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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more