Asha Seva Bhavi Sanstha vs The State Of Maharashtra on 8 April, 2010

Bombay High Court
Asha Seva Bhavi Sanstha vs The State Of Maharashtra on 8 April, 2010
Bench: A.M. Khanwilkar, S. S. Shinde
                             1



          IN  THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 




                                                              
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                 WRIT PETITION NO.345 OF 2010




                                      
     Asha Seva Bhavi Sanstha, 
     Salapuri, Tq. & Dist-Parbhani,
     (Through its President,




                                     
     Pralhad Baburao More,
     Age-33 years, Occu:Service,
     R/o-At Post-Salapuri,
     Tq. & Dist-Parbhani.               ...PETITIONER. 




                           
            VERSUS             
                 
     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through its Secretary,
        School Education and Sports
                
        Department, Mantralaya,
        Mumbai-32,

     2) The Director of Education,
      

        (School Education),
        M.S., Mumbai,
   



     3) The Deputy Director of 
        Education, Aurangabad,





     4) The Education Officer (Primary),
        Zilla Parishad,
        Parbhani.                     ...RESPONDENTS.

                          ...





        Mr.S.B. Talekar Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.       
                          ...




                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:27 :::
                              2

                            WITH
                 WRIT PETITION NO.355 OF 2010




                                                              
     Asha Seva Bhavi Sanstha, 
     Salapuri, Tq. & Dist-Parbhani,




                                      
     (Through its President,
     Pralhad Baburao More,
     Age-33 years, Occu:Service,
     R/o-At Post-Salapuri,




                                     
     Tq. & Dist-Parbhani.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 

            VERSUS             




                           
     1) The State of Maharashtra,
                    
        Through its Secretary,
        School Education and Sports
        Department, Mantralaya,
        Mumbai-32,
                   
     2) The Director of Education,
        (School Education),
        M.S., Mumbai,
      


     3) The Deputy Director of 
   



        Education, Aurangabad,

     4) The Education Officer (Primary),
        Zilla Parishad,





        Parbhani.   
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.


                          ...





        Mr.S.B. Talekar Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.       
                          ...

                 




                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:27 :::
                              3

                           WITH

                 WRIT PETITION NO.8324 OF 2009




                                                            
     Sau. Laxmibai Shantaram Doke




                                    
     Samjvikas Prathisthan,
     At:6, Parag Plaza, Savedi Road,
     Near Lokmat Bhawan, Ahmednagar,
     District-Ahmednagar,




                                   
     Through it's Secretary,
     Haridas Shantaram Doke,
     Age-51 years, Occu:Agri & Business,
     R/o- At & Post: Ahmednagar,




                           
     Dist-Ahmednagar.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 
                    
            VERSUS             

     1) The State of Maharashtra,
                   
        Through its Secretary,
        The Department of School
        Education and Sports
        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,
      


     2) The Education Officer (Secondary),
   



        Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar,
        Dist-Ahmednagar,

     3) Director of Education,





        Maharashtra State, Pune.   
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.
                          ...
        Mr.A.B. Gatne Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   





        the Respondent Nos. 1 and 3.
        Mr.S.T. Shelke Advocate for Respondent No.2. 
                          ...

                           WITH




                                    ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:27 :::
                              4


                 WRIT PETITION NO.8337 OF 2009




                                                            
     Sau. Laxmibai Shantaram Doke
     Samjvikas Prathisthan,




                                    
     At:6, Parag Plaza, Savedi Road,
     Near Lokmat Bhawan, Ahmednagar,
     District-Ahmednagar,
     Through it's Secretary,




                                   
     Haridas Shantaram Doke,
     Age-51 years, Occu:Agri & Business,
     R/o- At & Post: Ahmednagar,
     Dist-Ahmednagar.




                           
                                     ...PETITIONER. 

            VERSUS             
                    
     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through its Secretary,
                   
        The Department of School
        Education and Sports
        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,
      

     2) The Education Officer (Secondary),
        Zilla Parishad,
   



        Ahmednagar, Dist-Ahmednagar,

     3) Director of Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune.   





                                     ...RESPONDENTS.

                          ...
        Mr.A.B. Gatne Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   





        the Respondents.        
                          ...

                           WITH




                                    ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:27 :::
                              5

                 WRIT PETITION NO.6041 OF 2009




                                                              
     Ramkrishna Sevabhavi Sanstha,
     Pangari (Gosavi), Taluka-Mantha,
     District-Jalna, 




                                      
     Through its Secretary,
     Rajendra Babulal Pawar,
     Age-23 years, Occu:Agri.,
     R/o-Pangari(Gosavi),




                                     
     Taluka-Mantha, Dist-Jalna.

                                     ...PETITIONER. 




                           
            VERSUS             

     1) The State of Maharashtra,
                  
        Through it's Secretary,
        Department of School
        Education and Sports
                 
        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,

     2) The Education Officer (Secondary),
        Zilla Parishad, Jalna,
      

        Dist-Jalna,
   



     3) Director of Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune.   

                                     ...RESPONDENTS.





                          ...
        Mr.S.S. Jadhavar Advocate for  Petitioner.





        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        
                          ...

                             WITH




                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:28 :::
                              6


                 WRIT PETITION NO.6018 OF 2009




                                                              
     Marathwada Sarvodaya Seva
     Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,




                                      
     Ambhoda(Kadam), Taluka-Mantha,
     District-Jalna,
     Through its President,
     Vasantrao s/o Ramrao Chavan,




                                     
     Age-63 years, Occu:Agril.,
     R/o- Vivekanand Nagar, Mantha,
     Taluka-Mantha, Dist-Jalna.




                           
                                     ...PETITIONER. 

            VERSUS             
                 
     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through it's Secretary,
                
        Department of School
        Education and Sports
        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,
      

     2) The Education Officer (Secondary),
        Zilla Parishad,Jalna,
   



        Dist-Jalna,

     3) Director of Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune.   





                                     ...RESPONDENTS.


                          ...
        Mr.S.S. Jadhavar Advocate for  Petitioner.





        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        
                          ...

                 WITH




                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:28 :::
                              7

                 WRIT PETITION NO.128 OF 2010




                                                            
     Rajarshi Shahu Shikshan Prasarak
     Mandal, Kedgaon Devi, Ahmednagar,
     Through its President,




                                    
     Prabhakarrao Marutrao Gund.

                                     ...PETITIONER. 
            VERSUS             




                                   
     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through the Principal Secretary,




                           
        Primary Education Department, 
        Mantralaya Annex, Mumbai-32,
                 
     2) The Principal Secretary,
        School Education and Sports
        Department, Mantralaya Annex,
                
        Mumbai-32.

     3) The Director of Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune Region,
      

        Pune.
   



     4) The Education Officer (Primary),
        Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar.    





                                     ...RESPONDENTS.


                          ...
        Mr.A.N. Lande Advocate for  Petitioner.





        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondent Nos 1 to 3.
        Mr.S.T. Shelke Advocate for Respondent No.4. 
                          ...  


                 WITH




                                    ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:28 :::
                              8


                 WRIT PETITION NO.365 OF 2010




                                                             
     Rajashree Shahu Maharaj Seva
     Bhavi Sanstha, Manaspuri,




                                     
     Tq-Kandhar, Dist-Nanded
     Through it's President,
     Shri Kedarnath s/o Janardhan Gore,
     Age-39 years, Occu:Agri. & Social Work,




                                    
     R/o-Manaspuri, Tq-Kandhar,
     Dist-Nanded.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 




                           
            VERSUS             
                 
     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through it's Secretary,
                
        Education Department, 
        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,

     2) The Director of Education,
      

        Maharashtra State, Pune-1.
   



     3) The Deputy Director of Education,
        Latur Region, Latur.

     4) The Education Officer (Primary),





        Zilla Parishad, Nanded.    
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.


                          ...





        Mr.V.P. Kadam Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
        Mr.V.S. Panpatte Advocate for Respondent No.4.  
                          ...




                                     ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:28 :::
                              9

                 WITH

                 WRIT PETITION NO.366 OF 2010




                                                             
     Rajashree Shahu Maharaj Seva




                                     
     Bhavi Sanstha, Manaspuri,
     Tq-Kandhar, Dist-Nanded
     Through it's President,
     Shri Kedarnath s/o Janardhan Gore,




                                    
     Age-39 years, Occu:Agri. & Social Work,
     R/o-Manaspuri, Tq-Kandhar,
     Dist-Nanded.




                           
                                     ...PETITIONER. 
                 
            VERSUS             


     1) The State of Maharashtra,
                
        Through it's Secretary,
        Education Department, 
        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,
      

     2) The Director of Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune-1.
   



     3) The Deputy Director of Education,
        Latur Region, Latur.





     4) The Education Officer (Primary),
        Zilla Parishad, Nanded.    
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.





                          ...
        Mr.V.P. Kadam Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
        Mr.V.S. Panpatte Advocate for Respondent No.4. 
                          ...




                                     ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:28 :::
                              10

                 WITH

                 WRIT PETITION NO.374 OF 2010




                                                             
     Rajashree Shahu Maharaj Seva




                                     
     Bhavi Sanstha, Manaspuri,
     Tq-Kandhar, Dist-Nanded
     Through it's President,
     Shri Kedarnath s/o Janardhan Gore,




                                    
     Age-39 years, Occu:Agri. & Social Work,
     R/o-Manaspuri, Tq-Kandhar,
     Dist-Nanded.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 




                           
            VERSUS             
                    
     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through it's Secretary,
        Education Department, 
                   
        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,

     2) The Director of Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune-1.
      


     3) The Deputy Director of Education,
   



        Latur Region, Latur.

     4) The Education Officer (Primary),
        Zilla Parishad, Nanded.    





                                     ...RESPONDENTS.


                          ...
        Mr.V.P. Kadam Advocate for  Petitioner.





        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
        Mr.V.S. Panpatte Advocate for the
        Respondent No.4.       
                          ...

                 




                                     ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:28 :::
                              11

                 WITH

                 WRIT PETITION NO.385 OF 2010




                                                             
     Rajashree Shahu Maharaj Seva




                                     
     Bhavi Sanstha, Manaspuri,
     Tq-Kandhar, Dist-Nanded
     Through it's President,
     Shri Kedarnath s/o Janardhan Gore,




                                    
     Age-39 years, Occu:Agri. & Social Work,
     R/o-Manaspuri, Tq-Kandhar,
     Dist-Nanded.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 




                           
            VERSUS             
                 
     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through it's Secretary,
        Education Department, 
                
        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,

     2) The Director of Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune-1.
      


     3) The Deputy Director of Education,
   



        Latur Region, Latur.

     4) The Education Officer (Primary),
        Zilla Parishad, Nanded.    





                                     ...RESPONDENTS.


                          ...
        Mr.V.P. Kadam Advocate for  Petitioner.





        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
        Mr.V.S. Panpatte Advocate for the
        Respondent No.4.       
                          ...




                                     ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:28 :::
                              12

                 WITH

                 WRIT PETITION NO.405 OF 2010




                                                             
     Rajashree Shahu Maharaj Seva




                                     
     Bhavi Sanstha, Manaspuri,
     Tq-Kandhar, Dist-Nanded
     Through it's President,
     Shri Kedarnath s/o Janardhan Gore,




                                    
     Age-39 years, Occu:Agri. & Social Work,
     R/o-Manaspuri, Tq-Kandhar,
     Dist-Nanded.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 




                           
            VERSUS             
                 
     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through it's Secretary,
        Education Department, 
                
        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,

     2) The Director of Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune-1.
      


     3) The Deputy Director of Education,
   



        Latur Region, Latur.

     4) The Education Officer (Primary),
        Zilla Parishad, Nanded.    





                                     ...RESPONDENTS.


                          ...
        Mr.V.P. Kadam Advocate for  Petitioner.





        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
        Mr.V.S. Panpatte Advocate for the
        Respondent No.4.       
                          ...




                                     ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:28 :::
                              13


                 WITH




                                                              
                 WRIT PETITION NO.504 OF 2010




                                      
     Asha Seva Bhavi Sanstha, 
     Salapuri, Tq. & Dist-Parbhani,
     (Through its President,
     Pralhad Baburao More,




                                     
     Age-33 years, Occu:Service,
     R/o-At Post-Salapuri,
     Tq. & Dist-Parbhani.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 




                           
            VERSUS             
                 
     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through its Secretary,
        School Education and Sports
                
        Department, Mantralaya,
        Mumbai-32,

     2) The Director of Education,
      

        (School Education),
        M.S., Mumbai,
   



     3) The Deputy Director of 
        Education, Aurangabad,





     4) The Education Officer (Primary),
        Zilla Parishad, Parbhani.   
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.





                          ...
        Mr.S.B. Talekar Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.       
                          ...




                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:28 :::
                              14

                           WITH




                                                            
                 WRIT PETITION NO.555 OF 2010




                                    
     The Pandhare Educational and
     Research Trust,
     Near Doodh Dairy Corner,




                                   
     Vasarni, Nanded-431 603,
     Through its Secretary.

                                     ...PETITIONER. 




                           
            VERSUS             
                    
     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through it's Secretary,
                   
        School Education 
        Department, Mantralaya,
        Mumbai-32,
      


     2) The Deputy Director 
   



        of Education,
        Latur Division,
        Latur.   
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.





                          ...
        Mr.P.G. Rodge Advocate for  the





        Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader
        for the Respondents.       
                          ...




                                    ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:28 :::
                              15

                           WITH




                                                            
                 WRIT PETITION NO.666 OF 2010




                                    
     Omshanti Bahu-Uddeshiya
     Shikshan Sanstha at
     Shivankhed (Bk), Tq-Chakur,
     District-Latur,




                                   
     Through its Secretary
     Shri Somnath s/o Sangappa Navbhade,
     Age-36 years, R/o-Shivankhed,
     Tq-Chakur, Dist-Latur.




                           
                                     ...PETITIONER. 
                    
            VERSUS             


     1) The State of Maharashtra,
                   
        Through its Secretary,
        School Education Development 
        Department, Maharashtra State,
        Mantralaya, Mumbai,
      


     2) The Director of Education (Primary),
   



        Maharashtra State, Pune.   

                                     ...RESPONDENTS.





                          ...
        Mr.N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar Advocate for     
        Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   





        the Respondents.        
                          ...


                           WITH




                                    ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:28 :::
                              16




                                                            
                 WRIT PETITION NO.712 OF 2010




                                    
     Yeshwant Shikshan Sanstha 
     at Bhadgaon, Tq-Chakur,
     District-Latur,
     Through its Secretary




                                   
     Shri Balasaheb s/o Ambadas Garad,
     Age-40 years, R/o-Bhadgaon,
     Tq-Chakur, Dist-Latur.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 




                           
            VERSUS             
                    
     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through its Secretary,
        School Education Development 
                   
        Department, Maharashtra State,
        Mantralaya, Mumbai,
      

     2) The Director of Education (Primary),
        Maharashtra State, Pune.   
   



                                     ...RESPONDENTS.





                          ...
        Mr.N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar Advocate for     
        Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        





                          ...




                           WITH




                                    ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:28 :::
                              17



                 WRIT PETITION NO.806 OF 2010




                                                            
     Rajendra s/o Nivrutirao Deshmukh,
     Age-39 years, Occu: Secretary,




                                    
     Shri Dnyandeep Shikshan Prasarak
     Mandal, Manik Nagar, Taroda (Bk),
     Tq. & Dist-Nanded,
     R/o-Manik Nagar, Taroda (Bk),




                                   
     Tq. & Dist-Nanded.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 

            VERSUS             




                           
     1) The State of Maharashtra,
                 
     2) The Principal Secretary,
        Education Department,
        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,   
                
     3) The Director Education,
        Directorate of Secondary and
        Higher Secondary Education,  
      

        Maharashtra State, Pune-1.
   



     4) The Deputy Director of Education,
        Secondary and Higher Secondary
        Education, Latur Division, Latur.





     5) The Education Officer (Secondary),
        Nanded Zilla Parishad,
        Dist-Nanded.    
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.





                          ...
        Mr.A.B. Dhongade Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        
                          ...




                                    ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:28 :::
                              18

                           WITH

                 WRIT PETITION NO.812 OF 2010




                                                            
     Dr. Rajeshwar s/o Hariharrao Hattiambire,
     Age-35 years, Occu: President,




                                    
     Tejasvi Shikshan Sanskar Bahu-uddeshiy
     Sevabhavi Sanstha, Taroda (Kh),
     Tq. & Dist-Nanded,
     R/o-Plot No.1, Abhijit Nagar,




                                   
     Near B & C Colony, Taroda (Bk),
     Tq. & Dist-Nanded.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 




                           
            VERSUS             
                    
     1) The State of Maharashtra,

     2) The Principal Secretary,
        Education Department,
                   
        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,
        

     3) The Director Education (Secondary),
      

        Directorate of Secondary and
        Higher Secondary Education,  
   



        Maharashtra State, Pune-1.

     4) The Deputy Director of Education,
        Secondary and Higher Secondary





        Education, Latur Division, Latur.

     5) The Education Officer (Secondary),
        Nanded Zilla Parishad,
        Dist-Nanded.    





                                     ...RESPONDENTS.

                          ...
        Mr.A.B. Dhongade Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        
                          ...




                                    ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:28 :::
                              19

                           WITH

                 WRIT PETITION NO.868 OF 2010




                                                               
     Paschim Maharashtra Education




                                       
     Trust, Hasan Khan Educational
     Campus, 51, Mithanagar, Kondhwa Kh,
     District-Pune,
     Through its Secretary,




                                      
     Rasid Hasan Khan,
     Age-Major, Occu:Social-work,
     R/o-51/52, Mithanagar,
     Kondhwa Kh, District-Pune.




                           
                                     ...PETITIONER. 
                    
            VERSUS             

     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through its Secretary,
                   
        School Education Department,
        Government of Maharashtra,
        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,
      

     2) The Director of Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune,
   



     3) The Dy. Director of Education,
        Latur Region, Latur.





     4) The Education Officer (Primary),
        Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad.   
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.
                          ...
        Mr.V.D. Gunale Advocate for  Petitioner.





        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        
                          ...
             
                            WITH




                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:28 :::
                              20

                 WRIT PETITION NO.904 OF 2010




                                                              
     Sanjay s/o Bhagwanrao Suryawanshi,
     Age-36 years, Occu: Service and
     Secretary of Shiv Samarth Seva Bhavi




                                      
     Sanstha, Latur, R/o-Narayanagar,
     Latur, Tq. and Dist-Latur.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 




                                     
            VERSUS             

     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through its Secretary,




                           
        School Education and Sports
        Department, Mantralaya,
        Mumbai-32,  
     2) The Director of Education,
        (School Education),
                   
        M.S., Mumbai,

     3) The Deputy Director of 
        Education, Latur,
      


     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),
   



        Zilla Parishad, Latur.   
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.





                          ...
        Mr.G.V. Mohekar Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        





                          ...


                           WITH




                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:29 :::
                              21


                 WRIT PETITION NO.1097 OF 2010




                                                            
     Rajendra s/o Nivrutirao Deshmukh,
     Age-39 years, Occu: Secretary,




                                    
     Shri Dnyandeep Shikshan Prasarak
     Mandal, Manik Nagar, Taroda (Bk),
     Tq. & Dist-Nanded,
     R/o-Manik Nagar, Taroda (Bk),




                                   
     Tq. & Dist-Nanded.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 

            VERSUS             




                           
     1) The State of Maharashtra,
                 
     2) The Principal Secretary,
        Education Department,
        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,
                
        

     3) The Director Education (Primary),
        Directorate of Secondary and
      

        Higher Secondary Education,  
        Maharashtra State, Pune-1.
   



     4) The Deputy Director of Education,
        Secondary and Higher Secondary
        Education, Latur Division, Latur.





     5) The Education Officer (Primary),
        Nanded Zilla Parishad,
        Dist-Nanded.    
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.





                          ...
        Mr.A.B. Dhongade Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        
                          ...




                                    ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:29 :::
                              22

                           WITH

                 WRIT PETITION NO.1101 OF 2010




                                                            
     Dr. Rajeshwar s/o Hariharrao Hattiambire,
     Age-35 years, Occu: President,




                                    
     Tejasvi Shikshan Sanskar Bahu-uddeshiy
     Sevabhavi Sanstha, Taroda (Kh),
     Tq. & Dist-Nanded,
     R/o-Plot No.1, Abhijit Nagar,




                                   
     Near B & C Colony, Taroda (Bk),
     Tq. & Dist-Nanded.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 




                           
            VERSUS             
                    
     1) The State of Maharashtra,

     2) The Principal Secretary,
        Education Department,
                   
        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,
        

     3) The Director Education (Primary),
      

        Directorate of Secondary and
        Higher Secondary Education,  
   



        Maharashtra State, Pune-1.


     4) The Deputy Director of Education,





        Secondary and Higher Secondary
        Education, Latur Division, Latur.

     5) The Education Officer (primary),
        Nanded Zilla Parishad,





        Dist-Nanded.    
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.

                          ...
        Mr.A.B. Dhongade Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        
                          ...




                                    ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:29 :::
                              23

                           WITH

                 WRIT PETITION NO.1172 OF 2010




                                                             
     Shri. Sainath Gramin Vikas Mandal Va




                                     
     Shikshan Sanstha, Kandharewadi,
     Tq-Kandhar, Dist-Nanded,
     Through it's Secretary,
     Shri. Nagorao s/o Namdeorao Amlapure,




                                    
     Age-40 years, Occ:Agriculture and
     Social Work, R/o-Kandharewadi,
     Tq-Kandhar, Dist-Nanded.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 




                           
            VERSUS             
                    
     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through it's Secretary,
        Education Department,
                   
        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,

     2) The Director Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune-1.
      


