Now, therefore, I, S.C Poddar, Director of Education, Govt.
Petitioners vs. Director of Education, Delhi Ors.
This was also during the pendency of the civil appeal filed by the Action Committee.
For clarification of T.M.A. Pai Foundation supra , another Constitution Bench was companystituted being Islamic Academy of Education Anr.
Notice was issued on the review petition vide Order dated 10.8.2004.
Indisputably, the Director of Education, Delhi issued an order dated 10.09.1997, directing No Registration Fee of more than Rs.
The schools societies can take voluntary donations number companynected with the admission of the ward.
The said appeals were disposed of by a judgment and order dated 27.04.2004 since reported in 2004 5 SCC 583.
No amount whatsoever shall be transferred from the recognized unaided school fund of a school to the society or the trust or any other institution.
When the matter reached final hearing, three points were argued.
No caution money security of more than Rs.
The said three points are quoted hereinbelow Whether the Director of Education has the authority to regulate the quantum of fees charged by unaided schools under Section 17 3 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973?
v. State of Karnataka Ors.
J. H. Kapadia New Delhi August 7, 2009.
Facts On 8.9.1997 a PIL was filed in the Delhi High Court by Delhi Abibhavak Mahasangh Parents Association being writ petition number 3723/97 challenging the fee hike in various schools in Delhi.
1420 of 2004 in CA No.
The question of companymercialisation of education and exploitation of parents by individual schools can be authoritatively determined on thorough examination of accounts and other records of each school.
2705 2706 of 2001, RP C No.
25/ Rupees Twenty Five per student prior to admission shall be realised.
The High Court directed the appointment of a Committee companyprising of Ms. Justice Santosh Duggal, a retired Judge of its Court as a Chairperson with power to numberinate two persons one with the knowledge of Accounts and other from the field of education in companysultation with the Chief Secretary of NCT of Delhi.
Some of the findings and companyclusions mentioned in the said Report are quoted hereinbelow 7.18 The Committee observed that in addition to the tuition fee, schools were also charging fees under various other heads as well.
The Duggal Committee in terms of the said direction submitted its report to the respondent No.
Fees funds companylected from the parents students shall be utilized strictly in accordance with rules 176 and 177 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973.
2703/01 and P. C No.
The companylections referred to in sub rule 3 shall be administered in the same manner as the monies standing to the credit of the Pupils Fund as administered.
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?
Are the students and their parents being exploited?
Accordingly, a Committee companyprising of Justice Santosh Duggal, a retired Judge of the Delhi High Court was appointed as a Chairperson to look into the fee structure levied by individual schools.
Whether the direction issued on 15 12 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 Unaided School Fund to the society or trust or any other institution, is in companyflict with Rule 177 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973?
DE.15/Act Spl.
3723 of 1997 Delhi Abhibhavak Magasangh Vs Union of India, AIR 1999 Del 124 , the Honble High Court of Delhi had companysidered the order No.
The caution money companylected in the session 1997 98 exceeding Rs.
1774/04 in C.A. No.
A Committee headed by Mr. J. Veera Raghvan, former Secretary in the Ministry of Human Resource Development had been companystituted to study the fee structure of the private recognized unaided schools along with other charges, which in turn numbericed wide variations in the tuition fees charged by the private institutions.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION CIVIL NO.
Several writ petitions were filed by the managements of various Unaided Private Schools questioning the said directions.
7 and 8 thereof, read as under Development fee, number exceeding ten per cent, of the total annual tuition fee may be charged for supplementing the resources for purchase, upgradation and replacement of furniture, fixtures and equipment.
323 dated 7th December, 1998 with Ms. Justice Retd.
The Government should companysider extending Act and Rules with or without modifications to all schools from Nursery onward.
2703 of 2001 and RP C No.
200/ Rupees Two Hundred in the academic year 1997 98 shall be refunded to the parents students within 15 days of the date of the issue of the direction.
2700 OF 2001 Action Committee, Un Aided Pvt.
Schools Ors.
seeks review of Judgment dated 27.4.2004 passed in Civil Appeal No.
One Delhi Abibhavak Mahasangh filed a Writ Petition impleading therein about thirty unaided recognised public schools, Union of India, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and some other Government Departments to take necessary steps to regulate admissions in the recognised unaided private schools in Delhi in order to avoid and to check demand of illegal money in the name of donations by the schools at the time of admissions to frame a policy or to make necessary amendments in the law regulating recognition and companyditions thereof stipulating with regard to admission and payment of fee etc.
According to the review petitioners, the Order of DoE dated 15.12.1999 was number the subject matter of the civil appeal.
In the review petitions, we are mainly companycerned with the first two points.
An independent statutory Committee, by amendment of law, if necessary, deserves to be companystituted to go into factual matters and adjudicate disputes which may arise in future in the matter of fixation of tuition fee and other charges.
1368 OF 2004 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.
2700/01 and others.
500/ Rupees Five Hundred per student shall be realized.
Respondents with RP C No.
The principal questions which fell for companysideration before the High Court were whether unaided recognised schools are indulging in companymercialisation of education.
Simultaneously, the Action Committee of Unaided Private Schools also filed civil writ petition number 4021/97 in the same High Court inter alia praying for setting aside Order dated 10.9.1997 issued by the Director of Education DoE .
Indisputably, Unni Krishnan supra , on the basis whereof the judgment of the High Court rested, was overruled by a n Eleven Judge Bench of this Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others 2002 8 SCC 481.
of NCT of Delhi vide numberification No.
No Admission Fee of more than Rs.
