Right to "Education":
"87.Under
Article 41 of the Constitution, right to education, amongst others, is obligated to be secured by the State by making effective provision therefor. Fundamental duties recognised by
Article 51-A include, amongst others:
Article 51-A(h) to develop scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform; and
Article 51-A(j) to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement. None can be achieved or ensured except by means of education. It is well accepted by the thinkers, philosophers and academicians that is JUSTICE, LIBERTY, EQUALITY and FRATERNITY, including social, economic and political justice, the golden goals set out in the preamble to the Constitution are to be achieved, the Indian polity has to be educated and educated with excellence. Education is a national wealth which must be distributed equally and widely, as far as possible, in the interest of creating an egalitarian society, to enable the country to rise high and face global competition. "Tireless striving stretching its arms towards perfection" (to borrow the expression from Rabindranath Tagore) would not be successful unless strengthened by education.
88.Education is:
"... continual growth of personality, steady development of character, and the qualitative improvement of life. A trained mind has the capacity to draw spiritual nourishment from every experience, be it defeat or victory, sorrow or joy. Education is training the mind and not stuffing the brain."
(See Eternal Values for A Changing Society, Vol.III -Education for Human Excellence, published by Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Bombay, at p.19.) "We want that education by which character is formed, strength of mind is increased, the intellect is expanded, and by which one can stand on one's own feet. ... The end of all education, all training, should be man-making. The end and aim of all training is to make the man grow. The training by which the current and expression of will are brought under control and become fruitful is called education." (Swami Vivekanand as quoted ibid., at p.20.)
89.Education, accepted as a useful activity, whether for charity or for profit, is an occupation. Nevertheless, it does not cease to be a service to society. And even though an occupation, it cannot be equated to a trade or a business.
90.In short, education is national wealth essential for the nation's progress and prosperity.
-P.A.Inamdar VS. State of Maharashtra (2005 (6) SCC 537) Private Partnership:
"54.The States have a duty to impart education and particularly primary education having regard to the fact that the same is a fundamental right within the meaning of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India, but as the Government had neither resources nor the ability to provide for the same, it appears, the legislature permitted the societies/trusts to establish the educational institutions from the savings made by them from the unaided institutions."
-Modern School Vs. Union of India (2004 (5) SCC 583) About the petitioner School:
@<nuhL fiykfs; fy;tp epiyaj;jpd; xU gFjpahf ,a';fp tUk; @fiykfs; fy;tp epiyak; bgz;fs; bkl;hpFnyrd; gs;[email protected] kw;Wk; @fiykfs; fy;tp epiyak; bgz;fs; nky;epiyg;gs;[email protected] Mfpaitfspd; bray;ghLfs; Fwpj;J khz;g[kpF Kd;dhs; jkpHf mikr;rh;fSk;. fy;tpahsh;fSk; gs;spiag; ghuhl;oa[k;. gs;sp tpHhf;fspy; g';F bfhz;Lk; cs;shh;fs;/ ntW ve;jbthU gs;spapYk; mike;jpuhj tifapy;. ,g;gs;spapy; bjhy;bghUs; fhl;rpafk; mike;Js;[email protected] From the letter, dated 3.9.2009 of Erode District Collector to Director of Matriculation School, Chennai-6.
These quotes will set the tone to decide the issue of grant of permanent recognition to the petitioner's matriculation school at Erode.
2.The writ petition is filed by the petitioner Educational agency seeking to set aside the order of the fourth respondent, dated 9.2.2008 as well as the order of the second respondent, dated 6.10.2009 and for a consequential direction to grant permanent recognition to Kalaimagal Kalvi Nilayam Girls Matriculation School, Erode.
3.When the matter came up on 21.10.2009, the learned Government Advocate (Education) took notice. Pending further order, this Court granted an interim injunction restraining the authorities from transferring the students of Kalaimagal Kalvi Nilayam Girls Matriculation School, Erode pursuant to the order passed by the second respondent, dated 6.10.2009. The said interim order came to be continued.
4.A counter affidavit, dated 27.10.2009 was also filed by the second respondent. The learned Government Advocate had also circulated the original files for perusal by this court, which was accordingly perused.