     3) The Deputy Director of Education,
   



        Latur Region, Latur.

     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),
        Zilla Parishad, Nanded.    





                                     ...RESPONDENTS.


                          ...
        Mr.V.P. Kadam Advocate for  Petitioner.





        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
        Mr.V.S. Panpatte Advocate for Respondent No.4. 
                          ...


                           WITH




                                     ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:29 :::
                              24


                 WRIT PETITION NO.1414 OF 2010




                                                             
     Punjabai Mahila Aadiwasi Sanstha,
     Talyechiwadi, Tq-Hadgaon,
     Dist-Nanded,




                                     
     Through it's President,
     Smt. Sushilabai s/o Baprao Wakode,
     Age-47 years, Occ:Agriculture and
     Social Work, R/o-Talyechiwadi,




                                    
     Tq-Hadgaon, Dist-Nanded.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 

            VERSUS             




                           
     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through it's Secretary,
                    
        Education Department,
        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,
                   
     2) The Director Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune-1.

     3) The Deputy Director of Education,
      

        Latur Region, Latur.
   



     4) The Education Officer (Secondary High),
        Zilla Parishad, Nanded.    
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.





                          ...
        Mr.V.P. Kadam Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        





                          ...




                           WITH




                                     ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:29 :::
                              25



                 WRIT PETITION NO.1417 OF 2010




                                                              
     Bashir s/o Usman Shaikh,




                                      
     Age-41 years, Occu:Service,
     R/o-Prakash Nagar, Latur,
     Tq. & Dist-Latur
                                     ...PETITIONER. 




                                     
            VERSUS             

     1) The State of Maharashtra,




                           
        Through its Secretary,
        School Education and Sports
                    
        Department, Mantralaya,
        Mumbai-32,

     2) The Director of Education 
                   
        (School Education),
        M.S., Mumbai.

     3) The Deputy Director of Education,
      

        Aurangabad.
   



     4) The Education Officer (Primary),
        Zilla Parishad, Latur.    
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.





                          ...
        Mr.V.P. Kadam Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        





                          ...




                           WITH




                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:29 :::
                              26

                 WRIT PETITION NO.1418 OF 2010

     Venkat s/o Tukaram Bansode,




                                                              
     Age-39 years, Occu:Service,
     R/o-Driver Colony, Old Ausa Road,
     Tq. and Dist-Latur.




                                      
                                     ...PETITIONER. 

            VERSUS             




                                     
     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through its Secretary,
        School Education and Sports
        Department, Mantralaya,




                           
        Mumbai-32,

     2) The Director of Education,
                 
        (School Education),
        M.S., Mumbai,
                
     3) The Deputy Director of 
        Education, Aurangabad.

     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),
      

        Zilla Parishad, Latur.   
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.
   



                          ...
        Mr.G.V. Mohekar Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   





        the Respondents.        
                          ...

                 WITH





                 WRIT PETITION NO.1419 OF 2010

     Gangadhar s/o Venkatrao Aradle,
     Age-38 years, Occu: Service 
     R/o-Keshavnagar, Ambajogai Road,
     Tq. and Dist-Latur.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 




                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:29 :::
                              27


            VERSUS             




                                                              
     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through its Secretary,
        School Education and Sports




                                      
        Department, Mantralaya,
        Mumbai-32,

     2) The Director of Education,




                                     
        (School Education),
        M.S., Mumbai,

     3) The Deputy Director of 




                           
        Education, Aurangabad.

     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),
                    
        Zilla Parishad, Latur.   
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.
                   
                          ...
        Mr.G.V. Mohekar Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
      

        the Respondents.        
                          ...
   



                           WITH

                 WRIT PETITION NO.1475 OF 2010





     Shri. Sai Shaikshanik Sanstha,
     Shri Ganeshya Namha Housing
     Society, RH-16, Room No.20 & 21,
     Bajaj Nagar, M.I.D.C. Waluj,





     Aurangabad, Through its President,
     Shaikh Faiyyazuddin Bahouddin,
     Age-34 years, Occu:Business,
     R/o-Bajaj Nagar, Waluj,
     Tq. & Dist-Aurangabad.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 




                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:29 :::
                              28

            VERSUS             

     1) The State of Maharashtra,




                                                             
        Through its Secretary,
        School Education & Sports
        Department, Mantralaya,




                                     
        Mumbai-32,

     2) The Director of Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune.




                                    
     3) The Deputy Director of 
        Education, Maharashtra State,
        Pune.




                           
     4) The Joint Director of Education,
        Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
                    
     5) The Education Officer (Primary),
        Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.   
                   
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.


                          ...
      

        Mr.C.V. Thombre Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
   



        the Respondents.        
                          ...

                           WITH





                 WRIT PETITION NO.1564 OF 2010


     Matoshri Asarabai Shikshan Sanstha,





     Aurangabad, Through its President,
     Sow. Shobha Dinkar Bade,
     Age-37 years, Occu: Housewife,
     R/o-Flat No.3, Plot No.252,
     Ravikiran Apartment, 
     Nandanwan Colony, Aurangabad.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 




                                     ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:29 :::
                              29

            VERSUS             

     1) The State of Maharashtra,




                                                               
        Through its Secretary,
        School Education Department,
        Mantralaya, Mumbai,




                                       
     2) The Director of Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune,




                                      
     3) The Deputy Director of 
        Education, Aurangabad Region,
        Aurangabad.




                           
     4) The Education Officer (Primary),
        Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.   
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.
                    
                          ...
        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.
                   
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        
                          ...
      


                           WITH
   



                 WRIT PETITION NO.1566 OF 2010

     Jaikishan Shikshan Sanstha,





     Plot No.25, Navbharat Housing
     Society, N-8, CIDCO, Aurangabad,
     Through its Secretary,
     Sow. Kavita w/o- Kauthikrao Wagh,
     Age-44 years, Occu:Service,
     R/o-Plot No.4 & 5,





     Pruthvi Nagar, Beed By-pass Road,
     Satara Parisar, Aurangabad.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 

            VERSUS            
      




                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:29 :::
                              30

     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through its Secretary,
        School Education Department,




                                                                 
        Government of Maharashtra,
        Mantralaya, Mumbai,




                                         
     2) The Director of Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune,

     3) The Dy. Director of Education, 




                                        
        Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad.

     4) The Education Officer (Primary),
        Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.   




                           
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.

                          ...
                    
        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        
                   
                          ...

                                  WITH
      

                 WRIT PETITION NO.1567 OF 2010
   



     Sanmati Sevabhavi Sanstha,
     Maharani Laxmibai Road,
     Parbhani, Through its Secretary,
     Shri Vishal Gangadharrao Wattamwar,





     Age-36 years, Occu:Business,
     R/o-Parbhani, Dist-Parbhani.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 

            VERSUS             





     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through its Secretary,
        School Education Department,
        Government of Maharashtra,
        Mantralaya, Mumbai,




                                         ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:29 :::
                              31

     2) The Director of Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune,




                                                                  
     3) The Deputy Director of 
        Education, Latur Region,
        Latur.




                                          
     4) The Education Officer (Primary),
        Zilla Parishad, Parbhani.   
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.




                                         
                          ...
        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   




                           
        the Respondents.        
                          ...

                 
                     ig            WITH

                 WRIT PETITION NO.1569 OF 2010
                   
     Durgamata Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
     N-11, F 15/16, Navjivan Colony,
      

     Shopping Centre, Hudco, Aurangabad,
     Through its President,
   



     Sau. Mangal Pralhad Jadhav,
     Age-40 years, Occu:Household,
     R/o-Aurangabad.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 





            VERSUS             

     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through its Secretary,





        School Education Department,
        Government of Maharashtra,
        Mantralaya, Mumbai,

     2) The Director of Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune,




                                          ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:29 :::
                              32

     3) The Deputy Director of 
        Education, Aurangabad Region,
        Aurangabad.




                                                               
     4) The Education Officer (Primary),
        Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.   




                                       
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.

                          ...
        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.




                                      
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        
                          ...




                           
                           WITH
                    
                 WRIT PETITION NO.1577 OF 2010
                   
     Matoshri Asarabai Shikshan Sanstha,
     Aurangabad, Through its President,
     Sow. Shobha Dinkar Bade,
     Age-37 years, Occu: Housewife,
      

     R/o-Flat No.3, Plot No.252,
     Ravikiran Apartment, 
   



     Nandanwan Colony, Aurangabad.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 

            VERSUS             





     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through its Secretary,
        School Education Department,
        Government of Maharashtra,





        Mantralaya, Mumbai,

     2) The Director of Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune,

     3) The Deputy Director of 
        Education, Aurangabad Region,
        Aurangabad.




                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:29 :::
                              33


     4) The Education Officer (Primary),
        Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.   




                                                               
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.

                          ...




                                       
        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        
                          ...               




                                      
                 WITH

                 WRIT PETITION NO.1579 OF 2010




                           
      
     Jay Shriram Mahila Bahuuddeshiya
     Shaikshanik Sanstha, Hudco,
                 
     Aurangabad, Through its Secretary,
     Sow. Sangita Bhausaheb Tathe,
     Age-41 years, Occ:Household,
                
     N-11, C-4, 13/3, Gajanan Nagar,
     Hudco, Aurangabad.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 
      

            VERSUS             
   



     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through its Secretary,
        School Education Department,
        Government of Maharashtra,





        Mantralaya, Mumbai,

     2) The Director of Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune,





     3) The Deputy Director of 
        Education, Aurangabad Region,
        Aurangabad.

     4) The Education Officer (Primary),
        Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.   
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.
                          ...




                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:29 :::
                              34

        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        




                                                               
                          ...

                 WITH




                                       
                 WRIT PETITION NO.1581 OF 2010

     Jay Shrikrishna Shikshan Prasarak




                                      
     Mandal, Hudco, N-12, Aurangabad,
     Through its Secretary,
     Kishor Baburao Nagare,
     Age-32 years, Occu:Business,




                           
     N-11, C-5, 11/2, Dwarka Nagar,
     Hudco, Aurangabad.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 
                 
            VERSUS             
                
     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through its Secretary,
        School Education Department,
        Government of Maharashtra,
      

        Mantralaya, Mumbai,
   



     2) The Director of Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune,

     3) The Deputy Director of 





        Education, Aurangabad Region,
        Aurangabad.

     4) The Education Officer (Primary),
        Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.   





                                     ...RESPONDENTS.

                          ...
        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        
                          ...




                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:30 :::
                              35

                 WITH

                 WRIT PETITION NO.1583 OF 2010




                                                               
     Jay Shrikrishna Shikshan Prasarak
     Mandal, Through its Secretary,




                                       
     Kishor Baburao Nagare,
     Age-32 years, Occu:Business,
     N-11, C-5, 11/2, Dwarka Nagar,
     Hudco, Aurangabad.




                                      
                                     ...PETITIONER. 

            VERSUS             




                           
     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through its Secretary,
                    
        School Education Department,
        Government of Maharashtra,
        Mantralaya, Mumbai,
                   
     2) The Director of Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune,

     3) The Deputy Director of 
      

        Education, Aurangabad Region,
        Aurangabad.
   



     4) The Education Officer (Primary),
        Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.   
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.





                          ...
        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        





                          ...

                 WITH



                 




                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:30 :::
                              36

                 WRIT PETITION NO.1585 OF 2010

     Jay Shrikrishna Shikshan Prasarak




                                                               
     Mandal, Through its Secretary,
     Kishor Baburao Nagare,
     Age-32 years, Occu:Business,




                                       
     N-11, C-5, 11/2, Dwarka Nagar,
     Hudco, Aurangabad.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 




                                      
            VERSUS             

     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through its Secretary,




                           
        School Education Department,
        Government of Maharashtra,
        Mantralaya, Mumbai,
                 
     2) The Director of Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune,
                
     3) The Deputy Director of 
        Education, Aurangabad Region,
        Aurangabad.
      


     4) The Education Officer (Primary),
   



        Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.   
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.

                          ...





        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        
                          ...





                 WITH




                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:30 :::
                              37

                 WRIT PETITION NO.1587 OF 2010




                                                               
     Shri Shamgir Shikshan Sanstha,
     Through its Executive President,
     Shri Vasant s/o Gunwantrao Patil,




                                       
     Age-62 years, Occu:Retired,
     R/o-Bhagyajyoti Niwas,
     Vithal Society, Nanded Road,
     Latur.




                                      
                                     ...PETITIONER. 

            VERSUS             




                           
     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through its Secretary,
        School Education Department,
                 
        Government of Maharashtra,
        Mantralaya, Mumbai,
                
     2) The Director of Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune,

     3) The Deputy Director of 
      

        Education, Latur Region,
        Latur.
   



     4) The Education Officer (Primary),
        Zilla Parishad, Latur.   
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.





                          ...
        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        





                          ...


                 WITH




                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:30 :::
                              38

                 WRIT PETITION NO.5655 OF 2009




                                                               
     Shivparvati Shikshan Sanstha,
     At Malkondji, Taluka-Ausa,
     District-Latur,




                                       
     Through its Secretary,
     Advocate Madhukar s/o Pralhad Rajmane,
     Age-50 years, Occu: Advocate,
     R/o-Malkondji, Tq-Ausa,




                                      
     Dist-Latur.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 

            VERSUS             




                           
     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through its Secretary,
                 
        School Education Department,
        Mantralaya, Mumbai,
                
     2) The Deputy Director of 
        Education, Latur Division,
        Latur.
      

     3) The Education Officer (Primary),
        Zilla Parishad, Latur.   
   



                                     ...RESPONDENTS.

                          ...
        Mr. N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar Advocate for    





        Petitioner.
        Mr. N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        
                          ...





                 WITH




                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:30 :::
                              39

                 

                 WRIT PETITION NO.8336 OF 2009




                                                            
     Sau. Laxmibai Shantaram Doke




                                    
     Samjvikas Prathisthan,
     At:6, Parag Plaza, Savedi Road,
     Near Lokmat Bhawan, Ahmednagar,
     District-Ahmednagar,




                                   
     Through it's Secretary,
     Haridas Shantaram Doke,
     Age-51 years, Occu:Agri & Business,
     R/o- At & Post: Ahmednagar,




                           
     Dist-Ahmednagar.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 
                    
            VERSUS             

     1) The State of Maharashtra,
                   
        Through its Secretary,
        The Department of School
        Education and Sports
        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,
      


     2) The Education Officer (Secondary),
   



        Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar,
        Dist-Ahmednagar,

     3) Director of Education,





        Maharashtra State, Pune.   
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.
                          ...
        Mr.A.B. Gatne Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   





        the Respondents.        
                          ...
                 
                 
                 WITH




                                    ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:30 :::
                              40

                 WRIT PETITION NO.466 OF 2010

     Pradnya Karuna Education Society,




                                                            
     Chautha, Tq. & Dist-Buldhana,
     Through its President,
     Trimbakrao s/o Namdeorao Napte,




                                    
     Age-45 years, Occu:Social Service,
     R/o-Chautha, Tq. & Dist-Buldhana.

                                     ...PETITIONER. 




                                   
            VERSUS             

     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through Secretary,




                           
        School and Education
        Department, Mantralaya,
        Mumbai-32,ig
     2) The Deputy Director of
        Education, Aurangabad Division,
                
        Aurangabad.

     3) The Education Officer (Secondary),
        Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad,   
      

                                     ...RESPONDENTS.
                          ...
   



        Mr.B.S. Shinde Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        
                          ...





                 WITH

                 WRIT PETITION NO.470 OF 2010





     Pradnya Karuna Education Society,
     Chautha, Tq. & Dist-Buldhana,
     Through its President,
     Trimbakrao s/o Namdeorao Napte,
     Age-45 years, Occu:Social Service,
     R/o-Chautha, Tq. & Dist-Buldhana.

                                     ...PETITIONER. 




                                    ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:30 :::
                              41


            VERSUS             




                                                              
     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through Secretary,
        School and Education




                                      
        Department, Mantralaya,
        Mumbai-32,

     2) The Deputy Director of




                                     
        Education, Nashik Division,
        Nashik.

     3) The Education Officer (Secondary),




                           
        Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon.   
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.
                 
                          ...
        Mr.B.S. Shinde Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
                
        the Respondents.        
                          ...

                 WITH
      


                 WRIT PETITION NO.562 OF 2010
   



     Asha Seva Bhavi Sanstha, 
     Salapuri, Tq. & Dist-Parbhani,
     (Through its President,





     Pralhad Baburao More,
     Age-33 years, Occu:Service,
     R/o-At Post-Salapuri,
     Tq. & Dist-Parbhani.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 





            VERSUS             

     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through its Secretary,
        School Education and Sports
        Department, Mantralaya,
        Mumbai-32,




                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:30 :::
                              42


     2) The Director of Education,
        (School Education),




                                                             
        M.S., Mumbai,

     3) The Deputy Director of 




                                     
        Education, Aurangabad,

     4) The Education Officer (Primary),
        Zilla Parishad, Parbhani.   




                                    
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.

                          ...
        Mr.S.B. Talekar Advocate for  Petitioner.




                           
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        
                          ...
                 
                 WITH 
                
                 WRIT PETITION NO.1710 OF 2010


     The Secretary Gajanan Shikshan
      

     Prasarak Mandal, Sanguchiwadi,
     Taluka-Kandhar, District-Nanded,
   



     Through Secretary,
     Ramchandra s/o Sukhdeo Yelwad,
     Age-49 years, Occu:Agril.,
     R/o-Sanguchiwadi, Tq-Kandhar,





     Dist-Nanded.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 

            VERSUS             





     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through Secretary,
        School Education & Sports
        Department, Mantralaya,
        Mumbai-32,

     2) The Dy. Director of Education,
        Latur, District-Latur,




                                     ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:30 :::
                              43


     3) The Education Officer (Secondary),
        Zilla Parishad, Nanded.   




                                                            
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.




                                    
                          ...
        Mr.P.B. Patil Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        




                                   
                          ...


                 WITH 




                           
                 WRIT PETITION NO.1711 OF 2010
                 
     The Secretary Gajanan Shikshan
     Prasarak Mandal, Sanguchiwadi,
                
     Taluka-Kandhar, District-Nanded,
     Through Secretary,
     Ramchandra s/o Sukhdeo Yelwad,
     Age-49 years, Occu:Agril.,
      

     R/o-Sanguchiwadi, Tq-Kandhar,
     Dist-Nanded.
   



                                     ...PETITIONER. 

            VERSUS             





     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through Secretary,
        School Education & Sports
        Department, Mantralaya,
        Mumbai-32,





     2) The Dy. Director of Education,
        Latur, District-Latur,

     3) The Education Officer (Secondary),
        Zilla Parishad, Nanded.   
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.
                          ...




                                    ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:30 :::
                              44

        Mr.P.B. Patil Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        




                                                            
                          ...

                 WITH




                                    
                 WRIT PETITION NO.738 OF 2010

     Yeshwant Bahu-Uddeshiya Shikshan




                                   
     Prasarak Mandal, at Ganjur,
     Tq-Chakur, District-Latur,
     Through its Secretary,
     Shri Balasaheb s/o Ambadas Garad,




                           
     Age-40 years, R/o-Ganjur, 
     Tq-Chakur, Dist-Latur.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 
                 
            VERSUS             
                
     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through its Secretary,
        School Education Development 
        Department, Maharashtra State,
      

        Mantralaya, Mumbai,
   



     2) The Director of Education (Primary),
        Maharashtra State, Pune.   
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.





                          ...
        Mr.N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar Advocate for     
        Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        





                          ...


                 WITH




                                    ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:30 :::
                              45

                 WRIT PETITION NO.770 OF 2010

     Sanjay s/o Bhagwanrao Suryawanshi,




                                                              
     Age-36 years, Occu: Service and
     Secretary of Trimbkeshwar Shikshan
     Prasarak Mandal, Latur,




                                      
     R/o-Narayanagar, Latur,
     Tq. and Dist-Latur.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 




                                     
            VERSUS             

     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through its Secretary,




                           
        School Education and Sports
        Department, Mantralaya,
        Mumbai-32,ig
     2) The Director of Education,
        (School Education),
                
        M.S., Mumbai,

     3) The Deputy Director of 
        Education, Latur,
      


     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),
   



        Zilla Parishad, Latur.   
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.

                          ...





        Mr.G.V. Mohekar Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        
                          ...





                 WITH




                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:30 :::
                              46

                 WRIT PETITION NO.1098 OF 2010




                                                            
     Ahilyadevi Holkar Bahu-Udheshiya
     Sevabhavi Sanstha, Bhandari Colony,
     Gangakhed, Taluka-Gangakhed,




                                    
     District-Parbhani.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 

            VERSUS             




                                   
     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        (Through Secretary,
        Secondary Education Department)




                           
        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,

     2) The Director of Education,
                 
        Secondary and Higher Secondary
        Education, Pune.
                
     3) The Education Officer (Secondary),
        Zilla Parishad, Parbhani.   
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.
      

                          ...
        Mr.S.R. Choukidar Advocate for  Petitioner.
   



        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        
                          ...





                 WITH

                 WRIT PETITION NO.1100 OF 2010





     Ahilyadevi Holkar Bahu-Udheshiya
     Sevabhavi Sanstha, Bhandari Colony,
     Gangakhed, Taluka-Gangakhed,
     District-Parbhani.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 




                                    ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:31 :::
                              47


            VERSUS             




                                                            
     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        (Through Secretary,
        Secondary Education Department)




                                    
        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,

     2) The Director of Education,
        Secondary and Higher Secondary




                                   
        Education, Pune.

