Skip to main content

High court holds private schools can't refuse to comply with RTE Act

The Punjab and Haryana high court has made it clear that private schools in Punjab cannot refuse to comply the mandatory regulations under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009 merely on the grounds that the state-run schools are also not maintaining that standard. "There can be no quibble with the proposition that standards of government schools need improvement. It does not imply that the private schools are not to comply with the mandate where they recover effectively more fee than is charged in the government schools," held a division bench headed by Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul.

The orders were passed by the bench after dismissing a plea filed by Punjab Private School Organization, an umbrella organization of all private schools of the state.

RTE Act had made laid out more stringent conditions for the recognition of private schools in Punjab and all existing schools were required to submit an application for grant of recognition by the competent authority of the state government. Punjab government had identified various private schools and ordered to close those institutions, which had failed to comply with the provisions.

Aggrieved by the closure order, the private schools body had moved the high court alleging that provisions of the RTE Act had violated their constitutional right. They also argued that norms and standards were not effectively applied to the government schools and those were not closed if those did not meet the norms.

After hearing the petition, the Chief Justice observed, "The private schools were given time to comply with the provisions of the Act and the rules, but they failed to do so. It is no answer to non-compliance to contend that the standards of government schools should also improve."

HC also expressed surprise over the petitioner organization moving the court to negate the RTE Act provisions, which were meant to ensure that the education standards were effectively applied to the private schools.

 Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Home/Education/News/High-court-holds-private-schools-cant-refuse-to-comply-with-RTE-Act/articleshow/34344320.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more