5.The writ petitioner is a registered society with registration No.110/1972. The said society is an educational agency and is running two educational institutions. They are Kalaimagal Kalvi Nilayam Higher Secondary school (Tamil medium) and Kalaimagal Kalvi Nilayam Girls Matriculation School (English medium). The Higher secondary school is attached with a primary section run on co-education basis with 1550 pupils and is situated at Door No.59, Perianna Street, Erode-1 and Door No.1, Muthukaruppanna Street, Erode-1. Standards from 6 to 12 of the Higher Secondary school is run with 2400 girl students and it is situated at Door No.19, Kalaimagal Kalvi Nilayam Road in Ward No.25 and it has got play ground at Rangampalayam, Erode. The said school is a fully aided school, enjoying permanent recognition. It is also governed by the provisions of Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 (T.N.Act 29/74).
6.The society had established a Matriculation school in the same compound. The Matriculation School is running in two premises. The nursery section to 2nd standard with 835 pupils on co-education basis is situated at No.49, Periannan Street, Erode and from 3rd standard to 10th standard with 1371 girls at Door Nos.327, Brough Road, Erode, coming under Ward No.23. The Matriculation school is being run on self financing basis as there are no grants for such schools by the Government.
7.Both Higher Secondary School and Matriculation School are located adjacent to each other in the same campus. They are located in the petitioner's premises having 8.97 acres (161.5 grounds) including a playground for the school children. As per the norms for recognition for an Higher Secondary School, the land required is 5 acres and as of now, the society is having 7.5 acres. In terms of Code of Matriculation Schools, the land required for locating a school is only 6 grounds in respect of the Corporation limits and 8 grounds if it is located in a Municipal limit. The educational agency has earmarked 26.5 grounds for running the matriculation school, which is equivalent to 1.47 acres and it is more than the requirement under the Code.
8.The petitioner also claims that they are having two renowned museums within the school, one is a Coin Museum and the other is an Archaeological museum. Both schools have unique distinction of having 100% results since last several years. They have also got State rank for many years. The Managing Trustees were awarded State awards for the best teacher by the State Government and a National Award given by the Hon'ble President of India.
9.The petitioner's educational agency was formed in the year 1945. They had started a school with 77 children and 2 teachers in Erode Town. The Government transferred 3 acres and 16358 sq.ft. (roughly 3.3 acres of land) known as Coronation ground in Erode Town to the petitioner society by G.O.Ms.No.1266 Education, dated 19.5.1948 on payment. This was on the condition that the land shall be used only for education purpose. At that time, the school was not in a position to purchase the land on outright basis. They wanted the land to be given on lease. Therefore, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.2162 Education, dated 28.1.1950. It was given to the trust for a period of 20 years from 1951. In the meanwhile, the school was upgraded as an High School in the year 1957, got its 10th standard in the year 1958 and 11th standard in 1959. Permanent recognition was also granted to the school in the year 1961.
10.Even as early as 1958, it had also started English medium section and was running at Periannan Street with classes upto 5th standard. During the year 1970 on the occasion of Silver Jubilee celebration of the Society, the educational institutions were dedicated to the public and a public trust was established in 1972 in the name and style of Kalaimagal Kalvi Nilayam Managing Committee. It got registered under the Societies Registration Act. The original founder of the School died on 14.5.1973. Thereafter, when the original lease of the land given by the Government came to an end in the year 1971, the educational agency took up the issue with the Government for assignment of the land free of cost for education purpose. The State Government by its order in G.O.Ms.No.2173, Revenue, dated 23.10.1976, decided to alienate the said 3 acres and 16358 sq.ft. located in T.S.No.506/1 of Erode Taluk on collection of land value on condition that it should be used only for education purpose. Since the Management was not in a position to pay the outright cost, they requested for a further lease, which was given by G.O.Ms.No.1709, Revenue, dated 02.09.1977 for a further period of 10 years.