     3) The Education Officer (Secondary),
        Zilla Parishad, Parbhani.   




                           
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.

                          ...
                 
        Mr.S.R. Choukidar Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        
                
                          ...


                 WITH
      


                 WRIT PETITION NO.1103 OF 2010
   



     Jai Baliraja Shikshan Sanstha,
     Manaspuri, Tq-Kandhar, Dist-Nanded,
     Through it's Secretary





     Shri Shajuraj s/o Janardhan Gore,
     Age-39 years, Occu:Agriculture
     and social work, R/o-Manaspuri,
     Tq-Kandhar, Dist-Nanded.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 





            VERSUS             

     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through it's Secretary,
        Education Department, 
        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,




                                    ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:31 :::
                              48

     2) The Director of Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune-1.




                                                               
     3) The Deputy Director of Education,
        Latur Region, Latur.




                                       
     4) The Education Officer (Primary),
        Zilla Parishad, Nanded.    
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.




                                      
                          ...
        Mr.V.P. Kadam Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        




                           
                          ...

                 WITH
                 
                 WRIT PETITION NO.1145 OF 2010
                
     Rajeev Gramin Vikas Mandal,
     Umardari (De), Tq-Mukhed,
     Dist-Nanded,
     Through its President,
      

     Khushal Shankarrao Patil,
     Age-55 years, Occu:Agril.
   



     and Social Work, R/o-Umardari,
     Tq-Mukhed, Dist-Nanded.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 





            VERSUS             

     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through its Secretary,
        School Education Department,





        Maharashtra State,
        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,

     2) The Director of Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune,

     3) The Dy. Director of Education,
        Latur Region, Latur.




                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:31 :::
                              49


     4) The Education Officer (Primary),
        Zilla Parishad, Nanded.   




                                                               
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.

                          ...




                                       
        Mr.V.D. Gunale Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        
                          ...




                                      
             

                 WITH




                           
                 WRIT PETITION NO.1160 OF 2010
                 
     Jai Hanuman Bahuuddeshiya
     Samajik Sevabhavi Sanstha,
     Javala (Kh), Tq-Kallamb,
                
     Dist-Osmanabad,
     Through its President,
     Angad s/o Darideo Chavan,
     Age-50 years, R/o-Javala (Kh),
      

     Tq-Kallamb, Dist-Osmanabad.
   



                                     ...PETITIONER. 

            VERSUS             





     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through the Secretary,
        School Education Department,
        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,





     2) The Deputy Director of Education,
        Latur Region, Latur.

     3) The Education Officer (Secondary),
        Zilla Parishad, Beed.   
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.
                          ...




                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:31 :::
                              50

        Mr.M.P. Tripathi Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        




                                                               
                          ...    




                                       
                 WITH

                 WRIT PETITION NO.1162 OF 2010




                                      
     Jai Hanuman Bahuuddeshiya
     Samajik Sevabhavi Sanstha,
     Javala (Kh), Tq-Kallamb,
     Dist-Osmanabad,




                           
     Through its President,
     Angad s/o Darideo Chavan,
     Age-50 years, R/o-Javala (Kh),
                 
     Tq-Kallamb, Dist-Osmanabad.

                                     ...PETITIONER. 
                
            VERSUS             

     1) The State of Maharashtra,
      

        Through the Secretary,
        School Education Department,
   



        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,

     2) The Deputy Director of Education,
        Latur Region, Latur.





     3) The Education Officer (Secondary),
        Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad.   
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.





                          ...
        Mr.M.P. Tripathi Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        
                          ...
             




                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:31 :::
                                   51

                 WITH
                 WRIT PETITION NO.1165 OF 2010




                                                               
     Jai Hanuman Bahuuddeshiya
     Samajik Sevabhavi Sanstha,




                                       
     Javala (Kh), Tq-Kallamb,
     Dist-Osmanabad,
     Through its President,
     Angad s/o Darideo Chavan,




                                      
     Age-50 years, R/o-Javala (Kh),
     Tq-Kallamb, Dist-Osmanabad.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 

            VERSUS             




                               
                  
     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through the Secretary,
        School Education Department,
        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,
                 
     2) The Deputy Director of Education,
        Latur Region, Latur.

     3) The Education Officer (Secondary),
      


        Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad.   
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.
   



                          ...

        Mr.M.P. Tripathi Advocate for  Petitioner.





        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        
                          ...    

                  WITH





                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:31 :::
                                   52


                 WRIT PETITION NO.1171 OF 2010




                                                               
     Shri Sainath Gramin Vikas Mandal Va
     Shikshan Sanstha, Kandharewadi,




                                       
     Tq-Kandhar, Dist-Nanded,
     Through it's Secretary,
     Shri Nagorao s/o Namdeorao Amlapure,
     Occ:Agriculture and Social Work,




                                      
     R/o-Kandharewadi, Tq-Kandhar,
     Dist-Nanded.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 

            VERSUS             




                             
     1) The State of Maharashtra,
                  
        Through it's Secretary,
        Education Department, 
        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,
                 
     2) The Director of Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune-1.

     3) The Deputy Director of Education,
      


        Latur Region, Latur.
   



     4) The Education Officer (Primary),
        Zilla Parishad, Nanded.    
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.
                          ...





        Mr.V.P. Kadam Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        
                          ...
                  
                         WITH





                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:31 :::
                                   53


                 WRIT PETITION NO.1415 OF 2010




                                                               
     Balaji Adiwasi Shikshan Sanstha,
     Talyachiwadi, Tq-Hadgaon, Dist-Nanded,
     Through it's Secretary,




                                       
     Smt. Sushilabai s/o Baprao Wakode,
     Age-47 years, Occ:Agriculture and
     Social Work, R/o-Talyechiwadi,
     Tq-Hadgaon, Dist-Nanded.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 




                                      
            VERSUS             

     1) The State of Maharashtra,




                             
        Through it's Secretary,
        Education Department,
        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,
                  
     2) The Director of Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune-1.
                 
     3) The Deputy Director of Education,
        Latur Region, Latur.

     4) The Education Officer (Secondary High),
      

        Zilla Parishad, Nanded.    
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.
   



                          ...
        Mr.V.P. Kadam Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        
                          ...





                  WITH
                 WRIT PETITION NO.1420 OF 2010

     Vishwakarma Shikshan Prasarak
     Va Gramin Vikas Mandal, Sant





     Eknath Co-op. Housing Society,
     Opp-Akashwani, Jalna Road,
     Aurangabad, Through it's President,
     Shri Panjabrao Wadje,
     Age-45  Years, Occu:Social Work.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 
            VERSUS             




                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:31 :::
                                   54

     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through Secretary, Ministry of
        School Education,




                                                                 
        Madam Cama Road, Mantralaya, 
        Mumbai-32,




                                         
     2) The Director of Education,
        Secondary and Higher
        Secondary Education
        Directorate, 
        Maharashtra State, Pune.




                                        
     3) The Deputy Director of 
        Education, Aurangabad Division,
        Aurangabad.   
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.




                             
                          ...
        Mr.C.V. Thombre Advocate for  Petitioner.
                  
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        
                          ...
                 
                  WITH
                 WRIT PETITION NO.1473 OF 2010

     Chiukau Baalsanskar Mandal,
     Heramb Housing Group,
      

     RX-5/3, Room No.1, Bajaj Nagar,
     M.I.D.C. Waluj, Aurangabad,
   



     Through its President,
     Ishwar Gopkrao Jadhav,
     Age-38 years, Occu:Agril.,
     R/o-Bajaj Nagar, Waluj,
     Tq-Gangapur, Dist-Aurangabad.       ...PETITIONER. 





            VERSUS             

     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through its Secretary,





        School Education & Sports
        Department, Mantralaya,
        Mumbai-32,

     2) The Director of Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune.




                                         ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:31 :::
                                55

     3) The Deputy Director of 
        Education, Maharashtra State,
        Pune.




                                                                
     4) The Joint Director of Education,
        Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.




                                        
     5) The Education Officer (Primary),
        Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.

     6) The Education Officer (Secondary),




                                       
        Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.        ...RESPONDENTS.

                          ...
        Mr.C.V. Thombre Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   




                             
        the Respondents.        
                          ...
                  
                  WITH
                 
                 WRIT PETITION NO.1476 OF 2010

     Manokamna Purti Mandal,
     Vaijapur, 41, Sukrut Vinayak
     Colony, Vaijapur, Tq-Vaijapur,
      

     Dist-Aurangabad, Through its President,
     Shri Kachru Madhavrao Salunke,
   



     Age-50 years, Occu:Agril.,
     R/o-Vaijapur, Tq-Vaijapur,
     Dist-Aurangabad.
                                          ...PETITIONER. 





            VERSUS     
             

     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through its Secretary,





        School Education & Sports
        Department, Mantralaya,
        Mumbai-32,

     2) The Director of Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune.




                                        ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:31 :::
                                56

     3) The Deputy Director of Education, 
        Maharashtra State, Pune.




                                                                
     4) The Joint Director of Education,
        Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.




                                        
     5) The Education Officer (Primary),
        Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.

     6) The Education Officer (Secondary),
        Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.  




                                       
                                          ...RESPONDENTS.


                          ...
        Mr.C.V. Thombre Advocate for  Petitioner.




                             
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        
                  
                          ...

                  WITH
                 
                 WRIT PETITION NO.1560 OF 2010

     Durgamata Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
     N-11, F 15/16, Navjivan Colony,
      

     Shopping Centre, Hudco, Aurangabad,
     Through its President,
   



     Sau. Mangal Pralhad Jadhav,
     Age-40 years, Occu:Household,
     R/o-Aurangabad.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 





            VERSUS             

     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through its Secretary,
        School Education Department,
        Government of Maharashtra,





        Mantralaya, Mumbai,

     2) The Director of Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune,

     3) The Deputy Director of 
        Education, Aurangabad Region,
        Aurangabad.




                                        ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:31 :::
                                   57


     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),
        Zilla Parishad, Jalna.   




                                                                
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.
                          ...
        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.




                                        
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        
                          ...
                  WITH
                 WRIT PETITION NO.1562 OF 2010




                                       
     Jay Shrikrishna Shikshan Prasarak
     Mandal, Hudco, N-11, Aurangabad,
     Through its Secretary,




                             
     Kishor Baburao Nagare,
     Age-32 years, Occu:Business,
     N-11, C-5, 11/2, Dwarka Nagar,
                  
     Hudco, Aurangabad.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 
                 
            VERSUS             

     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through its Secretary,
        School Education Department,
      

        Government of Maharashtra,
        Mantralaya, Mumbai,
   



     2) The Director of Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune,

     3) The Deputy Director of 





        Education, Aurangabad Region,
        Aurangabad.

     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),
        Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.   





                                     ...RESPONDENTS.
                          ...
        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        
                          ...
                  WITH




                                        ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:32 :::
                                   58

                 WRIT PETITION NO.1563 OF 2010

     Murdeshwar Shikshan Sanstha,




                                                                
     N-11, Hudco, B 31/1, Subhashchandra
     Bosh Nagar, Aurangabad,
     Through its President,




                                        
     Shri Sarjerao Tejrao Shinde,
     Age-48 years, Occu:Agri,
     R/o- N-11, B 31/1, 
     Hudco, Aurangabad.                    ...PETITIONER. 




                                       
            VERSUS             

     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through its Secretary,




                             
        School Education Department,
        Government of Maharashtra,
        Mantralaya, Mumbai,
                  
     2) The Director of Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune,
                 
     3) The Deputy Director of 
        Education, Aurangabad Region,
        Aurangabad.
      

     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),
        Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.        ...RESPONDENTS.
   



                          ...
        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        





                          ...

                  WITH
                 WRIT PETITION NO.1565 OF 2010





     Murdeshwar Shikshan Sanstha,
     N-11, Hudco, B 31/1, Subhashchandra
     Bhos Nagar, Aurangabad,
     Through its President,
     Shri Sarjerao Tejrao Shinde,
     Age-48 years, Occu:Agri,
     R/o- N-11, B 31/1, Hudco, Aurangabad. 
                                         ...PETITIONER. 




                                        ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:32 :::
                                   59

            VERSUS             

     1) The State of Maharashtra,




                                                               
        Through its Secretary,
        School Education Department,
        Government of Maharashtra,




                                       
        Mantralaya, Mumbai,

     2) The Director of Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune,




                                      
     3) The Deputy Director of Education,
        Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad.

     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),
        Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.   




                             
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.
                          ...
                  
        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        
                 
                          ...
                  WITH

                 WRIT PETITION NO.1568 OF 2010
      

     Murdeshwar Shikshan Sanstha,
     N-11, Hudco, B 31/1,
   



     Subhashchandra Bose Nagar,
     Aurangabad,
     Through its President,
     Shri Sarjerao Tejrao Shinde,
     Age-48 years, Occu:Agri,





     R/o- N-11, B 31/1, 
     Hudco, Aurangabad.                   ...PETITIONER. 

            VERSUS             





     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through its Secretary,
        School Education Department,
        Government of Maharashtra,
        Mantralaya, Mumbai,

     2) The Director of Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune,




                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:32 :::
                                   60


     3) The Deputy Director of 
        Education, Aurangabad Region,




                                                                
        Aurangabad.

     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),




                                        
        Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.      ...RESPONDENTS.
                          ...
        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        




                                       
                          ...
                  WITH
                 WRIT PETITION NO.1572 OF 2010




                             
     Bodhana Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
     Mahora, Tq-Jafrabad, Dist-Jalna,
     Through its President,
                  
     Pradip Pundalikrao Kandaje,
     Age-39 years, Occu:Service,
     R/o-Mahora, Tq-Jafrabad,
                 
     Dist-Jalna.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 

            VERSUS             
      

     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through its Secretary,
   



        School Education Department,
        Government of Maharashtra,
        Mantralaya, Mumbai,

     2) The Director of Education,





        Maharashtra State, Pune,

     3) The Deputy Director of 
        Education, Aurangabad Region,
        Aurangabad.





     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),
        Zilla Parishad, Jalna.   
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.
                          ...
        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        




                                        ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:32 :::
                                61


                  WITH
                 WRIT PETITION NO.1576 OF 2010




                                                               
     Nisargdeep Shikshan Prasarak
     Mandal, 12/7, Banjara Colony,




                                       
     Aurangabad, Through its Secretary,
     Vijendra Gulabsingh Jadhav,
     Age-41 years, Occu:Service,
     R/o-Rajendra Nivas, Banjara
     Naik Nagar, Aurangabad.




                                      
                                     ...PETITIONER. 
            VERSUS             

     1) The State of Maharashtra,




                             
        Through its Secretary,
        School Education Department,
        Government of Maharashtra,
                  
        Mantralaya, Mumbai,

     2) The Director of Education,
                 
        Maharashtra State, Pune,

     3) The Deputy Director of Education,
        Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad.
      

     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),
        Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.   
   



                                     ...RESPONDENTS.
                          ...
        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        





                          ...
                  WITH
                 WRIT PETITION NO.1580 OF 2010

     Kai. Tatyasaheb Bahuuddeshiya





     Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Sillod,
     Tq-Sillod, Dist-Aurangabad,
     Through its President,
     Kautikrao Mhatarji Lute,
     Age-40 years, Occu:Agri.
     R/o-Plot No.133/2, Shivaji Nagar,
     Sillod, Aurangabad.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 




                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:32 :::
                                   62

            VERSUS             

     1) The State of Maharashtra,




                                                               
        Through its Secretary,
        School Education Department,
        Government of Maharashtra,




                                       
        Mantralaya, Mumbai,

     2) The Director of Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune,




                                      
     3) The Deputy Director of Education,
        Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad.

     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),
        Zilla Parishad, Jalna.   




                             
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.
                          ...
                  
        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        
                 
                          ...

                  WITH

                 WRIT PETITION NO.1584 OF 2010
      


     Bhagwan Pratishthan,
   



     "Sandip", Opp. Labhkshetra Office,
     Garkheda Road, Aurangabad,
     Through its Executive Trustee-
     Vinayak Saluba Wagh, Age-63 years,
     Aurangabad.                     





                                         ...PETITIONER. 

            VERSUS             

     1) The State of Maharashtra,





        Through its Secretary,
        School Education Department,
        Government of Maharashtra,
        Mantralaya, Mumbai,

     2) The Director of Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune,




                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:32 :::
                                63

     3) The Deputy Director of Education, 
        Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad.




                                                               
     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),
        Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.       
                                         ...RESPONDENTS.




                                       
                          ...
        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   




                                      
        the Respondents.        
                          ...
                  WITH
                 WRIT PETITION NO.2064 OF 2010




                             
     Lokseva Bahuuddeshiya Sevabhavi
     Sanstha, Through its Secretary-
                  
     Shaikh Gafar Gani,
     Age-42 years, Occu:Business,
     R/o-Gauspura, Galli No.1,
                 
     Scrap Market, Latur.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 
            VERSUS             

     1) The State of Maharashtra,
      

        Through its Secretary,
        School Education Department,
   



        Government of Maharashtra,
        Mantralaya, Mumbai,

     2) The Director of Education,





        Maharashtra State, Pune,

     3) The Deputy Director of Education, 
        Latur Region, Latur.

     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),





        Zilla Parishad, Latur.   
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.
                          ...
        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        
                          ...




                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:32 :::
                                   64

                 WITH

                 WRIT PETITION NO.2065 OF 2010




                                                               
     Lokseva Bahuuddeshiya Sevabhavi
     Sanstha, Through its Secretary-




                                       
     Shaikh Gafar Gani,
     Age-42 years, Occu:Business,
     R/o-Gauspura, Galli No.1,
     Scrap Market, Latur.




                                      
                                     ...PETITIONER. 

            VERSUS             

     1) The State of Maharashtra,




                             
        Through its Secretary,
        School Education Department,
                  
        Government of Maharashtra,
        Mantralaya, Mumbai,

     2) The Director of Education,
                 
        Maharashtra State, Pune,

     3) The Deputy Director of Education, 
        Latur Region, Latur.
      


     4) The Education Officer (Primary),
        Zilla Parishad, Latur.           
   



                                     ...RESPONDENTS.
                          ...
        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   





        the Respondents.        
                          ...

                  WITH
                 WRIT PETITION NO.2066 OF 2010





     Adhunik Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
     Aurangabad, Through its President,
     Shaikh Farukh Rauf,
     Age-35 years, Occu:President,
     R/o-Plot No.129, Aref Colony,
     Aurangabad.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 
            VERSUS             




                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:32 :::
                                65

     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through its Secretary,
        School Education Department,




                                                               
        Government of Maharashtra,
        Mantralaya, Mumbai,




                                       
     2) The Director of Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune,

     3) The Deputy Director of Education, 
        Latur Region, Latur.




                                      
     4) The Education Officer (Primary),
        Zilla Parishad, Beed.   
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.
                          ...




                             
        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
                  
        the Respondents.        
                          ...
                 
                  WITH 
      
                 WRIT PETITION NO.2195 OF 2010

     Ul Raheman Educational & Social
      

     Welfare Foundation,
     Through its Secretary,
   



     Kazi Abdul Samad Hakim,
     Age-60 years, Occu:Business,
     R/o-Opp. S.T. Workshop,
     Ambajogai Road, Latur, Dist-Latur.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 





            VERSUS            
     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through its Secretary,
        School Education Department,
        Government of Maharashtra,





        Mantralaya, Mumbai,

     2) The Director of Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune,

     3) The Deputy Director of Education, 
        Latur Region, Latur.




                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:32 :::
                                66

     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),
        Zilla Parishad, Latur.   
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.




                                                               
                          ...
        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   




                                       
        the Respondents.        
                          ...         
                 WITH
                 WRIT PETITION NO.2196 OF 2010




                                      
     Sahayog Kranti Bahuudeshiya
     Sevabhavi Sanstha, Banjara Colony,
     Aurangabad,Through its Secretary,
     Vijendra Gulabsingh Jadhav,




                             
     Age-41 years, Occu:Service,
     R/o- 17/2, Rajendra Nivas,
     Banjara Colony, Naik Nagar,
                  
     Aurangabad.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 
            VERSUS            
                 
     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through its Secretary,
        School Education Department,
      

        Government of Maharashtra,
        Mantralaya, Mumbai,
   



     2) The Director of Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune,

     3) The Dy. Director of Education, 





        Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad.

     4) The Education Officer (Primary),
        Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.   
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.





                          ...
        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        
                          ...

                 WITH      




                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:32 :::
                                 67



                 WRIT PETITION NO.1588 OF 2010




                                                                
      
     Jay Shriram Mahila Bahuuddeshiya
     Shaikshanik Sanstha, Hudco,




                                        
     Aurangabad, Through its Secretary,
     Sow. Sangita Bhausaheb Tathe,
     Age-41 years, Occ:Household,
     N-11, C-4, 13/3, Gajanan Nagar,




                                       
     Hudco, Aurangabad.                    ...PETITIONER. 

            VERSUS           

     1) The State of Maharashtra,




                               
        Through its Secretary,
        School Education Department,
        Government of Maharashtra,
                  
        Mantralaya, Mumbai,

     2) The Director of Education,
                 
        Maharashtra State, Pune,

     3) The Deputy Director of 
        Education, Aurangabad Region,
        Aurangabad.
      


