Skip to main content

Unaided schools cannot charge fees on quarterly basis: Delhi HC


The Delhi High Court today restrained unaided private schools from charging fees on quarterly basis, saying the city government's guidelines does not authorise them to do so.

The court also said parents are entitled to deposit the fees by 10th of the month in which they are due.

Allowing the plea of a group of parents against a school here, Justice Valmiki Mehta said, "Respondent 1 (school) is directed only to collect monthly fees from the wards of the petitioners and the respondent school will accordingly comply with the provisions of Rules 165 and 166 of Delhi School Education Rules."

Referring to a circular issued by the Directorate of Education of Delhi government, the judge said, "In my opinion, though the circular on the first blush seems to refer to collection of fees on quarterly basis, however, a reading of the entire circular shows that the portion relied upon is only indication of the fact that there possibly is a practice or may be an earlier circular for collection of fees on quarterly basis."

The court said, "This very circular does not authorise the private unaided schools to take fees on quarterly basis.

"In any case, the Director of Education has no power to issue circulars which will be in violation of statutory rules. Rules 165 and 166 are statutory in character.

"Once rules are statutory in character it is not possible for department to issue circulars in violation of these rules whereby fees can be allowed to be charged by a school otherwise than every month and which is payable by the 10th day of the month in which the fees become due."

The court order came on the plea that the practice on the part of unaided private schools in Delhi to compel parents to deposit fees on quarterly basis is "exploitative in character and tantamount to commercialisation of education, which is prohibited in law."

The plea also said " Such practice on the part of the schools is anti-child, violative of the fundamental and human rights of the parents as guaranteed to them under Articles 14,21, 21A and 38 of the Constitution of India read with provisions of Delhi School Education Act and the rules made thereunder."

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more