Directorate Of Education And Anr. vs Air Force Gyan Jyoti School And ...
2007 Latest Caselaw 1026 Del

ORDER

T.S. Thakur, J.

1. These appeals under the Letters Patent arise out of a common order passed by a single Judge of this Court whereby the appellant Directorate of School Education has been directed to pay to the Air Force Gyan Jyoti School a grant-in-aid of Rs. 6.13 lacs and a monthly aid of Rs. 1.6 lac per month to enable the school to meet its financial deficit and thereby avoid its proposed closure. Learned Counsel for the parties submitted that the writ petitions pending before the Single Bench could also be withdrawn and taken up for hearing Along with these appeals as nothing further would survive for consideration once an arrangement to run the school is made by this Court in these appeals. We have accordingly withdrawn WP Nos. 5209/2006 to 5211/2006, 5509/2006 to 5528/2006 and 6101/2006 to 6103/2006 from the Single Bench and heard them together with the appeals which shall all stand disposed of by this common order.

2. Air Force Gyan Jyoti School at Palam was established way back in the year 1969. It is run by a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 with a management comprising serving Air Force officers. The school offers education up to 10th Standard and is affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education. It was recognized by the Director of Education in Delhi in the year 1986 in terms of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973.

3. The troubles of the school started with a batch of petitions (WP Nos. 19153-72/04) filed by some of the teachers serving in the school seeking parity in the pay scales with teachers serving in Government schools. The said petitions were eventually allowed by an order dated 22.8.2005 passed by a Single Bench of this Court with a direction to the respondent school to grant appropriate fitment in the higher pay scales and to pay arrears on that basis w.e.f. 1-4-2003. The school, it appears, was till the issue of the said direction paying salaries to the teaching staff in terms of the Education Code and the administrative orders issued on the subject from time to time.

4. In consequence of the above directions of this Court, a heavier financial burden appears to have fallen on the school which far exceeded the income it derived by way of tuition fees paid by the students. The management of the school was, therefore, forced to think in terms of shutting down the school w.e.f. 1st April, 2006. So much so, a notice was pasted on the Notice Board of the school informing the teachers, the students and the parents that the school shall be closed down w.e.f. 1st April, 2006 and requiring them to make alternative arrangements. The threatened closure did not, however, take place apparently because of an order passed by a Single Bench of this Court in WP Nos. 23926-45/2005 filed by the teachers employed in the school. The management started taking measures to increase its income to be able to bear the additional liability that arose on account of the grant of higher pay scales claimed by the teachers. It increased the tuition fee payable by the students by 100% w.e.f. 1st March, 2006. Approval to the revision was granted by the Director on 7th May, 2006.

5. Since the increased fee also did not completely off-set the financial deficit of the school, the management appears to have decided to enhance the tuition fee by another 43% w.e.f. 1st April, 2006. Aggrieved by a possible closure of the school and the enhancement of the fee, a batch of writ petitions were filed in this Court by the teachers, the parents as also the Central Government Employees Resident Welfare Association. While WP Nos. 5509-28 of 2006 were filed by the teachers working in the school, WP Nos. 5209-5211 of 2006 were filed by the Central Government Employees Resident Welfare Association of the area in which the school is situate. WP Nos. 6101-03 of 2006 were filed by the parents of the students admitted to the school inter alia praying for a mandamus directing the management of the school not to shut down the school.

6. When the above petitions came up for hearing before a single Judge of this Court, the management appears to have pointed out its financial difficulties as the solitary reason for the proposed closure of the institution. The school appears to have pointed out that there was already a deficit of Rs. 6.13 lakhs as on 31st March, 2006 while a recurring deficit of Rs. 1.6 lakhs per annum was anticipated in the future. Vikramajit Sen, J. before whom the matter was argued was of the opinion that the said deficit could be made up by the Directorate of Education. An interim direction to that effect was accordingly issued by his Lordship as is evident from the following passage appearing in the order impugned before us in these appeals.

In these circumstances, keeping in view the widely reported/publicized grant of over Rupees Ten Crores to Sanksriti School, I direct the Directorate of Education to provisionally release a sum of Rs. 6.13 lac (Rupees Six Lac and Thirteen Thousand Only) to make good previous deficit and release a further sum of Rs. 1.6 lac per month (Rupees One Lac Sixty Thousand Only) with effect from 1.4.2006 so that the expenses of the School are balanced against its receipts. Learned Counsel for the Directorate of Education justifiably submits that admissions are open till 31.7.2006. The Respondent School is held to its assurances made to the Court that they will not turn away any students seeking fresh admission and shall take every effort to continue the functioning of the School. Payments be released within fifteen days from today. If a decision is taken to release grant-in-aid, and transfer of some teachers and staff is found unavoidable because of fewer students, appropriate steps may be taken by the Director of Education. Renotify on 3.8.2006.

7. Aggrieved by the above direction, the Director of School Education has preferred the present appeals as already noticed above.