     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),
   



        Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.        ...RESPONDENTS.
                          ...
        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   





        the Respondents.        
                          ...
                  WITH
                 WRIT PETITION NO.1589 OF 2010

     Bodhana Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,





     Mahora, Tq-Jafrabad, Dist-Jalna,
     Through its President,
     Pradip Pundalikrao Kandaje,
     Age-39 years, Occu:Service,
     R/o-Mahora, Tq-Jafrabad,
     Dist-Jalna.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 
            VERSUS




                                        ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:32 :::
                                   68


     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through its Secretary,




                                                                
        School Education Department,
        Government of Maharashtra,
        Mantralaya, Mumbai,




                                        
     2) The Director of Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune,

     3) The Deputy Director of 




                                       
        Education, Aurangabad Region,
        Aurangabad.

     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),
        Zilla Parishad, Jalna.   




                             
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.
                          ...
                  
        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        
                 
                          ...
                 WITH
                 WRIT PETITION NO.6477 OF 2009
      


     Dr. Sheshrao s/o Ganpatrao Bahekar,
     Age-Major, Occu: President of
   



     Vivekanand Seva Kendra, Partur,
     R/o-Partur, Tq-Partur, Dist-Jalna.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 
            VERSUS             





     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through its Secretary,
        School Education and Sports
        Department, Mantralaya,
        Mumbai-32,





     2) The Director of Education,
        (School Education), M.S. Mumbai.

     3) The Deputy Director of 
        Education, Aurangabad




                                        ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:33 :::
                                 69

     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),
        Zilla Parishad, Jalna.   
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.




                                                              
                          ...
        Mr.G.V. Mohekar Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   




                                      
        the Respondents.        
                          ...
                 WITH
                 WRIT PETITION NO.8338 OF 2009




                                     
     Sau. Laxmibai Shantaram Doke
     Samjvikas Prathisthan,
     At:6, Parag Plaza, Savedi Road,
     Near Lokmat Bhawan, Ahmednagar,




                             
     District-Ahmednagar,
     Through it's Secretary,
                  
     Haridas Shantaram Doke,
     Age-51 years, Occu:Agri & Business,
     R/o- At & Post: Ahmednagar,
     Dist-Ahmednagar.
                 
                                     ...PETITIONER. 
            VERSUS             

     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through its Secretary,
      


        The Department of School
        Education and Sports
   



        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,

     2) The Education Officer (Secondary),
        Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar,





        Dist-Ahmednagar,

     3) Director of Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune.   
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.
                          ...





        Mr.A.B. Gatne Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        
                          ...
                 

                   WITH




                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:33 :::
                                   70


                 WRIT PETITION NO.1739 OF 2010




                                                               
     Lumbani Mahila Mandal Aurad (G),
     Tq-Omerga, Dist-Osmanabad,
     Through it's Secretary,




                                       
     Vikas Bhairoba Gaikwad,
     Age-35 years, Occu:Secretary,
     R/o- Vikas Niwas, Behind Bharat
     Vidyalaya, Omerga, Dist-Osmanabad.




                                      
                                     ...PETITIONER. 
            VERSUS             

     1) The State of Maharashtra,




                             
        Through Secretary,
        School Education Department,
        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,
                  
     2) The Deputy Director of Education,
        Latur Region, Latur.
                 
     3) The Education Officer (Secondary),
        Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad.  
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.
                          ...
      


        Mr.P.B. Gapat Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
   



        the Respondents.        
                          ...
                 WITH





                 WRIT PETITION NO.1795 OF 2010

     Roshan Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan
     Prasarak Mandal, Latur,
     Through its Secretary,
     Shaikh Mumtaj Abdulkarimsab,





     Age-43 years, Occu: Service,
     R/o-Hind Colony, Ambajogai Road,
     Latur.                            ...PETITIONER. 

            VERSUS             




                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:33 :::
                                   71

     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through its Secretary,
        School Education Department,




                                                                 
        Government of Maharashtra,
        Mantralaya, Mumbai,




                                         
     2) The Director of Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune,

     3) The Deputy Director of 
        Education, Latur Region,




                                        
        Latur.

     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),
        Zilla Parishad, Latur.   
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.




                             
                          ...
        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.
                  
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        
                          ...
                 
                 WITH

                 WRIT PETITION NO.1796 OF 2010
      


     Kai. Saw. Vanarasibai Kaldate
   



     Sevabhavi Sanstha,  
     At Post-Brahmangaon, 
     Tq. & Dist-Parbhani, Through,
     Sanjay s/o Vasantrao Gavane,





     Age-30 years, Occu:Secretary,
     Kai. Saw. Vanarasibai Kaldate
     Sevabhavi Sanstha,
     At Post-Brahmangaon,
     Tq. & Dist-Parbhani.         ...PETITIONER. 





            VERSUS             

     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through the Secretary,
        Department of School Education
        & Sports Department,
        Mantralaya Vistar Bhavan,
        Maharashtra State, Mumbai,




                                         ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:33 :::
                                 72


     2) The Director of Education,
        (Secondary & Higher Secondary),




                                                               
        Maharashtra State, Pune-1,

     3) The Deputy Director of Education, 




                                       
        Education Department,
        Aurangabad Division,
        Tq. & Dist-Aurangabad.
     4) The Education Officer,
        Zilla Parishad, Parbhani, 




                                      
        Tq. & Dist-Parbhani.   
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.

                          ...
        Mr.S.G. Gadge Advocate for  Petitioner.




                             
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        
                  
                          ...
                 
                 WITH
                 WRIT PETITION NO.1804 OF 2010

     Roshan Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan
     Prasarak Mandal, Latur,
      


     Through its Secretary,
     Shaikh Mumtaj Abdulkarimsab,
   



     Age-43 years, Occu: Service,
     R/o-Hind Colony, Ambajogai Road,
     Latur.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 





            VERSUS             

     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through its Secretary,
        School Education Department,
        Government of Maharashtra,





        Mantralaya, Mumbai,

     2) The Director of Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune,

     3) The Deputy Director of 
        Education, Latur Region,
        Latur.




                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:33 :::
                                 73


     4) The Education Officer (Primary),
        Zilla Parishad, Latur.   




                                                              
                                    ...RESPONDENTS.
                          ...
        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.




                                      
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        
                          ...
                 WITH




                                     
                 WRIT PETITION NO.1809 OF 2010

     Dnyanjyot Shikshan Sanstha,
     Through its President,




                             
     Babasaheb s/o Govindsing Bais,
     Age-45 years, Occu:Agri.,
                  
     R/o-Sonak Pimpalgaon,
     Tq. & Dist-Jalna.          
                                     ...PETITIONER. 
            VERSUS             
                 
     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through its Secretary,
        School Education and Sports
        Department, Mantralaya, 
      


        Mumbai-32,
   



     2) The Assistant Secretary,
        School Education and Sports
        Department, Mantralaya,
        Mumbai-32,





     3) The Education Officer (Primary),
        Zilla Parishad, Jalna.
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.
                          ...
        Mr.A.N. Kakade Advocate for  Petitioner.





        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        
                          ...
                 WITH




                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:33 :::
                                   74

                 WRIT PETITION NO.1810 OF 2010




                                                               
     Maulana Azad Bahuuddeshiya Sevabhavi
     Sanstha, Shivaji Nagar, Nilanga,
     Through its President -




                                       
     Shaikh Abdul Khalil Karimsab,
     Age-45 years, Occu:Business,
     R/o-Shivaji Nagar, Nilanga,
     Dist-Latur.                       ...PETITIONER. 




                                      
            VERSUS             

     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through its Secretary,




                             
        School Education Department,
        Government of Maharashtra,
        Mantralaya, Mumbai,
                  
     2) The Director of Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune,
                 
     3) The Deputy Director of 
        Education, Latur Region,
        Latur.
      


     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),
        Zilla Parishad, Latur.   
   



                                     ...RESPONDENTS.
                          ...
        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   





        the Respondents.        
                         ...
                
                             WITH
                 WRIT PETITION NO.1244 OF 2010





     Jawaharlal Nehru Shikshan
     Prasarak Mandal, Umardari,
     Tq-Mukhed, Dist-Nanded,
     Through its Secretary,
     Krushal Shankarrao Patil,
     Age-55 years, Occu:Agril.




                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:33 :::
                                   75

     and Social Work, 
     R/o-Umardari, Tq-Mukhed,
     Dist-Nanded.




                                                               
                                     ...PETITIONER. 
            VERSUS             




                                       
     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through its Secretary,
        School Education Department,
        Maharashtra State,
        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,




                                      
     2) The Director of Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune,

     3) The Deputy Director




                             
        of Education, Latur Region,
        Latur.    
     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),
        Zilla Parishad, Nanded,
                 
        Tq. & Dist-Nanded.             ...RESPONDENTS.
                          ...
        Mr.V.D. Gunale Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        
      

                          ...
   



                 WITH
                 WRIT PETITION NO.1657 OF 2010

     Saraswati Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,





     Shiradhon, Tq-Kandhar, Dist-Nanded,
     Through its Secretary,
     Shri. Balaji Madhavrao Pandagale,
     Age-45 years, Occu:Agril.,
     R/o-Shiradhon, Tq-Kandhar,
     Dist-Nanded.                      ...PETITIONER. 





            VERSUS             

     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through its Secretary,
        School Education Department,
        Government of Maharashtra,
        Mantralaya, Mumbai,




                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:33 :::
                                76


     2) The Director of Education,
        State of Maharashtra,




                                                               
        Pune, Dist-Pune,

     3) The Deputy Director of




                                       
        Education, Latur Region,
        Latur, Tq. & Dist-Latur,

     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),
        Zilla Parishad, Latur,




                                      
        Tq. & Dist-Latur.               ...RESPONDENTS.
                          ...
        Mr.V.D. Gunale Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        




                             
                          ...
                 WITH
                  
                 WRIT PETITION NO.1658 OF 2010

     Saraswati Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
                 
     Shiradhon, Tq-Kandhar, Dist-Nanded,
     Through its Secretary,
     Shri. Balaji Madhavrao Pandagale,
     Age-45 years, Occu:Agril.,
     R/o-Shiradhon, Tq-Kandhar,
      

     Dist-Nanded.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 
   



            VERSUS             

     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through its Secretary,





        School Education Department,
        Government of Maharashtra,
        Mantralaya, Mumbai,

     2) The Director of Education,
        State of Maharashtra,





        Pune, Dist-Pune,

     3) The Deputy Director of
        Education, Latur Region,
        Latur, Tq. & Dist-Latur,




                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:33 :::
                                77

     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),
        Zilla Parishad, Latur,
        Tq. & Dist-Latur.   




                                                               
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.
                          ...
        Mr.V.D. Gunale Advocate for  Petitioner.




                                       
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        
                          ...
                 WITH
                 WRIT PETITION NO.1661 OF 2010




                                      
     Saraswati Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
     Shiradhon, Tq-Kandhar, Dist-Nanded,
     Through its Secretary,




                             
     Shri. Balaji Madhavrao Pandagale,
     Age-40 years, Occu:Agril.,
     R/o-Shiradhon, Tq-Kandhar,
                  
     Dist-Nanded.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 
            VERSUS             
                 
     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through its Secretary,
        School Education Department,
        Government of Maharashtra,
      


        Mantralaya, Mumbai,
   



     2) The Director of Education,
        State of Maharashtra,
        Pune, Dist-Pune,





     3) The Deputy Director of
        Education, Latur Region,
        Latur, Tq. & Dist-Latur,

     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),
        Zilla Parishad, Latur,





        Tq. & Dist-Latur.   
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.
                          ...
        Mr.V.D. Gunale Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        
                          ...




                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:33 :::
                                78


                 WITH




                                                               
                 WRIT PETITION NO.1663 OF 2010

     Bhimashankar Shikshan Sanstha,




                                       
     Shiradhon, Tq-Kandhar, Dist-Nanded,
     Through its Director,
     Shri. Balaji Madhavrao Pandagale,
     Age-45 years, Occu:Agril.,




                                      
     R/o-Shiradhon, Tq-Kandhar, Dist-Nanded
                                     ...PETITIONER. 
            VERSUS             

     1) The State of Maharashtra,




                             
        Through its Secretary,
        School Education Department,
        Government of Maharashtra,
                  
        Mantralaya, Mumbai,

     2) The Director of Education,
                 
        State of Maharashtra,
        Pune, Dist-Pune,

     3) The Deputy Director of
        Education, Latur Region,
      


        Latur, Tq. & Dist-Latur,
   



     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),
        Zilla Parishad, Latur,
        Tq. & Dist-Latur.                ...RESPONDENTS.
                          ...





        Mr.V.D. Gunale Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        
                          ...

                 WITH





                 WRIT PETITION NO.1665 OF 2010

     Bhimashankar Shikshan Sanstha,
     Shiradhon, Tq-Kandhar, Dist-Nanded,
     Through its Director,
     Shri. Balaji Madhavrao Pandagale,




                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:33 :::
                                79

     Age-45 years, Occu:Agril.,
     R/o-Shiradhon, Tq-Kandhar,
     Dist-Nanded.




                                                               
                                     ...PETITIONER. 
            VERSUS             




                                       
     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through its Secretary,
        School Education Department,
        Government of Maharashtra,
        Mantralaya, Mumbai,




                                      
     2) The Director of Education,
        State of Maharashtra,
        Pune, Dist-Pune,




                             
     3) The Deputy Director of
        Education, Latur Region,
                  
        Latur, Tq. & Dist-Latur,

     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),
                 
        Zilla Parishad, Latur,
        Tq. & Dist-Latur.   
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.
      

                          ...
        Mr.V.D. Gunale Advocate for  Petitioner.
   



        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        
                          ...
                 WITH





                 WRIT PETITION NO.1666 OF 2010

     Saraswati Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
     Shiradhon, Tq-Kandhar, Dist-Nanded,





     Through its Secretary,
     Shri. Balaji Madhavrao Pandagale,
     Age-40 years, Occu:Agril.,
     R/o-Shiradhon, Tq-Kandhar,
     Dist-Nanded.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 
            VERSUS             




                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:33 :::
                                80

     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through its Secretary,
        School Education Department,




                                                               
        Government of Maharashtra,
        Mantralaya, Mumbai,




                                       
     2) The Director of Education,
        State of Maharashtra,
        Pune, Dist-Pune,

     3) The Deputy Director of




                                      
        Education, Latur Region,
        Latur, Tq. & Dist-Latur,

     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),
        Zilla Parishad, Latur,




                             
        Tq. & Dist-Latur.   
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.
                  
                          ...
        Mr.V.D. Gunale Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
                 
        the Respondents.        
                          ...
                 WITH    
                 WRIT PETITION NO.1821 OF 2010
      


     Dnyanjyot Shikshan Sanstha,
     Through its President,
   



     Babasaheb s/o Govindsing Bais,
     Age-45 years, Occ:Agri,
     R/o-Sonak Pimpalgaon,
     Tq, & Dist-Jalna.





                                     ...PETITIONER. 
            VERSUS             

     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through its Secretary,
        School Education and Sports





        Department, Mantralaya,
        Mumbai-32,

     2) The Assistant Secretary,
        School Education and Sports
        Department, Mantralaya,
        Mumbai-32,




                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:33 :::
                                 81

     3) The Education Officer (Secondary),
        Zilla Parishad, Jalna,
                                      ...RESPONDENTS.




                                                               
                          ...
        Mr.Amol N. Kakade Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   




                                       
        the Respondents.        
                          ...
                 WITH
                 WRIT PETITION NO.1953 OF 2010




                                      
     Jaikishan Shikshan Sanstha,
     Through its Secretary,
     Sow. Kavita w/o- Kauthikrao Wagh,
     Age-44 years, Occu:Service,




                             
     R/o-Plot No.4 & 5,
     Pruthvi Nagar, Beed By-pass Road,
     Satara Parisar, Aurangabad.
                  
                                     ...PETITIONER. 
            VERSUS            
                 
     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through its Secretary,
        School Education Department,
        Government of Maharashtra,
        Mantralaya, Mumbai,
      
   



     2) The Director of Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune,

     3) The Dy. Director of Education, 





        Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad.

     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),
        Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.   
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.
                          ...





        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        
                          ...

                 WITH




                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:33 :::
                                82

                 WRIT PETITION NO.1954 OF 2010

     Shri Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj




                                                               
     Shikshan Sanstha,
     Through its President,
     Nagnath Laxmanrao Ghisewad,




                                       
     Age-52 years, Occu:Business,
     R/o- At Post-Bhokar,
     Tq-Bhokar, Dist-Nanded.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 
            VERSUS            




                                      
     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through its Secretary,
        School Education Department,




                             
        Government of Maharashtra,
        Mantralaya, Mumbai,
                  
     2) The Director of Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune,
                 
     3) The Dy. Director of Education, 
        Latur Region, Latur.

     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),
        Zilla Parishad, Nanded.   
      

                                     ...RESPONDENTS.
   



                          ...
        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        
                 





                 WITH

                 WRIT PETITION NO.1955 OF 2010

     Shri Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj





     Shikshan Sanstha,
     Through its President,
     Nagnath Laxmanrao Ghisewad,
     Age-52 years, Occu:Business,
     R/o- At Post-Bhokar,
     Tq-Bhokar, Dist-Nanded.             ...PETITIONER. 




                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:34 :::
                                  83

            VERSUS            

     1) The State of Maharashtra,




                                                               
        Through its Secretary,
        School Education Department,
        Government of Maharashtra,




                                       
        Mantralaya, Mumbai,

     2) The Director of Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune,




                                      
     3) The Dy. Director of Education, 
        Latur Region, Latur.

     4) The Education Officer (Primary),
        Zilla Parishad, Nanded.          ...RESPONDENTS.




                                
                          ...
                  
        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        
                 
                          ...

                 WITH
                 WRIT PETITION NO.1956 OF 2010
      


     Shri Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj
     Shikshan Sanstha,
   



     Through its President,
     Nagnath Laxmanrao Ghisewad,
     Age-52 years, Occu:Business,
     R/o- At Post-Bhokar,





     Tq-Bhokar, Dist-Nanded.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 
            VERSUS            

     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through its Secretary,





        School Education Department,
        Government of Maharashtra,
        Mantralaya, Mumbai,

     2) The Director of Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune,
     3) The Dy. Director of Education, 
        Latur Region, Latur.




                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:34 :::
                                 84


     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),
        Zilla Parishad, Nanded.   




                                                              
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.

                          ...




                                      
        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        
                          ...




                                     
                 WITH
                 WRIT PETITION NO.1959 OF 2010

     Shri Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj




                             
     Shikshan Sanstha,
     Through its President,
                  
     Nagnath Laxmanrao Ghisewad,
     Age-52 years, Occu:Business,
     R/o- At Post-Bhokar,
     Tq-Bhokar, Dist-Nanded.
                 
                                     ...PETITIONER. 
            VERSUS            
      
     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through its Secretary,
      


        School Education Department,
        Government of Maharashtra,
   



        Mantralaya, Mumbai,

     2) The Director of Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune,





     3) The Dy. Director of Education, 
        Latur Region, Latur.

     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),
        Zilla Parishad, Nanded.   





                                     ...RESPONDENTS.

                          ...
        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        
                          ...




                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:34 :::
                                  85

                 WITH

                 WRIT PETITION NO.1961 OF 2010




                                                               
     Sahayog Kranti Bahuudeshiya
     Sevabhavi Sanstha, Banjara Colony,




                                       
     Aurangabad,Through its President,
     Vijendra Gulabsingh Jadhav,
     Age-41 years, Occu:Service,
     R/o- 17/2, Rajendra Nivas,




                                      
     Banjara Colony, Naik Nagar,
     Aurangabad.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 

            VERSUS            




                                
     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through its Secretary,
                  
        School Education Department,
        Government of Maharashtra,
        Mantralaya, Mumbai,
                 
     2) The Director of Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune,

     3) The Dy. Director of Education, 
      


        Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad.
   



     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),
        Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.   
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.





                          ...
        Mr.S.G. Rudrawar Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for   
        the Respondents.        
                          ...
                                                       





                 WITH

                 WRIT PETITION NO.1204 OF 2009

     Mahesh Gramin Bahuuddeshiya
     Shikshan Sanstha, Ashti, Tq-Ashti,
     Dist-Beed, Through it's




                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:34 :::
                              86

     Administrative Officer,
     Shivdas Gopinath Vidhate,
     Age-44 years, Occu:Service & Agri.,




                                                             
     At Post-Ashti, Tq-Ashti, Dist-Beed.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 
            VERSUS             




                                     
     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through the Secretary,
        Education Department,




                                    
        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,

     2) The Director of Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune,




                           
     3) The Education Officer
        (Primary/Secondary),
                 
        Zilla Parishad, Beed, 
        Dist-Beed.   
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.
                
                          ...
        Mr.B.T. Bodkhe Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for 
      

        Respondents.       
                          ...
   



                 WITH





                 WRIT PETITION NO.1205 OF 2009

     Shetkari Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
     Ashti, Tq-Ashti, Dist-Beed,





     Through it's Administrative Officer,
     Dattatraya Shripati Raut,
     Age-54 years, Occu:Service & Agri.,
     At Post-Ashti, Tq-Ashti, Dist-Beed.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 

            VERSUS             




                                     ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:34 :::
                              87


     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through the Secretary,




                                                             
        Education Department,
        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,




                                     
     2) The Director of Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune,

     3) The Education Officer (Primary),




                                    
        Zilla Parishad, Beed, Dist-Beed.   
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.
                          ...
        Mr.B.T. Bodkhe Advocate for  Petitioner.




