Bombay High Court
Parbhani Education Society ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 6 July, 2021
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge, S. G. Mehare
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.11541 OF 2016
WITH CA/4198/2019 IN WP/11541/2016 WITH WP/11536/2016 WITH
CA/4199/2019 IN WP/11550/2016 WITH WP/11537/2016 WITH
WP/11550/2016
PARBHANI EDUCATION SOCIETY PARBHANI THROUGH IT'S PRESIDENT
MOHAMMAD ABDUL RASHEED ENGINEER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
Mr.A.B.Tele, Mr.V.D.Sapkal, Sr.Counsel h/f Mr.S.R.Sapkal, Advocate for
the petitioner.
Mr.S.B.Yawalkar, AGP for State/respondent No.1.
Mr.B.A.Shinde, Advocate for respondent No.2.
( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &
S.G. MEHARE, JJ)
DATE : JULY 6, 2021
PER COURT :
1. CA No.4199/2019 in WP No.11550/2016 was with reference to
dispensing with the presence of an Officer of the Education
Department. The same does not survive and, therefore, stands
disposed off.
2. We have perused the detailed order passed by this Court on
25/03/2019 wherein this Court had come to a prima facie conclusion
khs/July 2021/11541
that the Self Finance Act, 2012 would not apply in the cases of
creation of additional posts in the existing schools. We have also
perused the judgment delivered by this Court at the Principal Seat
dated 15/12/2015 in Writ Petitions No.9020/2014 filed by Sindhudurg
Zilla Shikshan Sanstha Chalak Mandal Vs. Union of India [2016(1) AIR
Bombay Reporter 801], vide which the challenge to the Constitutional
validity of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education
Act (In short, RTE Act) was rejected and it was concluded that the
State Government shall proceed as per it's circulars and take
effective steps to achieve the constitutional and RTE Act objects.
3. The learned Senior Advocate Mr.Sapkal submits that it is a
strange situation wherein existing schools are subsequently placed
under the provisions of Self Finance Act, 2012, completely in
opposition to the provisions of the RTE Act. He also does not rule
out the possibility of new entrants in the education arena to
commence schools under the Self Finance Act and who are actually to
be governed by the RTE Act. This is likely to put financial pressure on
the State Government. But, this situation could be the creation of
the Government itself.
khs/July 2021/11541
4. Prima facie, we apprehend that there could be existing schools
who have acquired the permission from the Government to operate
such schools/educational institutions through Self Finance and such
schools, subsequently, would raise a demand for the benefits of RTE
Act by citing the law applicable. Thus, this could be a 'Modus-
Operandi', which will create a vicious cycle.
5. The State of Maharashtra has entered an affidavit in these
cases wherein a clear stand, which would precisely and specifically
deal with the issues in these petitions, has not been taken. The
State was, therefore, directed to qualify as a matter of general
policy in this regard. Mr.Yawakar, the learned AGP submits that he
would take instructions from the State Government, especially in the
light of the judgment delivered by this Court in Sindhu Durg Zilla
(supra).
6. We are of the view that respondent No.1 needs to make a
statement as to whether it intends to discontinue the policy of
granting permissions to open new schools or divisions under the Self
Finance Act, 2012 which would not prevail over the RTE Act. The
State also needs to take a clear stand in view of Section 25 of the
khs/July 2021/11541
RTE Act and Rule 22 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education Rules, 2010 (RTE Rules) with regard to maintaining the
Pupil-Teacher ratio. We expect the State Government to make this
statement so as to eliminate the possibility of granting permission to
private stake holders to start new schools under the Self Finance Act
and subsequently grant coverage under the RTE Act, which is likely to
create financial pressure on the State Government. Ultimately, the
tax payers money is at stake.
7. Let an affidavit in view of the above be filed in this Court on or
before 22/07/2021. Stand over to 27/07/2021.
( S.G. MEHARE, J.) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
khs/July 2021/11541