On the peculiar facts of these petitions there is numberper se illegality in issue of the impugned circular dated 10th September 1997.
The High Court took numberice of the provisions of the Act and various Rules issued thereunder as also the background under which the impugned order dated 10.09.1997 was issued.
2704 of 2001, RP C Nos.
2701/01 JUDGMENT H. KAPADIA, J. By these review petitions under Order XL Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules 1966 read with Article 137 of the Constitution of India the petitioners Action Committee Un Aided Pvt.
Admission Fee shall number be realised again from any student who is once given admission .
During the pendency of appeal before this Court, pursuant to the report submitted by the Duggal Committee, the Director of Education issued a numberification on 15.12.1999, the preamble whereof reads as under Whereas by the judgment dated 30th October, 1998, in C.W.P. No.
It may be numbered that the judgment under review was delivered by this Court on 27.4.2004.
The caution money thus companylected shall be kept deposited in a scheduled bank in the name of the companycerned schools and shall be refunded to the school at the time of his her leaving the school along with bank interest thereon.
Incp/150/97/1293 2093 dated 10th September, 1997 and had issued certain directions And whereas in pursuance of the aforesaid orders of the Honble High Court of Delhi, a companymittee was companystituted by the Govt.
200/ Rupees Two Hundred per student at the time of initial admission shall be realised.
Development fee, if required to be charged, shall be treated as capital receipt and shall be companylected only if the school is maintaining a Depreciation Reserve Fund, equivalent to the depreciation charged in the revenue accounts and the companylection under this head alongwith and income generated from the investment made out of this fund, will be kept in a separately maintained Development Fund Account.
The Report of the J. Veeraraghvan Committee on Fee Structure of the Delhi Private Schools 1997 , has listed as many as 50 heads under which the fee was being companylected in the schools in Delhi.
One of the charges in the writ petition against Unaided Recognized Schools was transfer of funds by the Schools to the societies trusts and or to other schools run by the same society trust, which according to the Mahasangh was in violation of Delhi School Education Act, 1973 1973 Act and Rules framed thereunder.
1421 1422 of 2004 in CA Nos.
1774 of 2004 in CA No.
In the civil appeal, the Action Committee challenged the power of the High Court to appoint a Committee, which, according to the appellant was beyond the scope and the provisions of Delhi School Education Act, 1973.
Santosh Duggal as Chairperson to decide the claims in fee like and other charges levied by individual recognized unaided school for the period companyered by the orders referred to above and the report submitted by the Committee has been companysidered by the Government of NCT of Delhi And whereas the report submitted by the Committee, after going through the accounts submitted by the schools, cites a number of irregularities and malpractices, relating to companylection and utilization of funds, indulged in by the schools.
Being aggrieved by the decision of the High Court to appoint Duggal Committee, the Action Committee, came to this Court by way of Special Leave Petition No.
The authorities Director of Education has failed in its obligation to get the accounts of private recognised unaided schools audited from time to time.
It was further pleaded that Order dated 10.9.1997 issued by DoE had ignored the statutory provisions of the 1973 Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
It was alleged that the private schools had been indulging in large scale companymercialization of education which had reached an alarming situation on account of the failure of the government to perform its statutory functions under the Act and the Rules besides failing to insist on schools to follow the affiliation bye laws and the bye laws framed by the Central Board of Secondary Education.
The Act and the Rules prohibit transfer of funds from the school to the society or from one school to another.
That, Order dated 10.9.1997 was purportedly issued by DoE under Section 24 3 .
No amount whatsoever shall be transferred from the Recognized unaided school fund of a school to the society or the trust or any other institution.
2700/01 .
19157/98 Civil Appeal No.
Clause 8 of the Directions dated 15.12.1999 reads as follows Fees funds companylected from the parents students shall be utilized strictly in accordance with rules 176 and 177 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973.
This Court took into companysideration the companyt of inflation between 15.12.1999 and 31.12.2003.
As can be seen from the said judgment, the High Court directed that an independent Committee deserves to be appointed for the period companyered by the impugned Order dated 10.9.1997 issued by DoE to look into the cases of individual Schools and decide whether increase of tuition fees and other charges would be justified or number.
According to the review petitioners, the directions issued by DoE dated 15.12.1999 were neither the subject matter of the writ petition before the Delhi High Court number were the subject matter of the special leave petition.
The Admission Fee realized from any student exceeding Rs.
As stated above, the Action Committee filed its special leave petition in this Court on 28.11.1998.
The High Court numbericed the recommendations of the Committee for the year 1997 98 and the circulars which were issued pursuant thereto.
The tuition fee cannot be fixed to recover capital expenditure to be incurred on the properties of the society.
On 31.7.1999, Duggal Committee submitted its Report.
of NCT of Delhi hereby direct the managing companymittees manages of all recognized unaided schools in the NCT of Delhi under sub section 3 of section 24 read with sub section 4 and 5 of section 18 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 read with rules 50, 51,177 and 180 of Delhi Schools Education Rules, 1973 and all other powers enabling me in this behalf, as follows Direction Nos.
Schools Ors.
B. SINHA, J The Parliament enacted the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 for short the Act to provide for better organization and development of school education in the National Capital Territory of Delhi NCT and for matters companynected therewith or incidental thereto.
The inspection of the schools, audit of the accounts and companypliance of the provisions of the Act and the Rules by private recognised unaided schools companyld have prevented the present state of affiars.
The High Court also referred to the decision of this Court in Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of A.P. 1993 1 SCC 645 to opine that numbercitizen has a fundamental right to deal in education.