                           
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for 
        Respondents.       
                          ...
                 
                 WITH
                
                WRIT PETITION NO.1206 OF 2009

     Shri Chhatrapati Shahu Education
      

     Society, Ashti, Tq-Ashti, Dist-Beed,
     Through it's Administrative Officer,
   



     Shivdas Gopinath Vidhate,
     Age-44 years, Occu:Service & Agri.,
     At Post-Ashti, Tq-Ashti, Dist-Beed.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 





            VERSUS             

     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through the Secretary,
        Education Department,
        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,





     2) The Director of Education,
        Maharashtra State, Pune,

     3) The Education Officer (Secondary)
        Zilla Parishad, Beed, Dist-Beed.   
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.




                                     ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:34 :::
                              88


                          ...
        Mr.B.T. Bodkhe Advocate for  Petitioner.




                                                               
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for 
        Respondents.       
                          ...




                                       
                 WITH

                 WRIT PETITION NO.921 OF 2010




                                      
     Shiv Samarth Seva Bhavi Sanstha,
     Latur, Through its Secretary,
     R/o-Narayangar, Latur,




                           
     Tq. & Dist-Latur.
                                     ...PETITIONER. 
                 
            VERSUS             

     1) The State of Maharashtra,
                
        Through its Secretary,
        School Education  and Sports
        Department, Mantralaya,
        Mumbai-32,
      


     2) The Director of Education,
   



        (School Education),
        M.S. Mumbai,

     3) The Deputy Director 





        of Education, Latur,
         
     4) The Education Officer (Secondary),
        Zilla Parishad, Latur.   
                                     ...RESPONDENTS.





                          ...
        Mr.G.V. Mohekar Advocate for  Petitioner.
        Mr.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for 
        Respondents.       
                          ...              
                             
              




                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:34 :::
                                    89

                     CORAM:   A.M. KHANWILKAR AND 
                              S.S. SHINDE, JJ.
             




                                                                    
         

         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON   :  23RD FERBUARY, 2010




                                            
       
         JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :  8TH APRIL, 2010
                                      




                                           
     JUDGMENT (PER: A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.)  :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent

of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter

was taken up for final hearing at the stage of

admission itself.

2. All these Petitions are disposed of by

this Common Judgment as the same involve common

issues. All these Petitions are filed by

non-minority institutions which are registered as

public charitable trusts, taking exception to

Government Resolution dated 20th July, 2009 on the

basis of which the proposal submitted by each of

these Petitioner institution for starting a

primary, secondary or higher secondary school, as

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:34 :::
90

the case may be, has been treated as cancelled or

rejected. It is the case of each of these

Petitioners that pursuant to Government Circular

dated 29th July, 2008 they submitted proposal(s)

for starting primary, secondary and higher

secondary schools on “permanent no grant basis” in

“Marathi medium”. It is asserted that their

proposal was scrutinized by the Committees

constituted at the District and State level and

recommended to the State Government for approval.

Along with the Petitioners, several other

institutions had submitted their proposals which

were also processed and pending with the State

Government for appropriate decision. The State

Government, however, by impugned Government

Resolution dated 20th July, 2009, decided to

terminate all those proposals (about 6028) as

cancelled or rejected on the ground that

permission cannot be granted until a comprehensive

plan (perspective plan/ master plan) is prepared

with the assistance of experts. Further, depending

upon the requirement of the school and considering

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:34 :::
91

the policy regarding grant of permission to start

a school, the sub committee of State Cabinet would

examine the proposals and take decision regarding

permission for a new school. The English

translation of the said Government Resolution as

appended to Writ Petition No.345 of 2010 reads

thus:

“Regarding giving grant to

the primary and secondary
school (excluding English

Medium) that have been
given permission on
permanent non grant basis.

Govt. of Maharashtra
Dept. of School Education and
Sports

Govt. Resolution No.SCG2009/
(588/09) SE-1

Mantralaya Annax Bldg,
Mumbai-32.

Date : 20 July, 2009

Preface,

To secure the fundamental

right of right to life to every
Indian citizen and to have to
right to education to every
one, Hon’ble Apex Court has
given the direction to give
free and compulsory education
to children in the age group 6

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:34 :::
92

to 14 and thereby 86th
amendment took place in the
Indian constitution accordingly

the right of the child in the
age group 6 to 14 on education
was incorporation as

fundamental right. To protect
this right of child on
education as given by Indian
constitution central Govt. has

initiated the action to pass
the enactment on “Right to
Education.”

Various schemes for

extension and development of
education has been implemented

by Govt. in the state. Various
primary, secondary and Higher
Secondary schools are in

operation in the state on aided
partly aided, non aided
permanently non aided basis. In
the cabinet meeting dt. 24th

November, 2004 the resolution
has been passed to give

permission to Primary,
Secondary and Higher secondary
schools run by private
institutions on permanent non

aided basis, accordingly since
2002 the permission has been
granted in the state on
permanent unaided basis.

Hundred percent grant has

been given to the aided school
in the state and as per Govt.

resolution dated 11th October,
2000 the formula of giving
grant has been prescribed. As
per the formula 20% grant on
fifth running year, 40% on

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:35 :::
93

sixth running year, 60% on
seventh year, 80% on eighth
year and 100 on ninth running

year has been given to unaided
schools on the state.

Consistently demands have
been made to the Govt. to give
the grant to the schools which
are on permanent non grant

basis. With the purpose to
enable primary and secondary
school, quality of education
and enabling the education
system as the constitutional

responsibility of primary and
secondary education is on

Govt., the proposal to give
grant to primary and secondary
schools in the state who have

been given permission on
permanent non aided basis has
been submitted on 16th June,
2009 for cabinet consideration.

As per the resolution passed in
cabinet meeting following order

has been issued regarding
giving grant to the schools
which are permanently unaided
school.

Govt. Resolution.

On 16th June 2009 in the
cabinet meeting at Vidhan
Bhavan, Mumbai the discussion

took place on the proposal to
give grant to the school which
are permitted as permanently
unaided school and the decision
is hereby declared as Govt.

resolution.

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:35 :::
94

1. Excluding the English
schools which are given
permission as permanently

unaided schools, the word
“permanent” in the permission
order of primary and secondary

schools of other medium has
been excluded.

2. The primary and secondary

schools on permanent unaided
basis and schools qualifies the
assessment with regard to the
divisions from three years
(i.e. from 2012-2013) will be

given the grant as per the
prescribed formula.

3. Right to get grant has not
been accrued despite of school

being eligible for grant
because it is the sole
discretion of the Govt. to
provide grant and it will

depend on availability of funds
and will not be implemented

with retrospective effect.

4. After giving 100% grant to
said school, the non salary

grant, pension, medical
benefits, grant to additional
divisions will be made
applicable as per preventing
rules and policies and per that
separate financial provision

has to be made.

5. For the eligibility to get
grant, assessment has been
conducted for concerned school,
committee has been appointed
under the chairmanship of the

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:35 :::
95

secretary (school education) to
decide the criteria of
assessment and this committee

includes principal secondary
(planning) Principal Secondary
(Finance) Secretary (Tribal

Development) Secretary (Social
Justice). The assessment of the
schools will be made according
to the criterias fixed by this

committee for assessment and
those schools will be declared
as eligible for grant.

6. As per the Govt. Circular

dated 29.4.2008, the proposals
were invited from private

educations institution to start
primary, secondary and higher
secondary schools on permanent

unaided basis out of which the
proposals those were received
to start primary and secondary
schools of Marathi medium and

those proposals which are not
approved, all pending proposals

are hereby cancelled. The sub-

committee of cabinet will take
decision on the proposals for
other mediums.

7. With regard to the
permission to new primary and
secondary schools, a
comprehensive plan will be
prepared with the assistance

(considering the policy
regarding permissions to
schools, comprehensive plan and
requirement of school, the
cabinet sub committee will take
decisions in relation with
permissions of new schools.

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:35 :::
96

This Govt. resolution is
available on the portal of

Govt. of Maharashtra
(www.maharashtra.gov.in) having
computer code as

200990720171423001.

By the name and order of
Governor of Maharashtra.

-Sd-

Dr.Suvarna S. Kharat
Joint Secretary,
Govt of Maharashtra. ”

3.

Accordingly, in all these Petitions the

above said decision of the State is challenged

being ultra vires the Constitution and for further

relief of direction to the Respondents to consider

the proposal of the concerned Petitioners in

accordance with provisions of Secondary Schools

Code and to permit the Petitioners to start the

desired school from academic year 2010-2011 in

Marathi medium on permanent no grant basis. The

challenge is essentially on the basis that the

Petitioners have a fundamental right to start a

new school at a place and in medium of their

choice guaranteed by Article 19-(1) (g) of the

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:35 :::
97

Constitution of India, as right to establish and

start a school has been recognized as right to

occupation within the meaning of the said Article.

According to the Petitioners, since they desire to

start a new school in Marathi medium without

seeking any aid from the State – financial or

otherwise and on permanent no grant in aid basis,

the State can only regulate that right in the

interests of the general public and by imposing

reasonable restrictions.

4. Besides, invoking Article 19-(1) (g) of

the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have

also asserted that the blanket decision taken by

the State Government to cancel all the proposals

and thereby reject the same also impinges upon

the rights guaranteed under Part III of the

Constitution of India under Articles 14, 21 and

21-A. In addition, the Petitioners have also

invoked Articles 41, 45, 51-A (h) (j) and (k) of

the Constitution of India to assail the arbitrary

action of the State. According to the Petitioners,

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:35 :::
98

the mere fact that the perspective plan has not

been formulated or is under preparation, cannot be

the basis to terminate the proposals submitted by

the Petitioners and that ground is not germane and

in any case it will not be protected by clause (6)

of Article 19 of the Constitution as in the

interests of the general public and reasonable

restrictions on the exercise of right conferred on

the Petitioners under Article 19- (1) (g).

5. According to the Petitioners, considering

the constitutional scheme, the existence of a

perspective plan and consideration of the proposal

by the institution who intends to start a new

school without the aid of the State either

financial or otherwise, has no causal connection

and cannot be the basis to turn down the proposal.

Moreover, the State Government could not have

ignored the cases of the institutions which were

recommended by local committees at the District as

well as State level. The fact that such

recommendation was made by the local committees of

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:35 :::
99

the State presupposes that there was a felt need

to start a new school in the given locality and

that the institution has complied with all the

formalities including providing of infrastructure.

According to the Petitioners, the fact that the

primary obligation to impart education to the

children between the age of 6 to 14 years, does

not mean that the State has exclusivity on the

said activity; and that right to open educational

institutions, which is recognized as a right to

occupation within the meaning of Article 19 (1)(g)

to the citizens or educational institutions who

want to start the schools on permanent no grant

basis without taking any assistance from the

State, financial or otherwise, cannot be eclipsed

or rendered nugatory. Both the right of the

educational institutions and also obligation of

the Government can and ought to co-exist. The

induction of private institutions in the field of

education would introduce competition, healthy for

the growth of quality education and not merely

imparting of paper compliance education imparted

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:35 :::
100

by the State through the schools receiving grant

in aid which have dearth of highly trained and

professional staff and are notorious for lack of

punctuality and efficiency.

6. According to the Petitioners, the State

can interdict the right of the private

institutions only by way of regulating the

institutions in matters of professional or

technical qualifications necessary of the staff

and of the infrastructure, as pre- condition for

grant of recognition to the school started by the

private educational institution.

7. The other issue raised by the Petitioners

is that the purported policy decision of the State

results in discriminatory treatment meted out to

the managements who had submitted proposals to

start new schools on the basis of language. In as

much as, only the proposals in respect of Marathi

medium schools have been cancelled and will not be

entertained until the perspective plan is prepared

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:35 :::
101

and finalized. There is no such restriction with

regard to starting of schools in other languages

such as Urdu, English, Hindi, Gujrathi etc.

Besides, the policy is applicable only to opening

of new schools in Marathi medium by private

institutions; whereas the local Governments

namely, Municipal Councils or Corporations are

free to open Marathi medium schools at the place

of their choice in absence of the perspective

plan, which also results in discrimination.

According to the Petitioners, the provisions of

the Secondary Schools Code which are merely

compendium of administrative instructions provide

for procedure for starting a new school, the

constitutional validity thereof itself is

questionable. The State Government can only

regulate the educational institutions by imposing

reasonable restrictions as condition for its

recognition.

8. These are the broad issues raised by the

Petitioners in these batch of Petitions.

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:35 :::
102

9. The State has opposed these Petitions by

filing common affidavit in Writ Petition No.8337

of 2009 of Anil Madhavrao Battalwar, Joint

Secretary, School Education and Sports Department,

Mantralaya. The substance of the reply affidavit

is that the Government Resolution dated 20th July,

2009 restates the policy decision of the State of

not permitting any new Marathi medium school

through out the State of Maharashtra until the

preparation and finalization of the perspective

plan. It is stated that as of now in the State of

Maharashtra there are approximately 20,000

secondary schools, 6,000 primary schools and 6,500

higher secondary schools in existence run by

private managements. These schools were allowed to

start as per the prevailing policy of the State at

the relevant time either on grant in aid basis or

permanently no grant in aid basis. Insofar as the

grant in aid basis schools were concerned, they

receive grants in a phased manner as per the

policy mentioned in Government Resolution dated

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:35 :::
103

11th October, 2000. They would start receiving 20%

grants at the 5th year, 40% at the 6th year, 60%

at the 7th year, 80% at the 8th year and 100% at

the 9th year. Whereas, schools started in tribal

area on grant in aid basis, would receive 100%

grant at the 5th year from starting of the school.

It is further stated that considering the

financial compulsion for providing grants in aid

to the schools run by the private management, the

Government evolved policy for granting permission

to the schools run by the private management only

on permanent non grant basis vide Cabinet decision

dated 24th November, 2001. On the basis of that

policy, permissions were granted on permanent no

grant basis if the management was ready and

willing to run the school on that basis and were

to give undertaking to that effect. However, later

on the private management started filing Writ

Petitions in the High Court and in one of such

Writ Petitions being Writ Petition No.3894 of 2002

an affidavit was filed on behalf of the State to

the effect that the Government after due

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:35 :::
104

consideration has decided to formulate the policy

to sanction grant in aid to permanently unaided

secondary schools on the terms stipulated therein.

It was stated that after the financial position of

the State Government improves, necessary action

for formulating such scheme would be taken.

Further, in view of the management, teachers,

unions and peoples representatives, a proposal for

bringing schools from permanent no grant basis to

grant in aid basis was considered by the Cabinet

on 16th June, 2009. In view of the 86th Amendment

to the constitution which has made right to

education as fundamental right and considering the

directive principles enshrined in the Constitution

such as Article 41 and 45 envisaging

constitutional obligation of the State to provide

free education to the children in the age of 6 to

14 years, the State Government decided to bring

permanent no grant schools on grant in aid basis

vide Government Resolution dated 20th July, 2009.

It was a conscious decision taken at the highest

level after due deliberations in order to

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:35 :::
105

reconsider the existing educational system and

make it more efficient so as to lay the foundation

for the development of common people and to

provide school system imparting quality education

to all children and in particular, social and

economical disadvantaged population in order to

maintain high standards of education and to

prevent exploitation of teachers in the schools on

account of non payment of salary etc. Accordingly,

the Government decided to prepare a master plan

based on the need of the society with reference to

the population and to frame a comprehensive policy

for education with reference to grant of

permission to the schools. Reference is also made

to the decision of our High Court in case of

Gramvikas Shikshan Prasarak Mandal vs. The State

of Maharashtra and others, reported in AIR 2000

Bombay, Page 437, in which the State Government

was called upon to prepare a master plan and

consider other related issues regarding the

opening of new schools in Marathi medium. It is

stated that for granting permission to open new

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:35 :::
106

schools, the prime consideration is the strength

of existing schools vis-a-vis the availability of

the students. It is stated that the strength of

existing schools is sufficient to accommodate the

students and in fact the schools are facing

shortage of students resulting in difficulty to

maintain the divisions in the schools. On account

of shortage of students, the divisions are

required to be closed down and the teachers are

becoming surplus. Considering the situation, the

Government changed the criteria of maintaining the

divisions and instead of 70 students for first

division and for additional division 50 students

per division, later on in the year 1996 reduced

the said ratio to 25, 20 and 15 students in a

division in urban, rural and tribal areas

respectively, vide circular dated 20th February,

1996 and 2nd February, 2009. It is stated that the

Government had already started preparation of

master plan from the year 2006. The preliminary

criteria for collating information on the basis of

which the master plan would be finalized, is found

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:36 :::
107

in Government Circular dated 13th September, 2006.

It is stated that granting new permission to the

schools could affect quality of education which

would be matter of concern for students, teachers

and if the school is on grant in aid basis,

statutory obligation to absorb such teachers and

payment of their salary is on the Government.

After considering all these factors, decision was

taken as reflected in Government Resolution dated

20th July, 2009 that as per the master plan

considering the need of the school of that area,

the decision about the new school, permission will

be given. Further, the master plan for Marathi

medium primary and secondary school submitted by

the Director of Primary and Secondary Education is

under consideration of the Government. The

Government is also considering the school mapping

exercise for other medium schools based on road

distance, population, gross enrollment rate. It is

stated that the experience of the Government to

allow private management to start schools on

permanent no grant basis was not encouraging. In

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:36 :::
108

that, the Government receives many complaints

regarding standard of education, availability of

infrastructure, non payment of salary and

appointment of untrained teachers without

following rules in such schools. Therefore, as per

the Cabinet decision, with a view to evaluate the

situation, it constituted a Committee of

Secretaries regarding eligibility and revision of

norms to grant in aid schools. It is stated that

approximately 7840 proposals were received for

secondary schools, out of which 6028 proposals

were for starting Marathi medium secondary schools

and approximately 10000 proposals were received

for primary schools. Therefore, Government took a

policy decision not to consider any proposal for

Marathi medium primary and secondary schools and

would consider the fresh proposals only as per

coming into effect of the master plan.

10. It is stated that as on the date of

filing of the affidavit, no proposal was pending

with the Government. It is further stated that

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:36 :::
109

insofar as proposals regarding English medium

schools are concerned, the same were in cases

where recommendation was made by District as well

as State level Committee and even if by any one

Committee, the same was approved. Insofar as Urdu

and other medium schools are concerned, the

proposals which were recommended by both the

Committees alone were granted permission and rest

were rejected. As such all the proposals have been

decided and intimation in that behalf has been

given.

11. It is lastly stated that in batch of

Petitions being Writ Petition No.8992 of 2009

along with other Petitions, at the Principal

Bench, which involved similar grievance, came to

be disposed of on the basis of the statement made

on behalf of the Government indicating time frame

programme for preparation of master plan and grant

of permission thereafter. It is prayed that

similar order be passed in the present batch of

Petitions.

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:36 :::
110

12. The learned Government Pleader, besides

reiterating the above position, has contended that

the Petitioners before this Court are private

institutions/associations registered as public

charitable trusts. The institutions being body

corporate and not a citizen, cannot invoke rights

guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) of the

Constitution. Further, there can be no right in

the Petitioners to start a new school as imparting

education is the obligation of the State

Government. The Petitioners would only have a

statutory right or at best relief for enforcement

of the executive instructions. It was argued that

since imparting primary education was a

constitutional obligation of the State, it is open

to the State to grant licence to the deserving

institutions and the licencee alone can establish

and run the educational institution. He further

submitted that in any case exercise of right under

Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution would be

subject to law made by the State and in absence of

such law, the executive instructions issued by the

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:36 :::
111

State as noted in the Secondary Schools Code,

which is compendium of executive instructions

will have to govern the field. According to him,

the decision relied by the Petitioners of the Apex

Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation vs. State of

Karnataka, reported in 2002 A.I.R. S.C.W. Page

4957, were matters after the grant of permission

by the State and not “for grant of permission” as

such. According to him, opening of new schools in

absence of perspective plan would result in unfair

competition between the schools which would be

unhealthy and affect the interests of the public.

The right to education necessarily includes right

to receive quality education. The purpose of

perspective plan is to detail the population at

the level of Tandas and villages and then take a

birds eye view to identify the locality where the

requirement of a school is more compelling,

depending on factors such as the population and

the demand thereof. For that reason, a conscious

decision has been taken by the Government to

consider proposals for permission to start new

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:36 :::
112

Marathi medium schools in the State only after the

perspective plan is finalized.

13. Both the sides have relied on reported

decisions to buttress their arguments. We shall

advert to the same at the appropriate stage.

14. Having considered the rival submissions,

we would straight away deal with the argument of

the Respondent that same order be passed in these

batch of Petitions as in Writ Petition No.8992 of

2009, disposed of by the Principal Bench on 11th

January, 2010. We think it apposite to reproduce

the said order in its entirety. The same reads

thus:

“1) The learned Assistant
Government Pleader appearing for
State Government states that the
State Government will prepare
and publish the master plan in
relation the establishment of

new Primary and Secondary
Schools in Marathi medium within
a period of six months from
today. He further states that in
case of persons who may be
interested in starting news
Primary and Secondary Schools in

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:36 :::
113

Marathi medium as per master
plan will be free to submit
applications to the State

Government and in case
applications are submitted by
interested persons including the

petitioners, those applications
will be considered in accordance
with law by the authorities of
the State Government and orders

will be passed on those
applications as expeditiously as
possible and in any case within
a period of four months from the
date of receipt of applications.

