IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.2188 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN 18 INSTITUTIONAL AREA SHAHEED JEET SINGH MARG NEW DELHI-110 016 REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (ADMN.) 2. THE PRINCIPAL KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA 18TH CROSS MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560 055 … PETITIONERS (BY SRI VISHNU BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD RIGHTS 4TH FLOOR KRISHI BHAVAN NRUPATUNGA ROAD, RANI CHENNAMMA CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 002 REPRESETNED BY ITS CHAIR PERSON 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS DEPARTMENT OPP. CAUVERY BHAVAN K G ROAD, BENGALURU-560 002 3. BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, NORTH -2 PUBLIC INSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT JUNIOR COLLEGE BUILDING 18TH CROSS MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560 055 4. SHRI MOHAMMED MOHASIN SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT BACKWARD CLASS WELFARE DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001 … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.V.VIDYULATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI Y.D.HARSHA, AGA. FOR R2 & R3 V/O. DATED 13.02.2019, R-4 IS SERVED THROUGH HAND SUMMONS) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 23.10.2018 PASSED BY THE R-1 AS PER ANNX-J AS THE SAME IS UNJUST, ARBITRARY AND WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri Vishnu Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Smt. B.V.Vidyulatha, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
Sri Y.D.Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of the parties, it is heard finally.
2. In this petition, the petitioners are inter alia assailing the validity of the order dated 23.10.2018 passed by respondent No.1.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is per-se without jurisdiction as the respondent No.1 has no authority in law to direct the petitioners to admit only 35 to 40 students in each class, as prescribed under Right To Information Act, 2009.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that the order passed by the Karnataka State Commission For Protection of Child Rights is only recommendatory in nature. However, the writ petition be disposed of with liberty to the competent authority to take action against the petitioners, if so advised, in accordance with law.
5. I have considered the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for both parties.
6. The operative portion of the order dated 23.10.2018 is relevant to extract at this juncture, which reads thus:
“In view of the respondent school running the school in violation of the CBSE Affiliation Bye Laws for running 2 shifts without proper permission and also admitting students more than prescribed strength by the CBSE Bye laws, the Commission recommends the respondent school management to stop the 2nd shift from the next academic year and conduct the school in the regular timings until it rectifies the CBSE Bye Laws conditions. The respondent school is further directed to admit only 35 to 40 students in each class as prescribed in RTE Act 2009 and not 60 students.
DDPI and BEO shall bring to the notice of the CBSE Board regarding the violation of its affiliation bye laws by the respondent school and to take appropriate action against them. Meanwhile the DDPI & BEO shall inspect the school whether the child safety norms is being followed by the respondent school and report the same to the Commissioner on or before 16.11.2018, failure of the submission report and action taken shall result in stringent action them.”
7. The impugned order dated 23.10.2018, is hereby quashed. However, the competent authority is granted with liberty to take action against the petitioners in accordance with law, if so advised.
8. With the aforesaid liberty the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE nvj