11.In the year 1985, the aided school was upgraded as an Higher Secondary School. The first batch of 12th standard students passed out during 1986. Likewise, in the Matriculation School, 6 to 10th standards were introduced. From out of the land in possession of the educational agency, 1.3 acres of land abutting Brough Road, (out of 3.3 acres of land), was earmarked for the Matriculation School. Since then the petitioner society had constructed buildings, compound wall in the land at their own cost and rendering good services to the public of the Erode Town. As it was one of the best school in the State, the District Collector had recommended that the land may be assigned to the society free of cost. The Special Commissioner and the Commissioner of Land Administration also concurred with the view of the Collector and recommended alienation of land to the petitioner Society free of cost. However, the State Government, while agreeing to alienate the land, decided to collect a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- from the petitioner Management. The petitioner management with great difficulty paid the said amount of Rs.2,20,000/- to the State Government as stipulated by the Government in its order, dated 23.10.76 and remitted to the Government account on 19.8.1989 and requested for the transfer of land.
12.On recommendation of the District Collector and the Commissioner of Land Administration, the Government issued G.O.No.2058 Revenue, dated 24.9.1990 transferring the ownership of 3.3. acres to the petitioner society for the amounts which were already paid. From that time onwards, the petitioner society became the absolute owner of the said land together with other lands owned by the petitioner society.
13.When the petitioner society started the Matriculation School at Brough Raod, it was granted temporary recognition by the authorities from time to time. The first batch of 10th standard students passed out in the year 1990. On 3.1.1990, a temporary recognition was granted upto 31.1.1992. Thereafter, by a further order dated 8.4.1992, recognition was extended upto 31.1.1995. Once again by a further order, dated 26.10.1995, recognition was extended upto 30.11.1997. By the proceedings, dated 25.3.1998, it was extended upto 31.8.2000. Once again by proceedings, dated 10.10.2000, recognition was granted for standards 1 to 5 upto 31.7.2003. For classes 6 to 10 upto 31.8.2003 by another order, dated 19.4.2001. Subsequently, by a further proceedings, dated 29.12.2003, the second respondent Director of Matriculation Schools extended recognition for standards 1 to 10 for a period upto 31.5.2005.
14.An application for further renewal of recognition to the Matriculation School was submitted to the second respondent through the Inspector of Schools on 18.4.2005 for the years 2005-2008. Since there are some defects, it was resubmitted on 20.1.2006. The application was forwarded by the Inspector of Matriculation Schools (third respondent) to the Director of Matriculation Schools (second respondent) on 8.3.2006.
15.However, the second respondent, by an order dated 10.7.2006 called for a copy of registered deed in respect of the land leased to Matriculation school. A reply, dated 17.08.2006 was sent to the Director. It was informed that first and second standard classes are run at No.49, Periannan Street and 3rd to 10th standard classes are run at No.327, Brough Road. The second respondent asked for further information by a communication, dated 14.12.2006. Immediately, the petitioner Society furnished those information on 4.1.2007. A reminder letter was also sent to the second respondent on 6.2.2007, seeking for grant of recognition for a period from 1.6.2005.
16.On 09.04.2007, the petitioner received a communication from the second respondent that they should seek approval of the fourth respondent the Director of School Education for allocation of land to the Matriculation School. The petitioner school though felt that it was not necessary as the absolute right of ownership vested only with the society by the Government, to avoid delay in granting permanent recognition, the School applied to the Director of School Education on 7.5.2007 for grant of No Objection Certificate and approving allocation of 1.35 acres of land to Matriculation School. The Director of School Education, by its communication, dated 23.5.2007 directed the Chief Educational Officer, Erode, the fifth respondent to examine and submit a report regarding 3 acres and 30-1/2 cents of land to be given to Matriculation school. The fifth respondent was also informed by the petitioner by a representation dated 29.6.2007 that they had also purchased 4.6 acres for the purpose of playground for the Higher Secondary school and the existing land owned by the petitioner society was sufficient in terms of regulations. Both the schools are entitled to get permanent recognition.
17.In the meanwhile, the second respondent, by an order dated 18.7.2007 granted recognition to the Matriculation school upto 31.8.2006. It was stated that requirement of land for running matriculation school was 8 grounds, whereas the petitioner matriculation school is having extent of 1.3 acres, which is more than 23.5. grounds. The copies of lease deed in respect of the land allotted to matriculation school as well as the sale deed were also furnished to fifth respondent and request for grant of recognition for atleast 3 years from 2006-2009 was also sought for. It was stated that out of 3 acres and 16358 sq.ft. purchased from the Government, 1 acre and 37-1/2 cents of land was allocated to matriculation school, which is also for educational purpose for 35 years lease vide lease deed dated 19.10.2007, which was registered as document No.5182/2007 before the Joint Sub-Registrar No.1, Erode.