Statements are accepted. In view
of these statements, in our

opinion, no orders are necessary
in these petitions. Petitions
are disposed off.

Parties to act on the
copy of this order duly
authenticated by the

Sheristedar/ Private Secretary
of this Court.

Certified copy expedited.”

15. On plain reading of this order, by no

stretch of imagination it can be considered as a

binding precedent. It merely proceeds to record

the statement of the Government Pleader. The Court

without examining any issue on merits, disposed of

those Petitions. In the present set of Petitions,

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:36 :::
114

the Petitioners have raised larger issues

including of constitutional validity of the

purported policy decision of the State Government

reflected in the Government Resolution dated 20th

July, 2009. It is not clear from the above order

as to whether the pleas taken in the present set

of Petitions were also raised in the said

Petitions. It is noticed that none of the

contentions raised therein have even been

adverted to in the above said order. Besides, it

is not the case of the Respondents that the

Petitioners or any one of them was party to the

said proceedings. A priori, there is no substance

in the stand taken on behalf of the Respondents

that this Court is obliged to dispose of the

present set of Writ Petitions on the basis of or

account of the above said order and pass similar

order. The fact that the Court has recorded

statement of the Government Pleader indicating

time frame for preparation of master plan and of

having accepted the same, does not take the matter

any further. The learned Government Pleader

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:36 :::
115

vehemently submitted that having regard to the

fact that the State was in the process of

formulating the perspective plan very shortly, the

Court ought not to entertain the present set of

Petitions. We see no merit in the submission in as

much as we have to consider the larger question as

to whether the existence or non existence of the

perspective plan will have any relevance to the

schools to be established by the private

management on permanent no grant basis.

16. The moot question raised in the present

set of Petitions is whether the private

institutions who intend to start a primary,

secondary or higher secondary school, as the case

may be, without seeking any aid from the State –

financial or otherwise and on permanent no grant

in aid basis, have a fundamental right to do so on

account of Article 19-(1)(g) of the Constitution?

In the context of this submission, the learned

Government Pleader, in the first place submitted

that it is not open to the Petitioners before this

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:36 :::
116

Court who are registered as public charitable

trusts, to invoke Article 19 (1) (g) of the

Constitution as these institutions are body

corporate and not citizens. In support of this

submission, he placed reliance on the decision in

State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. vs. The

Commercial Tax Officer and others, reported in

A.I.R. 1963 Supreme Court, Page 1811 and placed

emphasis on the exposition in Paragraph 26

thereof. Reliance is also placed on the decision

in the case the Tata Engineering and Locomotive

Co. Ltd vs. State of Bihar, reported in A.I.R.

1965 Supreme Court, Page 40 with emphasis on

Paragraph 24 and 28. Reliance is then placed on

the decision in the case of Dharam Dutt and others

vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2004)

1 Supreme Court Cases, Page 712 to contend that

Article 19-(1)(g) of the Constitution cannot be

invoked by the association/private institution.

However, this submission has not been pursued

further when confronted with exposition of the

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:36 :::
117

Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the Case

of Excel Wear vs. Union of India and others, 1978

(4) S.C.C. Page 224, which specifically dealt with

similar objection inter-alia in Paragraph 35

thereof. Paragraph 35 of the reported case of

Excel Wear (supra) in turn refers to the decision

in Bennett Coleman and Company Ltd. vs. Union of

India, reported in 1972 (2) Supreme Court Cases,

Page 288 and Rustom Cavasjee Cooper vs. Union of

India, reported in 1970 (1) Supreme Court Cases,

Page 248. Paragraph 35 of the said decision in

Excel Wear (supra) reads thus:

“35. On the basis of the
decision of this Court in State

of Gujarat V/ Shri.Ambica Mills
Ltd., it was urged that even if
there is a violation by impugned
law of the fundamental right

guaranteed under Article 19(1)

(g) and not saved by clause (6)
thereof, the said right has been
conferred only on the citizens
of India and not upon the

corporate bodies like a company.
Counsel submitted that the
company cannot challenge the law
by a writ petition merely by
making a shareholder join it.

Nothing of the kind was said by
Mathew, J., who spoke for the

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:36 :::
118

Court in the above case. The
question which was posed at page
773 was whether a law which

takes away or abridges the
fundamental right of citizens
under Article 19(1)(f) would be

void and, therefore, non-est as
respects non-citizens. On a
consideration of a number of
authorities of this Court the

principle which was culled out
and applied in the case of
Ambica Mills (supra) at page 780
is in these words :

For our purpose it is
enough to say that if a law is

otherwise good and does not
contravene any of their
fundamental rights, non-citizens

cannot take advantage of the
voidness of the law for the
reason that it contravenes the
fundamental right of citizens

and claim that there is no law
at all.

Contrary to the above submission
there are numerous authorities
of this Court directly on the

point. A reference to the case
of Bennett Coleman & Co. Vs.
Union of India it was held that
if a shareholder’s right is
impaired the State cannot impair
the right of the shareholders as

well as of the company and the
Court can strike down the law
for violation of a fundamental
right guaranteed only to the
citizens if the challenge is by
the company as well as the
shareholder. Referring to the

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:36 :::
119

Bank Nationalisation case it is
said at page 773 by Ray, J., as
he then was : (SCC p.806, para

22).

A shareholder is

entitled to protection of
Article 19. That individual
right is not lost by reason of
the fact that he is a

shareholder of the company. The
Bank Nationalisation case
(supra) has established the view
that the fundamental rights of
shareholders as citizens are not

lost when they associate to form
a company. When their

fundamental rights as
shareholders are impaired by
State action their rights as

share-holders are protected. The
reason is that the shareholders’
rights are equally and
necessarily affected if the

rights of the company are
affected.

Excel Wear is a partnership
concern. The partners in the
name of the firm can challenge

the validity of the law. In each
of other two petitions, as
already stated, a shareholder
has joined with the company to
challenge the law. The
contention of Mr.Ramamurthi,

therefore, must be rejected.”

(emphasis supplied)

17. Indeed, in the present case the

members/trustees of the institution are not joined

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:36 :::
120

as parties by name or filed it for enforcement of

their fundamental rights, but that defect was

curable by carrying out appropriate amendment in

the Petitions. Realizing this position, the

argument was not pressed further.

18. Reverting to the question, whether right

to start a school without seeking any aid from the

State- financial or otherwise and on permanent no

grant basis, is a fundamental right under Article

19-(1)(g) of the Constitution, the issue is no

more res integra. The same has been

authoritatively answered by the Constitution

Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of T.M.A.

Pai Foundation (supra). The perspective regarding

right to establish an educational institution has

undergone a sea change after this decision. The

Court has held that right to establish an

educational institution is a fundamental right and

subject “education” falls within the expression

“occupation”. At the same time, the Apex Court has

observed that fundamental right to establish

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:36 :::
121

educational institution should not be confused

with the right to ask for recognition or

affiliation. We shall deal with the aspect of

recognition or affiliation a little later.

19. The Constitution Bench in the case of

T.M.A. Pai (supra) has noticed that India is a

land of diversity of different castes, peoples,

communities, languages, religions and culture. It

observed that although these people enjoy complete

political freedom, a vast part of the multitude is

illiterate and lives below the poverty line. The

single most powerful tool for the upliftment and

progress of such diverse communities is education.

Further, the State with its limited resources and

slow moving machinery, is unable to fully develop

the genuis of the Indian people. Very often the

impersonal education that is imparted by the

State, devoid of adequate material content that

will make the students self-reliant, only succeeds

in producing potential pen-pushers, as a result of

which sufficient jobs are not available. Keeping

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:37 :::
122

this in mind, while adjudicating the question, as

to whether there is fundamental right to establish

educational institutions and if so, under which

provision of the Constitution; the Apex Court

analyzed the position in the following manner. We

would think it apposite to quote some of the

extracts of the majority view in the said

decision, which reads thus:

“20.

ig Article 19(1)(g)
employs four expressions, viz.,

profession,occupation, trade and
business. Their fields may
overlap, but each of them does
have a content of its own.

Education is per se regarded as
an activity that is charitable

in nature [See The State of
Bombay vs. R.M.D.

Chamarbaugwala, (1957) SCR 874:

AIR (1957) SC 699]. Education

has so far not been regarded as
a trade or business where profit
is the motive. Even if there is
any doubt about whether
education is a profession or
not, it does appear that

education will fall within the
meaning of the expression
“occupation”. Article 19(1)(g)
uses the four expressions so as
to cover all activities of a
citizen in respect of which
income or profit is generated,

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:37 :::
123

and which can consequently be
regulated under Article 19(6).In
Webster’s Third New

International Dictionary at page
1650, “occupation” is, inter
alia, defined as “an activity in

which one engages” or “a craft,
trade, profession or other means
of earning a living”.

24. While the conclusion that
“occupation” comprehends the
establishment of educational
institutions is correct, the
proviso in the aforesaid

observation to the effect that
this is so provided no

recognition is sought from the
state or affiliation from the
concerned university is, with

the utmost respect, erroneous.
The fundamental right to
establish an educational
institution cannot be confused

with the right to ask for
recognition or affiliation. The

exercise of a fundamental right
may be controlled in a variety
of ways. For example, the right
to carry on a business does not

entail the right to carry on a
business at a particular place.
The right to carry on a business
may be subject to licensing laws
so that a denial of the licence
prevents a person from carrying

on that particular business. The
question of whether there is a
fundamental right or not cannot
be dependent upon whether it can
be made the subject matter of
controls.

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:37 :::
124

25. The establishment and
running of an educational
institution where a large number

of persons are employed as
teachers or administrative
staff, and an activity is

carried on that results in the
imparting of knowledge to the
students, must necessarily be
regarded as an occupation, even

if there is no element of profit
generation. It is difficult to
comprehend that education, per
se, will not fall under any of
the four expressions in Article

19(1)(g). “Occupation” would be
an activity of a person

undertaken as a means of
livelihood or a mission in life.
The above quoted observations in

Sodan Singh’s case correctly
interpret the expression
“occupation” in Article 19(1)

(g).

35. It appears to us that

the scheme framed by this Court
and thereafter followed by the
governments was one that cannot
be called a reasonable

restriction under Article 19(6)
of the Constitution. Normally,
the reason for establishing an
educational institution is to
impart education.The institution
thus needs qualified and

experienced teachers and proper
facilities and equipment, all of
which require capital
investment. The teachers are
required to be paid properly.

As pointed out above, the
restrictions imposed by the

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:37 :::
125

scheme, in Unni Krishnan’s case,
made it difficult, if not
impossible, for the educational

institutions to run efficiently.
Thus, such restrictions cannot
be said to be reasonable

restrictions.

36. The private unaided
educational institutions impart

education, and that cannot be
the reason to take away their
choice in matters, inter alia,
of selection of students and
fixation of fees. Affiliation

and recognition has to be
available to every institution

that fulfills the conditions for
grant of such affiliation and
recognition. The private

institutions are right in
submitting that it is not open
to the Court to insist that
statutory authorities should

impose the terms of the scheme
as a condition for grant of

affiliation or recognition; this
completely destroys the
institutional autonomy and the
very objective of establishment

of the institution.

38. …………Even in the
decision in Unni Krishnan’s
case, it has been observed by

Jeevan Reddy, J., at page 749,
para 194, as follows:

“The hard reality that emerges
is that private educational
institutions are a necessity in
the present day context. It is

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:37 :::
126

not possible to do without them
because the Governments are in
no position to meet the demand –

particularly in the sector of
medical and technical education
which call for substantial

outlays. While education is one
of the most important functions
of the Indian State it has no
monopoly therein. Private

educational institutions –

including minority educational
institutions – too have a role
to play.”

39. That private educational
institutions are a necessity

becomes evident from the fact
that the number of government-

maintained professional colleges

has more or less remained
stationary, while more private
institutions have been
established. For example, in the

State of Karnataka there are 19
medical colleges out of which

there are only 4 government-

maintained medical colleges.

Similarly, out of 14 Dental
Colleges in Karnataka, only one

has been established by the
government, while in the same
State, out of 51 Engineering
Colleges, only 12 have been
established by the government.
The aforesaid figures clearly

indicate the important role
played by private unaided
educational institutions, both
minority and non-minority, which
cater to the needs of students
seeking professional education.”

(emphasis supplied)

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:37 :::
127

20. While considering the question regarding

the extent of Government Regulations in relation

to private institutions and in particular, in

respect of private unaided non-minority

educational institutions, the majority view has

observed thus:

“Private Unaided Non-Minority

Educational Institutions:-

48. Private education is

one of the most dynamic and
fastest growing segments of
post-secondary education at the
turn of the twenty-first

century. A combination of
unprecedented demand for access

to higher education and the
inability or unwillingness of
government to provide the
necessary support has brought

private higher education to the
forefront. Private institutions,
with a long history in many
countries, are expanding in
scope and number, and are
becoming increasingly important

in parts of the world that
relied almost entirely on the
public sector.

49. Not only has demand
overwhelmed the ability of the
governments to provide

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:37 :::
128

education, there has also been a
significant change in the way
that higher education is

perceived. The idea of an
academic degree as a “private
good” that benefits the

individual rather than a “public
good” for society is now widely
accepted. The logic of today’s
economics and an ideology of

privatization have contributed
to the resurgence of private
higher education, and the
establishing of private
institutions where none or very

few existed before.

50.
ig The right to establish
and administer broadly comprises
of the following rights:-

(a) to admit students:

(b) to set up a reasonable fee
structure:

(c) to constitute a governing
body;

(d) to appoint staff (teaching
and non-teaching); and

(e) to take action if there is
dereliction of duty on the

part of any employees

53. With regard to the core
components of the rights under
Articles 19 and 26(a), it must
be held that while the state has

the right to prescribe
qualifications necessary for
admission, private unaided
colleges have the right to admit
students of their choice,
subject to an objective and
rational procedure of selection

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:37 :::
129

and the compliance of
conditions, if any, requiring
admission of a small percentage

of students belonging to weaker
sections of the society by
granting them freeships or

scholarships, if not granted by
the Government. Furthermore, in
setting up a reasonable fee
structure, the element of

profiteering is not as yet
accepted in Indian conditions.
The fee structure must take into
consideration the need to
generate funds to be utilized

for the betterment and growth of
the educational institution, the

betterment of education in that
institution and to provide
facilities necessary for the

benefit of the students. In any
event, a private institution
will have the right to
constitute its own governing

body, for which qualifications
may be prescribed by the state

or the concerned university. It
will, however, be objectionable
if the state retains the power
to nominate specific individuals

on governing bodies. Nomination
by the state, which could be on
a political basis, will be an
inhibiting factor for private
enterprise to embark upon the
occupation of establishing and

administering educational
institutions. For the same
reasons, nomination of teachers
either directly by the
department or through a service
commission will be an
unreasonable inroad and an

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:37 :::
130

unreasonable restriction on the
autonomy of the private unaided
educational institution.

54. The right to establish
an educational institution can

be regulated; but such
regulatory measures must, in
general, be to ensure the
maintenance of proper academic

standards, atmosphere and
infrastructure (including
qualified staff) and the
prevention of mal-administration
by those in charge of

management. The fixing of a
rigid fee structure, dictating

the formation and composition of
a governing body, compulsory
nomination of teachers and staff

for appointment or nominating
students for admissions would be
unacceptable restrictions.

55. The Constitution
recognizes the right of the

individual or religious
denomination, or a religious or
linguistic minority to establish
an educational institution. If

aid or financial assistance is
not sought, then such
institution will be a private
unaided institution. Although,
in Unni Krishnan’s case, the
Court emphasized the important

role played by private unaided
institutions and the need for
private funding, in the scheme
that was framed, restrictions
were placed on some of the
important ingredients relating
to the functioning of an

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:37 :::
131

educational institution. There
can be no doubt that in seeking
affiliation or recognition, the

Board or the university or the
affiliating or recognizing
authority can lay down

conditions consistent with the
requirement to ensure the
excellence of education. It
can, for instance, indicate the

quality of the teachers by
prescribing the minimum
qualifications that they must
possess, and the courses of

study and curricula. It
can,

for the same reasons, also
stipulate the existence of

infrastructure sufficient for
its growth, as a pre-requisite.
But the essence of a private

educational institution is the
autonomy that the institution
must have in its management and

administration.

There,

necessarily, has to be a
difference in the administration

of private unaided institutions
and the government-aided
institutions. Whereas in the
latter case, the Government will

have greater say in the
administration, including
admissions and fixing of fees,
in the case of private unaided
institutions, maximum autonomy
in the day-to-day administration

has to be with the private
unaided institutions.

Bureaucratic or governmental
interference in the
administration of such an
institution will undermine its
independence. While an

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:37 :::
132

educational institution is not a
business, in order to examine
the degree of independence that

can be given to a recognized
educational institution, like
any private entity that does not

seek aid or assistance from the
Government, and that exists by
virtue of the funds generated by
it, including its loans or

borrowings, it is important to
note that the essential
ingredients of the management of
the private institution include
the recruiting students and

staff, and the quantum of fee
that is to be charged.

56. An educational
institution is established for

the purpose of imparting
education of the type made
available by the institution.

Different courses of study are

usually taught by teachers who
have to be recruited as per

qualifications that may be
prescribed. It is no secret
that better working conditions
will attract better teachers.

More amenities will ensure that
better students seek admission
to that institution. One cannot
lose sight of the fact that
providing good amenities to the
students in the form of

competent teaching faculty and
other infrastructure costs
money. It has, therefore, to
be left to the institution, if
it chooses not to seek any aid
from the government, to
determine the scale of fee that

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:38 :::
133

it can charge from the students.
One also cannot lose sight of
the fact that we live in a

competitive world today, where
professional education is in
demand. We have been given to

understand that a large number
of professional and other
institutions have been started
by private parties who do not

seek any governmental aid. In a
sense, a prospective student has
various options open to him/her
where, therefore, normally
economic forces have a role to

play. The decision on the fee
to be charged must necessarily

be left to the private
educational institution that
does not seek or is not

dependent upon any funds from
the government.

57. We, however, wish to

emphasize one point, and that is
that inasmuch as the occupation

of education is, in a sense,
regarded as charitable, the
government can provide
regulations that will ensure

excellence in education, while
forbidding the charging of
capitation fee and profiteering
by the institution. Since the
object of setting up an
educational institution is by

definition “charitable”, it is
clear that an educational
institution cannot charge such a
fee as is not required for the
purpose of fulfilling that
object. To put it differently,
in the establishment of an

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:38 :::
134

educational institution, the
object should not be to make a
profit, inasmuch as education is

essentially charitable in
nature. There can, however, be
a reasonable revenue surplus,

which may be generated by the
educational institution for the
purpose of development of
education and expansion of the

institution.

61. In the case of unaided
private schools, maximum
autonomy has to be with the

management with regard to
administration, including the

right of appointment,
disciplinary powers, admission
of students and the fees to be

charged. At the school level,
it is not possible to grant
admissions on the basis of
merit. It is no secret that

the examination results at all
levels of unaided private

schools, notwithstanding the
stringent regulations of the
governmental authorities, are
far superior to the results of

the government-maintained
schools. There is no compulsion
on students to attend private
schools. The rush for admission
is occasioned by the standards
maintained in such schools, and

recognition of the fact that
state-run schools do not provide
the same standards of education.
The State says that it has no
funds to establish institutions
at the same level of excellence
as private schools. But by

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:38 :::
135

curtailing the income of such
private schools, it disables
those schools from affording the

best facilities because of a
lack of funds. If this lowering
of standards from excellence to

a level of mediocrity is to be
avoided, the state has to
provide the difference which,
therefore, brings us back in a

vicious circle to the original
problem, viz., the lack of state

funds.

The
solution would
appear to lie in the States not
using their scanty resources to

prop up institutions that are
able to otherwise maintain

themselves out of the fees
charged, but in improving the
facilities and infrastructure of

state-run schools and in
subsidizing the fees payable by

the students there.

It is in

the interest of the general

public that more good quality
schools are established;

autonomy and non-regulation of
the school administration in the
right of appointment, admission
of the students and the fee to

be charged will ensure that more
such institutions are
established. The fear that if a
private school is allowed to
charge fees commensurate with
the fees affordable, the degrees

would be “purchasable” is an
unfounded one since the
standards of education can be
and are controllable through the
regulations relating to
recognition, affiliation and
common final examinations.





                                  ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:49:38 :::
                                   136


                 
                66.
                      In
                          the   case   of   private    
                unaided                  educational 




                                                                  
                institutions,   the   authority 
                granting   recognition   or 

affiliation can certainly lay

down conditions for the grant of
recognition or affiliation;

these conditions must pertain
broadly to academic and

educational matters and welfare
of students and teachers but
how the private unaided
institutions are to run is a
matter of administration to be

taken care of by the Management
of those institutions.”

(emphasis supplied)

21. The Court formulated question Nos. 10 and

11 while dealing with these aspects and the

Majority Decision has answered the same as

follows:

“162-M “Q.10 Whether the non-
minorities have the right to
establish and administer

educational institution under
Articles 21 and 29(1) read with
Articles 14 and 15(1), in the
same manner and to the same
extent as minority institutions?

                and 





                162-N Q.11       What   is   the 
                meaning   of   the   expressions 

“Education” and “Educational
Institutions” in various
provisions of the Constitution?

Is the right to establish and

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:38 :::
137

administer educational
institutions guaranteed under
the Constitution?

