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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more