Court No. - 39
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 261 of 2018 Appellant :- C/M Ashay Modern Public School, Vishanpura And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Shri Krishna Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar Sharma
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.) By means of this Special Appeal filed under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the High Court Rules, the petitioner-appellant seeks to challenge the judgement dated 23 February 2018 passed in Writ-C No.- 7357 of 2018 (C/M Ashay Modern Public School, Vishanpura, Noida and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others, by means of which the learned Judge upheld the order dated 7 February 2018 of the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari withdrawing the recognition granted to Ashay Modern Public Junior High School, Vishanpura, Sector 58, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 and Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma appearing for respondent no. 4-Basic Siksha Adhikari.
The contention in the writ petition is that Ashay Modern Public High School, Vishanpura1 was granted temporary recognition by the Basic Siksha Adhikari, Gautam Budh Nagar on 27 July 2002 and that the Institution has been continuously functioning since the year 2002 and from the year 2016 education is being imparted to students from Classes 1 to 8 and the present strength during the academic session 2017-18 is 2050. The Institution has a staff of 14 members comprising of 12 teachers and two peons. After coming into force of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education 1 The Institution Act, 20092, by means of a letter dated 29 March 2016, an interim recognition was accorded to the Institution on certain terms and conditions set out in the letter.
Thereafter, it appears that due to a complaint being lodged, proceedings were initiated for withdrawal of the recognition accorded to the Institution under the provisions of the Act. In this regard a Committee was constituted to conduct an inspection of the institution and by means of a letter dated 25 August 2017 ( a copy of which was addressed to the Principal/Manager of the institution) the members of the inspecting team asked them to be present in the institution on 29 August 2017 at 12 A.M. for the inspection. However, when the inspecting team reached the Institution on 29 August 2017, neither the Manager/Principal of the school was available nor could the records of the Institution be perused and no prior information was given by the Principal/Manager of the Institution for their absence. Accordingly, by means of a letter dated 29 August 2017, the District Inspector of Schools, Gautam Budh Nagar, directed the Manager/Principal of the Institution to appear before him in his office on 31 August 2017 at 10 A.M. with all the required records. Thereafter, by means of a final notice dated 27 September 2017 the District Basic Education Officer, Gautam Budh Nagar informed the Manager of the Institution regarding the deficiencies in the standards required for recognition of the Institution which were (i) no documents were produced by the Institution with regard to the land over which the institution was build, (ii) the institution is built over an area of 50 sq. mts., (iii) there is no play ground in the Institution, (iv) the certificate pertaining to the building norms of the Institution are not in the name of the institution and there is over writing on the date mentioned in the certificate, and (iv) no evidence with regard to the fire prevention arrangement was produced by the Institution.
By means of a letter dated 9 October 2017, the Manager of 2 RTE Act the Institution submitted a response which admitted that the Institution was built on 156 sq. yards of land which is a four storey structure and, the play ground was not available but for that reason the recognition of the Institution need not be withdrawn. By means of the order dated 7 February 2018, the District Basic Education Officer withdrew the recognition granted to the institution. The reasons for withdrawal of recognition granted to the Institution, as mentioned in the order of 7 February 2018, are that firstly, the building of the Institution was not according to the prescribed standards, secondly, the land was not in the name of the Institution, and thirdly, the registered rent agreement that was furnished by the Management of the Institution was found to be fraudulent.
The norms and standards for schools are prescribed in Section 19 of the RTE Act. The learned Judge has referred to the provisions of the RTE Act including the schedule attached thereto providing for the norms and standards for a school and has observed that one of the conditions which a school building must possess is that it must have a play ground. The argument before the learned Judge was that the norms provided for play ground has to be considered directory because requirement of play ground is not provided separately but under the heading of building which provides for various other parameters and since it was a specific case of the petitioner that school was located in an area where possibility of a play ground does not exist, the said aspect ought to have been considered before cancelling the recognition of the certificate. It was also argued before the learned Judge that such a stringent condition need not be imposed since the Institution had been in existence even prior to the enforcement of RTE Act. The learned Judge, after observing the admitted case of the Institution that it did not have a play ground and since the Institution has failed to fulfill the requirement within a period of three years from the date of commencement of the RTE Act, held that consequentially under sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the RTE Act the revocation of a recognition to the Institution could not be faulted.
The provision for norms and standards for school as provided under the RTE Act are quoted below:
“19. Norms and standards for school.- (1) No school shall be established, or recognised, under section 18, unless it fulfils the norms and standards specified in the Schedule.
(2) Where a school established before the commencement of this Act does not fulfill the norms and standards specified in the Schedule, it shall take steps to fulfill such norms and standards at its own expenses, within a period of three years from the date of such commencement.
(3) Where a school fails to fulfil the norms and standards within the period specified under sub-section (2), the authority prescribed under sub-section (1) of section 18 shall withdraw recognition granted to such school in the manner specified under sub-section (3) thereof.
(4) With effect from the date of withdrawal of recognition under sub-section (3), no school shall continue to function.
(5) Any person who continues to run a school after the recognition is withdrawn, shall be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupees and in case of continuing contraventions, to a fine of ten thousand rupees for each day during which such contravention continues.”
The Schedule to the RTE Act in so far as the building is concerned is as follows:
THE SCHEDULE (See Sections 19 and 25) NORMS AND STANDARDS FOR A SCHOOL The sole contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant to challenge the withdrawal of the recognition by the District Basic Education Officer is that the building of the Institution fully complies with the building norms. But, when query was put to the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the admission made before the learned Judge regarding the play ground of the Institution not being in existence, learned counsel could not dispute the same. Thus, the admitted case of the petitioners is that no play ground for school exists. The photographs that have been appended in this Appeal which purports to show outdoor activities in an open area are apparently in a park not belonging to the school and this fact, on specific query being put to the learned counsel for the appellant, has not been denied.
No other argument has been raised to challenge the judgement dated 23 February 2018 passed by the learned Judge. Further, no other issue has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner to assail the order dated 7 February 2018 passed by the District Basic Education Officer.
In view of the aforesaid facts, the judgement passed by the learned Judge call for no interference and this Special Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.3.2018 A. V. Singh (Jayant Banerji,J.) (Dilip Gupta,J.)