A. The
expression “education”
in the Articles of the

Constitution means and includes
education at all levels from the
primary school level upto the
post- graduate level. It

includes professional education.
The expression “educational
institutions” means institutions
that impart education, where
“education” is as understood

hereinabove.

The right to establish and
administer educational
institutions is guaranteed under

the Constitution to all citizens
under Articles 19(1)(g) and 26,
and to minorities specifically
under Article 30.

All citizens have a right

to establish and administer
educational institutions under
Articles 19(1)(g) and 26, but
this right is subject to the

provisions of Articles 19(6) and
26(a). However, minority
institutions will have a right
to admit students belonging to
the minority group, in the
manner as discussed in this

judgment.” (emphasis supplied)

22. Our attention was invited to the

observation made by Justice S.S.M. Quadri as he

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:38 :::
138

then was, who while concurring with the opinion of

the Majority Decision as well as, the concurring

Judgments given by other learned Judges, proceeded

to observe thus:

“238. Before I advert to these
issues, it would be appropriate

to record that there was
unanimity among the learned
counsel appearing for the
parties, institutions, States
and the learned Solicitor

General appearing for the Union
of India on two aspects; the

first is that all the citizens
have the right to establish
educational institutions under

Article 19(1)(g) and Article 26
of the Constitution and the
second is that the judgment of
the Constitution Bench of this

Court in Unnikrishnan J.P. and
Ors., v. State of Andhra Pradesh

and Ors. requires re-

consideration, though there was
some debate with regard to the
aspects which require re-

consideration.

241. Article 19 of the
Constitution, insofar as it is
relevant for the present
discussion, is as under:

“…. Article 19 confers on all
citizens rights specified in
Sub-clauses (a) to (g). The
fundamental rights enshrined in
Sub-clause (g) of Clause (1) of
Article 19 of the Constitution

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:38 :::
139

are to practise any profession,
or to carry on any occupation,
trade or business. We are

concerned here with the right to
establish educational
institution to impart education

at different levels, primary,
secondary, higher, technical,
professional, etc. Education is
essentially a charitable object

and imparting education is, in
my view, a kind of service to
the community, therefore, it
cannot be brought under ‘trade
or business’ nor can it fall

under ‘profession’.

Nevertheless, having regard to

the width of the meaning of the
terms ‘occupation’ elucidated in
the judgment of Hon’ble the

Chief Justice, the service which
a citizen desires to render by
establishing educational
institutions can be read in

‘occupation’. This right, like
other rights enumerated in Sub-

clause (g), is controlled by
Clause (6) of Article 19. ….
Therefore, it may be concluded
that the right of a citizen to

run educational institutions can
be read into “occupation”
falling in Sub-clause (g) of
Clause (1) of Article 19 which
would be subject to the
discipline of Clause (6)

thereof.” (emphasis supplied)

23. Following the dictum of the Constitution

Bench, in the recent decision in the case of

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:38 :::
140

Modern Dental College and Research Centre and

others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others,

(2009) 7 Supreme Court Cases, Page 751, the two

Judges Bench of the Apex Court observed thus:

“10. It was also observed,
following the decision in T.M.A.
Pai Foundation that greater
autonomy must be granted to

private unaided institutions as
compared to private aided
institutions. The reason for

this is obvious. The unaided
institutions have to generate
their own funds and hence they

must be given more autonomy as
compared to aided institutions,
so that they can generate these
funds. However, this does not

mean that the private unaided
professional institutions have

absolute autonomy in the matter.
There can validly be a certain
degree of State control over the
private unaided professional

institution for the reason that
recognition has to be granted by
the State authorities and it is
also the duty of the State to
see that high standards of
education are maintained in all

professional institutions.
However, to what degree the
State can interfere with respect
to private unaided institutions
is a matter deserving careful
consideration.

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:38 :::
141

15.

In our view, a balance
has

hence to be struck because while
on the one hand, the State

Government does have an element
of interest in the private
unaided professional

institutions, this does not mean
that there will be no autonomy
to the private unaided
institutions. After all, the

private unaided institutions are
to generate their own resources
and funds and consequently they
must have a larger degree of
autonomy as compared to the

aided institutions or the State
Government institutions. In this

situation, we are of the opinion
that this Court must use its
creativity and find out a

workable, balanced, via media to
safeguard the interest of both
parties, namely, the State
Government on the one hand, and

private unaided institutions on
the other, and also to keep the

interest of the students in
mind.” (emphasis supplied)

24. In a recent decision of our High Court,

to which one of us was party (A.M. Khanwilkar, J.)

in Laxmi Education Society and others vs. State of

Maharashtra and others, 2010 (1) All M.R. Page

680, a question whether the school or junior

college has a fundamental right to close the

school, came up for consideration. While examining

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:38 :::
142

that controversy, the Court has noted that it is

well established by now that right to start an

educational institution is a fundamental right

guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the

Constitution of India. It can, however, be

controlled by the State by imposing restrictions

which are in the interests of general public and

are reasonable restrictions on the exercise of

such right. In that sense, it is not an absolute

right as such. In the same Judgment, the Court in

Paragraph 22, has adverted to the decisions of the

Apex Court in the case of Cooverjee Bharucha v/s.

The Excise Commissioner 1954 (1) SCR 873 and

Narendra Kumar & ors. v/s Union of India & ors.

1960 (2) SCR 375 which have considered the

question as to whether it is possible to provide

for total prohibition of businesses within the

meaning of Article 19(6). But, the Court noted

with caution that the greater the restriction, the

more the need for strict scrutiny by the Court.

While applying the test of reasonableness, the

Court has to consider the question in the

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:39 :::
143

background of the facts and circumstances under

which the order was made, taking into account the

nature of the evil that was sought to be remedied

by such law, the ratio of the harm caused to

individual citizens by the proposed remedy, to the

beneficial effect reasonably expected to result to

the general public. The Apex Court has opined

that it will also be necessary to consider in that

connection whether a restraint caused by the law

is more than was necessary in the interests of the

general public. These principles will have to be

borne in mind while considering the grievance of

the Petitioners before this Court that the

impugned policy of the State Government is in the

nature of total prohibition for starting and

carrying on occupation of establishing Marathi

medium schools which inheres in them as citizens.

We shall deal with the aspect of reasonableness of

the restriction a little later.

25. The argument of the Respondents that there can

be no fundamental right to carry on occupation of

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:39 :::
144

establishment of educational institution and of

imparting education on the specious plea that the

said subject is fully occupied by the

constitutional obligation of the State to provide

free education at least to the children between

the age of 6 to 14 years, deserves to be stated to

be rejected. In the first place, this argument

cannot be countenanced after the exposition of the

Apex Court in TMA Pai’s case (supra) that it is

not the monopoly of the State in this regard.

Besides, from the scheme of the constitutional

provisions, there is nothing to indicate that the

constitutional obligation of the State to provide

free and compulsory education to children between

the age of 6 and 14 years is complete or partial,

within the exclusive domain of the State. In

absence thereof, the fundamental right to

establish an educational institution can only be

regulated in the interests of the general public

and by imposing reasonable restrictions. The

State can provide for strictest of conditions

which are reasonable restrictions and in the

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:39 :::
145

interests of the general public for recognition of

an educational institution, so as to ensure that

quality education is imparted and further the

students and the staff employed by the institution

are not exploited.

26. Thus, the said constitutional obligation of

the State is co-extensive with the fundamental

right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) to

establish an educational institution. The latter

is supplemental to the primary obligation of the

State, subject to grant of recognition and\or

affiliation on fulfillment of necessary conditions

to establish an educational institution. Indeed,

matters relating to right to grant of recognition

and/or affiliation to such institutions would be

covered within the realm of statutory right,

which, however, will have to be in the interests

of the general public and by imposing reasonable

restrictions. The fact that it is the primary

constitutional obligation of the State to provide

education cannot whittle down the fundamental

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:39 :::
146

right of citizens to establish an educational

institution and more so when such institution is

self sustaining and is not dependent on the aid of

the State in any manner including financial or

otherwise and makes adequate provision to ensure

imparting of high quality education, proper

infrastructure and protect the service conditions

of its employees as well as not indulge in

profiteering and commercialization.

27. In the context of this question, an

incidental issue that may arise is, as to whether

the right to establish an educational institution

is available “only to” Public Charitable Trusts,

such as the Petitioners herein, on account of Rule

2.8 of the Secondary Schools Code or Rule 106(3)

and Rule 17(2)(b) of the Bombay Primary Education

Rules, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules

of 1949). The said provisions postulate that

permission to start new secondary/higher secondary

schools by the management will be recommended on

fulfillment of conditions amongst others, that the

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:39 :::
147

management shall be registered under the Societies

Registration Act, 1860 or under Bombay Public

Trusts Act, 1950. In the present case, the

Petitioners before us are duly registered under

the Societies Registration Act as well as Bombay

Public Trusts Act, 1950 as public charitable

trusts. Therefore, it is unnecessary to dilate any

further on this question. Suffice it to observe

that right to establish an educational

institution, by now, has been recognized as a

fundamental right within the meaning of Article 19

(1)(g) of the Constitution, which is guaranteed to

“every citizen” of India. This view is reinforced

by the opinion of the Apex Court noted in

Paragraph 162-N that all citizens have a right to

establish and administer educational institutions

under Articles 19(1)(g) and 26, but that right is

subject to the provisions of Articles 19(6) and

26(a). Thus, this right cannot be limited to only

public charitable trusts, especially when the

private management intends to establish the same

on permanent no grant basis without taking any aid

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:39 :::
148

from the State Government whatsoever. It would be

a different matter if the proposal for

establishment of educational institution by the

private management is on grant in aid basis, which

institution would be inevitably funded by the

Government out of public exchequer. In relation to

such institution, the Government may provide for

condition that only public charitable trusts would

be entitled to establish educational institutions

on grant in aid basis. We, however, express no

final opinion on that question as it does not

arise for our consideration in the present set of

cases.

28. The other shade of argument is in the

context of Article 21 and 21-A of the

Constitution. There can be no debate on the issue

that right to live, takes within its fold right to

education and more so quality education. More over

on account of recently introduced Article 21-A,

the State is duty bound to provide free and

compulsory education to all children of the age of

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:39 :::
149

6 to 14 years in such manner as the State may, by

law, determine. These Articles are in Part-III of

the Constitution. In matters governed by Part-IV

of the Constitution, amongst others, Article 41

postulates that the State shall, within the limits

of its economic capacity and development, make

effective provision for securing the right to

work, “to education” and to public assistance in

cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and

disablement, and in other cases of undeserved

want. Besides Article 41, Article 45 of the

Constitution as substituted by 86th Amendment,

provides that the State shall endeavour to provide

early childhood care and education for all

children until they complete the age of six years.

29. To effectuate the constitutional

obligation of the State, the Right Of Children To

Free And Compulsory Education Act, 2009 has been

enacted which has received assent of the President

on 26th August, 2009. It has come into force with

effect from 1st April, 2010. We are conscious of

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:39 :::
150

the fact that the impugned decision of the State

is in anterior point of time than the coming into

force of this Act. Besides, none of the parties

based their arguments on the basis of this

enactment. But since the said Act is already in

place, all concerned would be obliged to give

effect to the provisions thereof to examine the

issue regarding establishing a school or of

recognition thereof on and from 1st April, 2010. In

any case, we would independently decide the

controversy on the basis of provisions applicable

at the relevant time. We think, that our Judgment

may not be complete unless we traverse through the

Scheme of this enactment. The expansive provisions

of this enactment are intended not only to

guarantee right to free and compulsory education

to children, but intrinsic regime envisaged

therein is of providing right education or quality

education by providing required infrastructure and

compliance of specified norms and standards in the

schools. This enactment opens up new vistas for

the children of our country. The aspirations of

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:39 :::
151

young people can be accomplished by harnessing

quality education. Right education alone can

empower the children and make them self reliant.

It will enhance their creative skills. Section 3

(1) of the said Act provides that every child of

the age of 6 to 14 years shall have a right to

free and compulsory education in a neighbourhood

school till completion of elementary education.

Subsection (2) provides that no child shall be

liable to pay any kind of fee or charges or

expenses which may prevent him or her from

pursuing and completing the elementary education.

Section-4 provides for special provision for

children not admitted to or who have not

completed elementary education. Section-5 deals

with the situation where there is no provision for

completion of elementary education, a child shall

have a right to seek transfer to any other school,

excluding the school specified in sub-clauses

(iii) and (iv) of clause (n) of section 2, for

completing his or her elementary education.

Chapter-III provides for duties of Appropriate

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:40 :::
152

Government, Local Authority and Parents. Section 6

thereof imposes obligation on the Appropriate

Government and Local Authority to establish a

school within such areas or limits of

neighbourhood, as may be prescribed, where it is

not so established, within a period of three years

from the commencement of the Act. The emphasis is

on providing “neighbourhood school” facility to

the children at the Gram Panchayat Level. Chapter

IV of the Act deals with the responsibilities of

Schools and Teachers. Section 12(1)(c) read with

Section 2(n)(iii) and (iv) mandates that every

recognised school imparting elementary education,

even if it is an unaided school not receiving any

kind of aid or grants to meet its expenses from

the appropriate Government or the local authority,

is obliged to admit in Class I, to the extent of

“at least 25 per cent” of the strength of that

class, children belonging to weaker section and

disadvantaged group in the neighbourhood and

provide free and compulsory elementary education

till its completion. As per the proviso, if the

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:40 :::
153

School is imparting pre-school education, the same

regime would apply. By virtue of section 12(2) the

unaided school which has not received any land

building, equipment or other facilities, either

free of cost or at concessional rate, would be

entitled for reimbursement of the expenditure

incurred by it to the extent of per-child-

expenditure incurred by the State, or the actual

amount charged from the child, whichever is less,

in such manner as may be prescribed. That

reimbursement shall not exceed per-child-

expenditure incurred by a School established,

owned or controlled by the appropriate Government

or a local authority. Section 13 in clear terms

envisages that no School or person shall, while

admitting a child, collect any capitation fee and

subject the child or his or her parents or

guardian to any scrutiny procedure. Breach of

this stipulation would entail in punishment of

specified fine. Section 15 mandates that a child

shall be admitted in a school at the commencement

of the academic year or within the prescribed

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:40 :::
154

extended period. Sections 16 and 17 provide for

prohibition of holding back and expulsion and of

physical punishment and mental harassment to

child. Section 18 is of some significance in the

context of the matter in issue. It postulates that

after the commencement of the Act, no school other

than the excepted category, can be established or

function without obtaining a certificate of

recognition from the appropriate authority. The

authority is obliged to issue the certificate of

recognition within the prescribed period

specifying the conditions therefor, if the school

fulfills the norms and standards specified under

Sections 19, 25 read with the Schedule to the Act.

In the event of contravention of the conditions of

recognition, the prescribed authority can withdraw

recognition after giving an opportunity of being

heard to such school. The order of withdrawal of

recognition should provide a direction to transfer

the children studying in the derecognised school

to be admitted to the specified neighbourhood

school. Upon withdrawal of recognition, the

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:40 :::
155

derecognised School cannot continue to function,

failing which, is liable to pay fine as per

Section 19(5). If any person who establishes or

runs a school without obtaining certificate of

recognition, or continues to run a school after

withdrawal of recognition shall be liable to pay

fine as specified in Section 18(5). The norms and

standards for establishing or grant of recognition

to a school are specified in Section 19 read with

Schedule to the Act. Notably, all Schools which

are established before the commencement of the Act

in terms of Section 19(2) of the Act are expected

to comply with the specified norms and standards

within a period of three years from the date of

such commencement. Failure to do so would

necessarily entail in derecognition of such

School. Another relevant provision in this Act, to

answer the controversy on hand, is, Section 22 of

the Act. It postulates that the School Management

Committee constituted under Section 21, shall

prepare a School Development Plan in the

prescribed manner. Section 22(2) provides that the

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:40 :::
156

School Development Plan so prepared shall be the basis

for the grants to be made by the appropriate Government

or local authority as the case may be. That plan,

however, cannot have any impact on the consideration of

application for grant of recognition for establishing an

unaided School. To ensure that teachers should contribute

in imparting quality education in the school itself,

Section 28 imposes total prohibition on them to engage in

private tuition or private teaching activities. Chapter

VI provides for protection of rights of children.

Section-32 which is part of the said Chapter, provides

that any person having grievance relating to the right of

child under this enactment, may make a written complaint

to the local Authority having jurisdiction, who in turn,

is expected to decide it “within three months” after

affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the

parties concerned. In addition, in terms of Section 31,

the Commissions constituted under the provisions of the

Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 can

monitor the child’s right to education, so as to

safeguard the right of the child upon receiving any

complaint in that behalf relating to free and compulsory

education.

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:40 :::
157

30. From the scheme of the above

constitutional provisions and of the Act of 2009,

there is no doubt that the primary obligation is

of the State to provide free and compulsory

education to children between the age of 6 to 14

years and in particular to children who are likely

to be prevented from pursuing and completing the

elementary education due to inability to afford

fees or charges or expenses therefor. That

however, does not mean that the fundamental right

guaranteed to the citizens of India under Article

19 (1)(g) to establish an educational institution

would cease to operate or is eclipsed by the said

obligation of the State. As aforesaid, it is an

activity to be undertaken by the private

institutions, which will be supplemental to the

primary obligation of the State in that behalf.

The State can only regulate the activities of the

private institutions by imposing reasonable

restrictions and in the interests of the general

public.

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:40 :::
158

31. The State to uphold the fundamental right

of the citizens to establish an educational

institution and to encourage supplemental activity

by the private management, so as to further the

object of Articles 21, 21-A, 41 and 45 of the

Constitution and also the Act of 2009, ought to

allow the private management to establish

educational institutions subject however, to

regulating the quality of education to be imparted

by such institutions, by imposing strict

conditions as precondition for grant of

recognition or affiliation and continuation

thereof.

32. Besides the obligation of the State, even

every citizen of India, as per Article 51-A of the

Constitution, is expected to develop the

scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of

inquiry and reform; and further to strive towards

excellence in all spheres of individual and

collective activity so that the nation constantly

rises to higher levels of endeavour and

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:40 :::
159

achievement; and the duty of the parent or

guardian to provide opportunities for education to

his child or, as the case may be, ward between the

age of six and fourteen years. In the case of

Avinash Mehrotra vs. Union of India and others,

(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases, Page 398 when the

Apex Court considered the question about the

rights of life and education guaranteed to all

school-going children under Article 21 and 21-A,

the Court revisited the Authorities to opine that

education occupies an important place in

Constitution and culture. The Court observed thus:

                "24.       Education       occupies 
   



                an       important         place       in 

our Constitution and culture.

There has been emphasis on free
and compulsory education for

children in this country for a
long time. There is a very
strong historical perspective.
The Hunter Commission in
1882-83, almost 125 years ago,
recommended Universal Education

in India. It proposed to make
education compulsory for the
children.

25. The Government of India
Act, 1935 provided that
“education should be made free

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:40 :::
160

and compulsory for both boys and
girls.” While debating in a
bill in Imperial Legislation

Council in 1911, Shri Gopal
Krishna Gokhale strongly
advocated that elementary

education should be
both compulsory and free.

26. Our original Framers of

the Constitution placed free and
compulsory education in the
Directive Principles. The un-

amended Article 45 provided
that:

“45. Provision for free and

compulsory education for
children.- The State shall
endeavour to provide, within a

period of ten years from the
commencement of this
Constitution, for free and
compulsory education for all

children until they complete the
age of fourteen years.”

27. The Kothari Commission on
Education set up by the
Government of India in 1966

strongly recommended free and
compulsory education for
children up to 14 years. The
Commission observed that there
is no other way for the poor to
climb their way out of this

predicament.

      28.   Education     occupies   a 
      sacred     place   within   our 
      Constitution   and   culture. 

Article 21A of the Constitution,
adopted in 2002, codified this

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:40 :::
161

Court’s holding in Unni
Krishnan, J.P. & Others v. State
of Andhra Pradesh &

Ors. (1993) 1 SCC 645, in which
we established a right to
education. Parliament did not

merely affirm that right; the
Amending Act placed the right to
education within the
Constitution’s set of

Fundamental Rights, the most
cherished principles of our
society. As the Court observed
in Unni Krishnan (supra), para
8:

“8.The immortal Poet Valluvar

whose Tirukkural will surpass
all ages and transcend all
religious said of education:

“Learning is excellence of
wealth that none destroy;

To man nought else affords

reality of joy.”

29. Education today remains
liberation – a tool for the
betterment of our civil
institutions, the protection of

our civil liberties, and the
path to an informed and
questioning citizenry. Then as
now, we recognize education’s
“transcendental importance” in
the lives of individuals and in

the very survival of our
Constitution and Republic.

30. In the years since the
inclusion of Article 21A, we
have clarified that the right to
education attaches to the

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:41 :::
162

individual as an inalienable
human right. We have traced the
broad scope of this right in R.

D. Upadhyay v. State of A.P. &
Ors. AIR 2006 SC 1946, holding
that the State must provide

education to all children in all
places, even in prisons, to the
children of prisoners. We have
also affirmed the inviolability

of the right to education.