18.An application for recognition was submitted for a period from 2006-2009 to the second respondent through the office of the third respondent on 30.1.2008. It is at this juncture, the Director of School Education, the fourth respondent, by his proceedings dated 9.2.2008 rejected the request for NOC by a non speaking order. Therefore, the petitioner sent a representation, dated 15.4.2008, stating that the petitioner society was running the school for more than 6 decades and the matriculation school from the year 1985 with distinction and allocation of land to the school can be approved. The Parents Teachers Association and several other educationists also made similar representations. In the meanwhile, the third respondent Inspector returned the application submitted by the School, stating that in the absence of sufficient lands for the school, the request for recognition cannot be forwarded.
19.Once again on 25.8.2008, a detailed representation was submitted to the fourth respondent regarding the land owned by the Matriculation School. It was also stated that the fourth respondent accepted the petitioner's stand and addressed a letter, dated 5.1.2009 to the second respondent, stating that both schools are running in the same campus and are having two separate entrance. The Matriculation school was enjoying recognition for over two decades. The request for recognition was resubmitted on 29.1.2009. Representations were also sent to the High Level Committee for Matriculation School on 13.3.2009 and 16.3.2009. It was stated that the District Collector by his letter, dated 1.9.2009 had also recommended to the second respondent for granting permanent recognition to Matriculation School. However, the second respondent without reference to these proceedings by an order dated 6.10.2009 rejected the request of the petitioner for grant of recognition and only temporary recognition was granted for standards 1 to 9 till 31.5.2010 and for 10th standard only till 31.5.2009. A further direction was given to close down the Matriculation School from the next academic year and that students should be transferred to some other schools.
20.At this juncture, the petitioner has come forward to file the present writ petition, challenging the order dated 9.2.2008 passed by the fourth respondent and the order of the second respondent, dated 6.10.2009 and seeking for further direction to grant permanent recognition.
21.This Court directed the Government Advocate to take notice. Pending notice, this court granted an interim injunction on 21.10.2009, which was extended subsequently. On notice from this court, the second respondent has filed a counter affidavit, dated 27.10.2009. In the counter affidavit, the second respondent stated that for allocating the land allotted by the Government, they must get no objection certificate in terms of Section 31(1)(a) and 31(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation Act) 1973. Since the fourth respondent refused to grant no objection certificate, it must be presumed that the Matriculation School is not having any land of its own and that the claim that they have 26.05 acres may not be correct.
22.It was also stated that when the Government granted lease by G.O.Ms.No.1266, Education, dated 10.5.1948, the site and shed was directed to be used exclusively for educational purpose and they should not be used for any profit making business. Since the Matriculation school was started on that land, it is against the condition of lease granted to the School. Even when further lease was extended by G.O.Ms.No.1709, Revenue, dated 2.9.77, the same condition was imposed. The educational agency's earmarking 1.3 acres of land out of 3.3 acres to the Matriculation School was against the lease condition. Earlier recognition was granted only because of interest of school children. Since prior permission of competent authorities was not obtained for transferring the property of private school, the transfer was null and void.
23.The State Government by its letter, dated 26.8.2009 rejected the request of transfer of land to Matriculation School by endorsing the stand of the Director of School Education. Since the school is not having any land, the essential condition for recognition is absent. Therefore, recognition was sought to be withdrawn. While passing the order, the question of violation of any principles of natural justice may not arise.
24.On direction from this court, the respondents have circulated the original file relating to the grant of recognition. Though basic facts were not in dispute, the only question that arises for consideration is the import of
Section 31 of the Private Schools Act. The said section provides for power to competent authority to grant permission when transfer is made in furtherance of performance of private school or for any similar purpose. The asset so transferred shall be wholly utilized in furtherance of the said performance. The State Government has made rules in terms of
Section 31 read with Section 56(2). Under Rule 29, the competent authority for granting permission has been prescribed.