8. In WP No. 8973/2006, titled Court on its Own Motion v. UOI, this Court appears to have taken note of the release of a sum of Rs. 10 crores to Sanskriti School established by a society of Gazetted Central Government Officers. The said petition was at some stage being heard Along with the present appeals in view of an order passed by this Court on 28th September, 2006. Looking to the financial constrains of the Air Force Gyan Jyoti School with which we are dealing in these cases, a Division Bench comprising Swatanter Kumar and H.R. Malhotra, JJ. passed an order in the said writ petition on 12th February, 2007 directing the Government of India to extend a one time grant-in-aid of Rs. 1,88,40,000/- to be utilized by the School for payment of its outstanding liability and bridging the gap between the income and the expenditure required to run the institution. The grant was in terms of the said order to be subject to certain conditions stipulated in the same. The order may for facility of reference be extracted in extenso at this stage:

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties as well as the learned Solicitor General of India, a workable solution is suggested which, of course, requires due consideration by the competent authorities. There is no dispute to the fact that Air Force Gyan Jyoti school is unable to run its institution because of financial constraints and they need external help which can be considered by the Government as one time grant and without this being treated as a precedent in order to protect the academic year of the students as well as the staff working in that school. We appreciate the stand taken by the Government and observe as follows:

1. The competent authority may consider the one time grant which at present is stated to be Rs. 1,88,40,000/- spread over a period of five years and release the said grant in accordance with its policy and decision.

2. The school will make all possible efforts to run the school to the expected standards in academic as well as in its administration. They shall ensure that there is no fault in the admission of the students in the said school. On the contrary the same be increased so as to make up the deficit good and enable the school to stand on its own and to meet its financial and other demands.

3. It will be appreciated if some nominees of the Government are placed in the Managing Committee of the school who shall work as Observer and ensure that the school is not attempting directly or indirectly to suffocate the present situation and it works progressively towards achieving the object of providing quality education to the students.

4. In the event that despite the above grant given by the Government, if the school is not able to revive on the expiry of four years, in the fifth year, the school would hand over its management/asset to the Directorate, Education, Delhi for its running and maintenance or to such authorities as the Government may decide. This grant is obviously being given with this condition being the essence of the grant. It is pointed out by Mr. V.N. Vajpayee, the Regional Director of Education that there are number of other schools which are neither approved nor affiliated to the Directorate of Education, Delhi and are being run by Air force/Army and the authorities of the said schools have denied the inspection of the schools. We are unable to appreciate such an attitude of the school management, if the averment of Regional Director is correct. However, it is not necessary for us to determine this controversy at this stage. We direct that the following schools shall permit the team of the Directorate Education, which shall be accompanied by an officer of the Delhi Cantonment Board as well as a senior officer of the Delhi Administration to visit and inspect the schools:

(1.) Air Force School No. 2, Palam Delhi Cantt.

(2.) Air Force School Panchwati, Palam Delhi Cantt.

(3.) Delhi Area Primary School Delhi Cantt.

(4.) Raj Hans Nursery School, A.P.S. Delhi Cantt.

(5.) Camero School Subroto Park (Primary School) and

(6.) Play School, Subroto Park.

The aforesaid schools are directed to cooperate with this team and provide the requisite information. The Committee shall report to the court in regard to availability of infrastructure, standard of education and whether the buildings raised are in accordance with plans. The fee structure of these schools shall also be brought to the notice of the Court by this Committee.Air Force Gyan Jyoti School is directed to place on record, by way of affidavit, its scheme for running the school in the coming four years in the event the grant disbursed by the Government.

List this case for further directions on 12th March, 2007.

9. In compliance with the direction contained in the above order, Government of India, Ministry of defense has arranged a cheque for a sum of Rs. 1,88,40,000/- from the CSD Trade Surplus for the year 2005-06. Learned Counsel appearing for the Government of India submitted that the amount covered by the cheque could be allowed to be utilised by the management of the school on suitable terms and conditions including the condition that the school shall make efforts to become financially viable in a period of four years and that it shall take two nominees of the Government of India as Observers in the Managing Committee. He further urged that if the school was unable to become viable within the aforementioned period of four years, its assets and management ought to be transferred to the Director of Education, Delhi or to such other authority as the Government of India may in that regard decide. He submitted that other conditions regarding the running of the school such as continuance of the revised fee structure effective from 1st March, 2006 till such time, a further revision is authorized by the Director could also be imposed upon the school.

10. Mr. Matta, learned Counsel appearing for the management of the school was not averse to the institution receiving the amount offered by the Government of India and utilizing the same to overcome the financial problems which it was presently facing. He urged that apart from the existing liabilities of Rs. 19,75,000/- towards outstanding salaries, the school required a sum of Rs. 20 lacs for up gradation of facilities and redevelopment of infrastructure including laboratories, computers, etc. He submitted that the balance amount could be invested in a long term or short term deposit to earn interest which would then be utilized to bridge the gap between the income and the expenditure in the running of the school. The corpus of the amount so invested would, according to Mr. Matta, be utlised only in case it became absolutely necessary to do so. He further stated that the school management had no difficulty in having two nominees of Government of India as Observers in the management committee. He urged that according to the rules under the Delhi Education Act, even the Director has power to nominate two persons on the management committee but despite repeated correspondence with the Director, no such nominees have been identified or deputed to attend the management meetings. He submitted that while the fee structure revised as on 1st March, 2006 would continue, the school ought to be given an opportunity to seek further revision from the competent authority looking to the financial health of the institution. He urged that the writ petitions and the appeals could, on the above terms, be disposed of finally.

