New Delhi, April 27
The Supreme Court, in an important judgement, today said that the government had power to regulate the fee in unaided private schools and rejected an appeal by several public schools in the Capital challenging a Delhi High Court order in this regard.
Laying down stringent guidelines for monitoring the fee structure of unaided private schools in the Capital and allotting land on concessional rates by the government, a three-judge Bench, headed by Chief Justice, Mr V.N. Khare, Mr Justice S.B. Sinha and Mr Justice S.H. Kapadia, in a two-to-one majority ruling, said the schools had to comply with the conditions attached to allotment of land to them.
The court said that under the Delhi School Education Act and the rules framed there under, the Director of Education, Delhi Government, had the power to interfere in the fee issue, if it was being charged contrary to the laid down guidelines.
The public schools had challenged the October 1998 judgement of the High Court, which had banned capitation fee and directed that any hike in the fee by a school should be made after taking the views of Parents Teachers Association, to be set up in every school, on the ground that unaided schools were autonomous bodies and the government had no power to interfere in their affairs.
Mr Justice Kapadia, writing the judgement for himself and the Chief Justice, ordered the Director, Education, to check the land allotment letters of all public schools in Delhi and directed him to inquire whether the schools had been adhering to the conditions laid down therein.
One of the conditions allegedly violated by most of the schools, which had got land at concessional rate, was that they had not been admitting students from economically-backward section for their inability to pay the ‘exorbitant’ fees. Under the land allotment conditions, the private schools had to admit 25 per cent students from weaker sections of the society.
The court gave three months’ time to the schools to comply with the land allotment conditions.
It directed all unaided schools in the capital to file with the Director, Education, their annual financial account giving details of the total fees collected from the students, the profit, the expenditure on various heads, including salary, provident funds and gratuity and the surplus funds.
The apex court also said that money generated by one school could not be transferred to the parent society managing the school.
Giving a dissenting judgement, Mr Justice S.B. Sinha said that it was open for the schools to maintain their account the way they deemed fit.
He also said that they could transfer funds from one schools to another and use the same for establishment of new schools as spread of education was the need of the hour. Mr Justice Sinha said the courts should not put in clauses that were not there in the Education Act, but added that the schools must comply with the conditions laid down at the time of allotment of land at concessional rates by the government.
The High Court in its judgement had provided a methodology for fixing of fees in which consultation with the representatives of the parents was mandatory. However, it had said that if thereafter the government found the fees to be excessive, it could intervene in the matter and the schools could approach a statutory committee, to be set up by the Education Directorate, to address their grievances.