25.In the present case, the Director of School Education, the fourth respondent by his letter dated 23.5.2007 requested the fifth respondent to inspect the property and sent a report. Thereafter, a report was sent to the Director of School Education. Subsequently, by proceedings dated O.Mu.No.40535/W-IV/E2/08, dated 5.1.2009, the fourth respondent had addressed to the second respondent, stating that though both schools are in same campus, they were functioning separately and that the land has been acquired on outright sale basis by G.O.Ms.No.2058, Revenue, dated 24.9.1990. The matriculation school has been functioning for last two decades and recognition has also been granted continuously and that the request of the management can be considered as per rules. If this is not considered as no objection, one is lost to note as to how there could be any other objection.
26.In fact, the District Collector by his letter, dated 1.9.2009 has also strongly recommended the case for permanent recognition to the Matriculation School. He has given glowing tribute to the manner in which the petitioner school was functioning. The letter sent by the Director of School Education is not referred to in the impugned order, dated 6.10.2009 for reasons best known. On the other hand, the letter of the Director of School Education, dated 9.2.2008 is referred to wherein the Director seems to have stated that the request for transfer cannot be permitted. In fact, reference to proviso to
Section 30 (1)(2) of the Act will clearly show that such refusal can be made only after giving an opportunity to the applicant.
27.In the present case, the letter, dated 23.5.2007 is a clear case of no objection. A perusal of the counter affidavit and various proceedings only shows that they were under misapprehension that the Government's assignment of land was conditional and therefore, there could not be any transfer. On the other hand, even if there was lease through Government order, it merely stated that the land should be used only for educational purpose. In the present case, after the lease period is over, the petitioner society had also obtained outright purchase of land, which is not denied in the impugned order. When educational agency which is the owner of school also starts more than one school, there cannot be any objection in using the property of school for very same educational purpose. In the present case, for over 20 years, the petitioner has been running its matriculation School with recognition. As stated already, there are about 1371 girl children are studying from 3rd to 10th standard in the matriculation school. From the nursery section to second standard, 835 pupils on co-education basis are studying. It cannot be closed down merely because the respondents by their whims and fancies have ordered the closure of school.
28.A perusal of the original file shows that various representations sent by the management were not considered by the second respondent. In fact, a perusal of the order in G.O.Ms.No.2058, Revenue, dated 24.9.90, shows that the Government has recognized the performance of the school and as to how it was functioning as a premier institution in Erode. After transferring the land to an extent of 3 acres and 16358 sq.ft., the Government has merely stated that because of excellent performance of school, the land was transferred on special price and not on market rate. The Director of School Education in his order, dated 9.2.2008, while rejecting the request did not even refer to the earlier letter sent by him, but by a one line order, rejected it which is also contrary to the provisions of
Section 31 of the Act.
29.First of all, in the present case, the petitioner society has purchased the land. Apart from the land allotted by the State Government, it is also having total extent of 7.5 acres for running both schools. It far exceeds the condition for granting of recognition. Secondly, the Director of School Education has virtually granted no objection even as early as 23.5.2007. The present rejection referred to in the order, has been done without notice to the petitioner and contrary to
Section 31. If an Authority once grants no objection, he cannot go back on his earlier opinion and cannot rescind the same without notice to the affected parties. There is no change of purpose in utilizing the land for running the matriculation school. On the other hand, the land itself was allotted to the petitioner society only after recognizing the service rendered by the school in that locality. The second respondent has not pointed out any other defects in the refusal to grant recognition. Mr.K.Doraisamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner had also stated that they are willing to rectify any other defects pointed out by the respondents either now or in future and agree to abide by the same.
30.Therefore, the second respondent is directed to grant recognition to the petitioner school within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If any other defects other than the question of land, the same may be intimated to the School for appropriate rectification. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside. The writ petition will stand allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.
31.It must be noted that the State Government is taking many efforts to improve the education of girl children in this State. Only a permanent recognition to the petitioner school will guarantee the future education of more than 2000 girls studying that too in a mofusil town.
27.11.2009 Index : Yes Internet : Yes vvk To
1.The Secretary, The Government of Tamil Nadu, School Education Department, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director of Matriculation Schools, Chennai-600 006.
3.The Inspector of Matriculation Schools, Erode.
4.The Director of School Education, Chennai-600 006.
5.The Chief Educational Officer, Erode.
K.CHANDRU, J.
vvk PRE DELIVERY ORDER IN W.P.NO.21440 OF 2009 27.11.2009