11. Learned Counsel for the writ petitioners submitted that in so far as the revision of fees by 100% w.e.f. 1st March, 2006 was concerned, they had no difficulty in its being approved provided further revision of 43% which was stayed by this Court in terms of order dated 8th January, 2007 is reversed with liberty to the school to seek revision only in accordance with the rules and the norms fixed for that purpose. He submitted that since the school has already applied for grant-in-aid from the Director of School Education on 15th September, 2006 there may be no real necessity for any further revision in the fee structure. He further submitted that the teachers working in the school shall now stand paid the arrears of their salaries according to the pay scales held admissible to them and that they will re-dedicate themselves to the betterment of the institution to ensure that it regains its lost glory.

12. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made at the Bar and perused the record. There is, in our opinion, no outstanding issue that may really call for any adjudication in these proceedings. The Government of India have graciously agreed to come to the rescue of the institution which was in dire financial constraints. It has extended a substantial amount of Rs. 1,88,40,000/- which is sufficient in our opinion to enable the institution to tide over its current financial difficulties and also to take care of the forseeable future. The school management which appears to have taken a rather hasty and desperate decision to shut down the school, should, therefore, feel relieved that it will no longer preside over the closure of an institution which has rendered good service over the past many years. The availability of a reasonably good amount which enables the institution to pay off its outstanding liabilities and also bridge the gap between its income and expenditure in future leaves no room for doubt in our minds that the school will resume its activities not only for the benefit of the wards of the officers serving in Air Force but even the general public. It is also hoped that such of the students as had left the institution on account of the notice published by the management threatening its closure would, in due course, return to its portals. Suffice it to say that with the amount now available to the school, all that we need to do is to authorize expenditure out of the same and provide a broad guideline for the utilization in the years to come. Learned Counsel for the parties have in that regard agreed to the following directions being issued:

(i) The school shall utilize an amount of Rs. 19,75,000/- towards outstanding liability on account of arrears of salaries payable to teaching and other staff up to March, 2007, out of the amount of Rs. 1,88,40,000/- given by the Government of India as grant-in-aid.

(ii) The school shall incur a further sum of Rs. 20 lacs on the upgradation of its facilities and redevelopment of infrastructure including laboratories, computers, etc.

(iii) Out of the balance amount the school shall invest in a nationalised bank a sum of Rs. 1 crore in a long term deposit. The interest accrued on this deposit shall be utilized by the school for meeting its revenue expenditure and deficits, if any.

(iv) The balance amount of Rs. 48,65,000/- left with the school after making the above investments shall be utilized by the school for defraying the current revenue shortfall. The school may be well-advised to invest such of the amount out of the same as is not immediately required in a short term investment to ensure that the amount not immediately required earns interest.

(v) The utilization of the corpus of Rs. 1 crore invested in terms of the above direction shall be avoided by the school unless it becomes absolutely necessary to draw upon the said amount for payment of any deficit or other liability.

(vi) The school shall take two nominees of the Government of India as Observers in the Management Committee. We are told that Government of India have already nominated Smt. Tandon in terms of an order dated April 10, 2007 issued by the Ministry of defense. The Government shall be free to nominate another nominee to be co-opted as an Observer in the management committee. This arrangement would continue for a period of two years after the school becomes financially viable, where after the Government shall withdraw the Observers.

(vii) The fee structure as revised w.e.f. 1st March, 2006 shall continue to be operative subject to the condition that any further revision in the same shall be only in accordance with the rules and the norms on the subject. The school agrees to recall 43% enhancement ordered w.e.f. 1st April, 2006.

(viii) In case the School is unable to become viable within a period of four years, the Government of India shall be free to direct transfer of the management of the School together with its assets including lease hold rights if any held by it to the Directorate of Education, Delhi or to such authority as the Government of India may in that regard decide.

(ix) While the petitioners in WP Nos. 5509/2006 to 5528/2006 who are working as members of the teaching staff have assured that they will fully cooperate with the management and rededicate themselves to the cause of education and help the institution to regain its glory, we make it clear that in case there is any cause for the management to take action against any defaulting teacher, it shall be free to do so as per the rules on the subject to ensure that no indiscipline is tolerated in the institution and the institution works on healthy academic lines, with a disciplined and cohesive teaching faculty.

(x) The arrangement made in terms of the order of this Court dated 12th February, 2007 as modified by this order shall not be taken as a precedent for the future, the same having been made in the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases.

13. In consequence of the above, the Letter Patent Appeals are allowed, the impugned orders in the same set aside and the writ petitions disposed of finally with the directions enumerated above. The cheque for a sum of Rs. 1,88,40,000/- has been handed over to Mr. Saleem counsel for the respondent school. No costs.