31. In Election Commission of
India v. St. Mary’s School &
Ors.
(2008) 2 SCC 390, we

refused to allow the State to
take teachers from the classroom

to work in polling places. While
the democratic State has a
mandate to conduct elections,

the mundane demands of
instruction superseded the
State’s need to staff polling
places. Indeed, the democratic

State may never reach its
greatest potential without a

citizenry sufficiently educated
to understand civil rights and
social duties, Bandhua Mukti
Morcha v. Union of India & Ors.,

(1997) 10 SCC 549. These
conclusions all follow from our
opinion in Unni Krishnan.

32. Education remains essential
to the life of the individual,

as much as health and dignity,
and the State must provide it,
comprehensively and completely,
in order to satisfy its highest
duty to citizens.

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:41 :::
163

33. Unlike other fundamental
rights, the right to education
places a burden not only on the

State, but also on the parent or
guardian of every child, and on
the child herself. Article 21A,

which reads as follows, places
one obligation primarily on the
State:

“21A.Right to education-The
State shall provide free and
compulsory education to
all children of the age of six
to fourteen years in such manner

as the State may, by law,
determine.” By contrast, Article

51A(k), which reads as follows,
places burden squarely on the
parents:

“51A. Fundamental duties – it
shall be the duty of every
citizen of India

(k) who is the parent or

guardian to provide
opportunities for education to
his child or, as the case may
be, ward between the age of six

and years.”

The Constitution directs both
burdens to achieve one end: the
compulsory education of
children, free from the fetters

of cost, parental obstruction,
or State inaction. The two
articles also balance the
relative burdens on parents and
the State. Parents sacrifice for
the education of their children,
by sending them to school for

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:41 :::
164

hours of the day, but only with
commensurate sacrifice of the
State’s resources. The right to

education, then, is more than a
human or fundamental right. It
is a reciprocal agreement

between the State and the
family, and it places an
affirmative burden on all
participants in our civil

society.

34. This Court has routinely
held that another fundamental
right to life encompasses more

than a breath and a heartbeat.

In reflecting on the meaning of

“personal liberty” in Articles
19 and 21, we have held that
“that `personal liberty’ is used

in the article as a compendious
term to include within itself
all the varieties of rights
which go to makeup the `personal

liberties’ of man.” Kharak Singh
v. State of U.P. & Ors. AIR
1963

SC 1295, para 16. Similarly, we
must hold that educating a child
requires more than a teacher and
a blackboard, or a classroom and

a book. The right to education
requires that a child study in a
quality school, and a quality
school certainly should pose no
threat to a child’s safety. We
reached a similar conclusion,

on the comprehensive guarantees
implicit in the right to
education, only recently in our
opinion in Ashoka Kumar Thakur
v. Union of India & Ors.
(2008)
6 SCC 1.

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:41 :::
165

35. The Constitution likewise
provides meaning to the word
“education” beyond its

dictionary meaning. Parents
should not be compelled to send
their children to dangerous

schools, nor should children
suffer compulsory education in
unsound buildings.

36. Likewise, the State’s
reciprocal duty to parents
begins with the provision of a
free education, and it extends
to the State’s regulatory power.

No matter where a family seeks
to educate its children, the

State must ensure that children
suffer no harm in exercising
their fundamental right and

civic duty. States thus bear the
additional burden of regulation,
ensuring that schools provide
safe facilities as part of a

compulsory education.

37. In the instant case, we
have no need to sketch all the
contours of the Constitution’s
guarantees, so we do not. We

merely hold that the right to
education incorporates the
provision of safe schools.

38. This Court in Ashoka Kumar
Thakur’s case (supra) observed

as under:

“482 It has become necessary
that the Government set a
target within which it must
fully implement Article
21A regarding free and

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:41 :::
166

compulsory for the entire
country. The Government
suitably revise budget

allocations for. The priorities
have to be set correctly. most
important fundamental right may

be 21A, which, in the larger
interest of the nation,
must be fully implemented.

Without Article 21A, the other

fundamental rights are
effectively rendered
meaningless. Education stands
above other rights, as
one’s ability to enforce one’s

fundamental rights flows from
one’s education.

ig This is
ultimately why the judiciary
must oversee Government spending
on free and compulsory

education.”

39. In view of the importance
of Article 21A, it is imperative

that the education which is
provided to children in the

primary schools should be in the
environment of safety.”

(emphasis supplied)

33. Counsel appearing for the Petitioners

also invited our attention to the decision of the

Supreme Court of the United States in the case of

Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S.

483. In that Case the Court considered the

challenge that children of Negro race were denied

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:41 :::
167

admissions to the schools attended by White

children under laws requiring or permitting

segregation according to race. The Court while

considering the said question, opined as follows:

“Today, education is perhaps the

most important function of state
and local governments.
Compulsory school attendance
laws and the great expenditures

for education both demonstrate
our recognition of the

importance of education to our
democratic society. It is
required in the performance of

our most basic public
responsibilities, even service
in the armed forces. It is the
very foundation of good
citizenship. Today it is a

principal instrument in
awakening the child to cultural

values, in preparing him for
later professional training, and
in helping him to adjust
normally to his environment. In

these days, it is doubtful that
any child may reasonably be
expected to succeed in life if
he is denied the opportunity of
an education. Such an

opportunity, where the state has
undertaken to provide it, is a
right which must be made
available to all on equal
terms.”

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:41 :::
168

34. It is unnecessary to underscore the

significance of imparting quality education. At

the same time it cannot be overlooked that

impersonal education is imparted in the

educational institutions established by the

Government or funded by the Government due to the

limited resources and slow moving machinery of the

State, which fact has been taken note of by the

Apex Court while considering the case of T.M.A.

Pai (supra), to which reference has been made in

the earlier part of this Judgment. Besides,

considering the inability of the State to provide

sufficient number of educational institutions on

account of its limited resources and necessity of

encouraging private participation of unaided

institutions to fulfill the constitutional

objective of imparting education with adequate

material content that will make the students self

reliant, coupled with the fact that the right to

establish an educational institution is recognized

as a fundamental right within the meaning of

Article 19(1)(g), we have no hesitation in taking

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:41 :::
169

the view that such right cannot be lightly

interfered with so long as the private educational

institutions are willing to carry on their

activities as per the strict terms and conditions

to be imposed for grant of recognition and

affiliation and also for continuation thereof.

Indeed, it ought to be reasonable restrictions and

in the interests of the general public. In the

case of T.M.A. Pai (supra), in Paragraph 36 of the

said decision, which we have already reproduced,

the Court plainly stated that if the private

unaided institution fulfills the terms and

conditions for grant of recognition and

affiliation and abides by the regime of no

profiteering and commercialization and secure the

service conditions of its employees as also

provides mandatory infrastructure, there would be

hardly any option for the State but to grant

recognition and affiliation. In that, the Apex

Court has observed that affiliation and

recognition “has to be available” to every

institution that fulfills the conditions for grant

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:41 :::
170

of such affiliation and recognition.

35. Keeping the above principles in mind, we shall

now examine the sweep of the provisions or

conditions which obliges private management even

if it intends to start an unaided educational

institution, to fulfill as pre-condition. Insofar

as Secondary or Higher Secondary schools are

concerned, the State is relying on the provisions

of the Secondary Schools Code and particularly on

Chapter II in Section I thereof which deals with

starting of a new school. For the sake of

convenience, we would reproduce the said

provisions, which reads thus:

” CHAPTER II

RECOGNITION, ORGANISATION
AND MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOLS

SECTION 1

CONDITIONS, GRANT, REFUSAL
AND WITHDRAWAL OF RECOGNITION

Conformity to Rules

1. Schools may be recognised by
the Department provided they

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:41 :::
171

confirm to the Rules set forth
in this Code.

Starting a New School

2.1. Application for permission

to start a new Secondary
School/Higher Secondary School
shall be made in the form given
in Appendix one to the Education

Officer (Secondary)/Education
Inspector(Greater Bombay)
concerned by registered post, so
as to reach him before 30th
October in the year, preceding

the year in which the school is
proposed to be started. The

management desirous of
submitting an application for
permission to start a school or

to start a Technical High School
as mentioned in sub-rule (2)
below, shall pay a fee of Rs.

1000/- to start a school in

tribal area and Rs.5000/- to
start school in non-tribal area

for each such application into
Government Treasury and attach
the original challan to the
application.

2.2. Application for permission
to start a Technical High School
or technical classes in school
imparting general education
shall be made in the form given

in Appendix one to the Regionals
Deputy Director of Technical
Education concerned by
registered post, before the date
prescribed in Rule 2.1 above.

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:41 :::
172

2.3. Permission to start
English Medium Secondary School/
Higher Secondary School shall be

given on unaided basis.

2.4. All such applications

will be scrutinized by the
Education Officers
(Secondary)/Education Inspectors
(Greater Mumbai). These

applications, with remarks,
shall be sent to the concerned
Deputy Director by the Education
Officers (Secondary)/Education
Inspectors (Greater Mumbai)

before 30th November of the
year.ig
2.5. Applications received by
the Education Officers

(Secondary)/Education Inspector
(Greater Mumbai) will be sent
with remarks to the Director of
Education by the Deputy

Directors before 30th December,

2.6. Applications received
with the remarks by the Deputy
Directors shall be sent with
remarks to the Government by the

Director of Education before the
end of January in the year of
starting a school.

2.7. The applications for
starting a new school will be

considered if the criterion
earmarked by the Government from
time to time for that location.

2.8. Permission to start new
Secondary/ Higher Secondary
Schools by the Management will

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:41 :::
173

be recommended on fulfillment of
the following conditions:

(1) Management shall be
registered under Societies
Registration Act, 1860 and

Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950,

(2) The fund to the tune of Rs.

Thirty Thousand shall be at the

credit of Management for the
preceding two years. The
Management wishing to start a
school in the tribal area will
have a balance of Rs.10000/- or

bank guarantee shall be given of
that amount.

(3) The Audit Report of the
preceding two years shall be

submitted.

(4) The Management shall have a
rented place or building of

their own where they want to
start a school.

(5) At least 30% members of the
Management shall be women.

(6) No member of the Management
was earlier convicted under
Indian Penal Code.

2.9 While recommending to
start a new school, Education

Officer (Secondary), Education
Inspector (Greater Mumbai),
Divisional Deputy Director of
Education, shall send the
recommendations of starting
English medium Secondary/ Higher
Secondary School on permanently

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:41 :::
174

non aided basis separately.

2.10. The Government shall

communicate the decision on the
application for proposing to
open a school ordinarily before

the end of March of the year in
which the School is proposed to
be opened to the Director of
Education, concerned Deputy

Director of Education, Education
Officer (Secondary)/ Education
Inspector (Greater Mumbai). The
Government will communicate the
Societies who have applied for

starting a school, the
permission to open a new

Secondary/ Higher Secondary
School before the end of March
of the year.

Note: Rule 2.1 to 2.10 shall not
be applicable to Secondary/
Higher Secondary Schools which

are to be opened during the year
1994-95.

2.11. The application for
starting a new Secondary/ Higher
Secondary School will not be

considered except the
applications obtained by the
procedure laid down for that
purpose.

2.12. The applications for

obtaining permission to start a
Secondary/ Higher Secondary
School as per the procedure laid
down for that purpose, will be
considered only for that year,
the applications will not be
considered next year or they

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:42 :::
175

will not be kept on waiting
list. The application along with
the fee will automatically

extinguish.

2.13. In no case should the

School be started, unless the
written previous permission of
the Government is obtained.

Schools started without such

permission shall not ordinarily
be considered for permission
(read recognition).

2.14. If permission has been

granted by the Government, the
Management shall open Schools

within 45 days from the
beginning of the ensuing School
year and inform the Appropriate

Authority within two weeks from
the date of opening thereof.”

36. Significantly, the above Rules 2.1 to

2.14 have been added by G.R. NO. SED/SSN/5393/3562

dated 11.1.1994 and deal with the subject of

permission to start a new “secondary/higher

secondary school”. In other words, the same have

been introduced much prior to the exposition of

the Apex Court in T.M.A. Pai’s case (supra). As a

matter of fact, after the introduction of Act of

2009, which not only encompasses the aspects of

right of children to free and compulsory education

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:42 :::
176

but to carry out the provisions of that Act, it

also elaborately deals with the matters pertaining

to establishment of School and in particular grant

of recognition thereof. In that, Section 18 of the

Act of 2009 provides that no school other than the

excepted category shall be established or function

without obtaining a “certificate of recognition”

to be given by the appropriate Authority. Thus,

after the commencement of that Act, the private

Management intending to establish a school has to

make an application to the appropriate Authority

and till certificate of recognition is granted by

that Authority, it cannot establish or run the

school. Breach of that condition would entail in

payment of specified fine to be paid by the person

or Management who establishes or runs the school.

The matters relevant for grant of recognition are

also provided in Sections 19, 25 read with

Schedule of that Act. The said provisions read

thus:

“18.No school to be established without
obtaining certificate of recognition.-

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:42 :::
177

(1) No school, other than a
school established, owned or
controlled by the appropriate

Government or the local
authority, shall, after the
commencement of this Act, be

established or function, without
obtaining a certificate of
recognition from such authority,
by making an application in such

form and manner, as may be
prescribed.

(2) The authority prescribed
under sub-section (1) shall

issue the certificate of
recognition in such form, within

such period, in such manner, and
subject to such conditions, as
may be prescribed:

Provided that no such
recognition shall be granted to
a school unless it fulfills

norms and standards specified
under Section 19.

(3) On the contravention of the
conditions of recognition, the
prescribed authority shall, by

an order in writing, withdraw
recognition:

Provided that such order shall
contain a direction as to which
of the neighbourhood school, the

children studying in the
derecognised school, shall be
admitted:

Provided further that no
recognition shall be so
withdrawn without giving an
opportunity of being heard to

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:42 :::
178

such school, in such manner, as
may be prescribed.

(4) With effect from the date of
withdrawal of the recognition
under sub-section (3), no such

school shall continue to
function.

(5) Any person who establishes

or runs a school without
obtaining certificate of
recognition, or continues to run
a school after withdrawal of
recognition, 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.”

“19. Norms and standards for
school.-

(1) No school shall be
established, or recognised,

under Section 18, unless it
fulfills 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
fulfill the norms and standards
within the period specified

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:42 :::
179

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.”

“25. Pupil-Teacher Ratio.- (1)
Within six months from the date

of commencement of this Act, the
appropriate Government and the
local authority shall ensure
that the Pupil-Teacher Ratio, as

specified in the Schedule, is
maintained in each school.

(2) For the purpose of
maintaining the Pupil-Teacher
Ratio under sub-section (1), no

teacher posted in a school shall
be made to serve in any other
school or office or deployed for
any non-educational pur0pose,
other than those specified in
Section 27.”

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:42 :::
180

“THE SCHEDULE
(See Sections 19 and 25)

NORMS AND STANDARDS FOR A SCHOOL

————————————————————————————————–

Sr.No. Item Norms and Standards

————————————————————————————————–

1. Number of teachers :





                                                                 
     (a) For first class to fifth class          Admitted children         Number of teachers
                                                 Up to Sixty                Two
                                                 Between sixty-one Three




                                                 
                                                 to ninety

                              ig                 Between Ninety-one Four
                                                 to one hundred and
                                                 twenty
                            
                                                 Between One                  Five
                                                 hundred and twenty-
                                                 one to two hundred

Above One hundred Five plus one

and fifty children Head-teacher

Above Two hundred Pupil-Teacher
children Ratio excluding
Head-teacher)

shall not exceed
forty.

(b) For sixth class to eighth 1) At least one teacher per class so that

class there shall be at least one teacher
each for –

(i) Science and Mathematics ;

(ii) Social Studies ;

(iii) Languages.

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:42 :::
181

2) At least one teacher for every thirty-
five children.

3) Where admission of children is

above one hundred –

(i) a full time head-teacher ;

(ii) part time instructors for –

(A) Art Education ;

(B) Health and Physical
Education ;

(C) Work Education.

2. Building All-weather building consisting of –

(i) at least one class-room for every
ig teacher and an office-cum-Head
teacher’s room ;

(ii) barrier-free access ;

(iii) separate toilets for boys and girls ;

(iv) safe and adequate drinking water
facility to all children ;

(v) a kitchen where mid-day meal is

cooked in the school ;

(vi) Playground ;

(vii) arrangements for securing the

school building by boundary wall
or fencing.

3. Minimum number of working (i) two hundred working days for first
days/instructional hours in an class to fifth class ;

academic year (ii) two hundred and twenty working
days for sixth class to eighth class ;

(iii) eight hundred instructional hours
per academic year for first class to
fifth class ;

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:42 :::
182

(iv) one thousand instructional hours
per academic year for sixth class
to eighth class.

4. Minimum number of working forty-five teaching including
hours per week for the preparation hours.

teacher.

5. Teaching learning equipment shall be provided to each class as
required.

6. Library There shall be a library in each school
providing newspaper, magazines and
books on all subjects, including

story-books.

     7. Play material, games and     shall be provided to each class as
                      
        sports equipment             required."
                     

37. In the scheme of the provisions of that Act,

there is no requirement of taking prior permission

to start a school as is envisaged by the Rules 2.1

to 2.14 of the Secondary Schools Code. Whereas, no

school can be started without a “certificate of

recognition” issued by the authority. In that

sense, the provisions in the Secondary Schools

Code permitting the starting of a school merely on

fulfillment of conditions specified in Rule 2.8

thereof, are contrary to the scheme of the Central

Act of 2009. On the other hand, if the private

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:42 :::
183

Management intending to start an unaided School

not receiving any kind of aid or grants, were to

fulfill the norms and standards specified in

Sections 19, 25 read with Schedule of the Act of

2009, the authority can have no choice but to

grant certificate of recognition to such a school

within the prescribed period specifying the

conditions therefor. That is the mandate of Law.

38. Nevertheless, we shall examine the question

as to whether the regime provided in the above

said Rules is reasonable one or is in the teeth of

the dictum of the Apex Court qua the private

management intending to establish an unaided

School not receiving any kind of aid or grants

from the Government or local authority. From the

Scheme of Chapter II of the Code, it is seen that

it pertains to recognition, organization and

management of schools. From the plain language of

the said rules it would apply to all types of

schools – be it grant in aid schools or unaided

schools. Section 1 thereof deals with matters

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:42 :::
184

relating to conditions, grant, refusal and

withdrawal of recognition. Rule 1 is a general

provision that the schools would be recognized by

the department only if they were to conform to the

rules specified in the Code. In so far as

starting a new school is concerned, the same is

governed by Rules 2.1 to 2.14. Rule 2.1 envisages

submission of application by the desirous

management who intends to start the proposed

school. The Application is required to be

accompanied by specified fees. Rule 2.2 is in

respect of application for permission to start a

technical High School or technical classes in

school and the authority designated to receive

such application before the prescribed date.

Rule 2.3 postulates that permission to start

English medium Secondary School/Higher Secondary

School shall be given on unaided basis. This is

obviously the policy of the State Government.

Rule 2.4 contemplates that the applications so

submitted by the management within the prescribed

time will be scrutinized by the Education Officers

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:42 :::
185

(Secondary/Education Inspectors, Greater Mumbai)

who in turn shall forward the same with their

remarks to the Dy. Director before the prescribed

date. Those applications, as per Rule 2.5, are

required to be forwarded by the Dy. Directors to

the Director of Education before the prescribed

date; and as per Rule 2.6, the Director then

forwards the same with his recommendation to the

State Government before the prescribed date.

Rule 2.7 is of some significance. It postulates

that the application for starting a new school

will be considered if the criteria is earmarked by

the Government from time to time for that

location. It is on account of this provision the

Government has discretion either to grant

permission or to refuse the same irrespective of

the recommendation of the concerned officers

referred in Rule 2.4 to 2.6 above. This rule

presupposes existence of a perspective plan on the

basis of which the Government would take its

decision either to grant permission in respect of

the proposal under consideration or to reject the

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:42 :::
186

same, if the location where the private management

intends to start a new school is not notified in

the perspective plan. Admittedly, as of now

there is no perspective plan in existence. In

absence of such perspective plan, the Government

while exercising discretion available under Rule

2.7 would naturally be obliged to examine the

concerned proposal on its own merits so as to

ascertain, amongst others, whether starting of new

school is necessary keeping in view the local

population, need and strength of students and

while avoiding unnecessary concentration of

schools in an area discouraging unhealthy

competition. At the same time the State cannot

remain oblivious of its constitutional obligation

to provide education and recognizing rights of

children to free and compulsory education. The

fact that there is already an existing school in

the locality, per se, may not be sufficient ground

for rejection of the proposal unless the State

Government were to also record its subjective

satisfaction that the new school in the given

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:42 :::
187

locality of the same type would result in

unhealthy competition amongst the existing

institutions or result in concentration of schools

or that it did not have requisite infrastructure

and not in a position to secure the interests of

students and staff. In other words, the existence

of a school in the locality by itself cannot be a

decisive factor. In a given case, inspite of

existence of a school in the locality, there may

be need for an additional school on account of the

strength of students in the locality. It is also

possible that the existing school in the given

locality is a non-performing or under performing

school in comparison to the national or state

level bench mark and is not in a position to

impart quality education as may be evident from

its past performance. To give better opportunity

to the children in that locality, it would be in

the larger interest to allow another new school

in the same locality. At any rate, the State

Government cannot reject the proposal of the

private management to start a school on “unaided

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:42 :::
188

basis not receiving any kind of aid or grants”, on

account of existence of an aided school in the

same locality. In as much as, Government school

and private unaided schools cannot be treated as

equals. Necessarily, therefore, there would be

no question of unhealthy competition between the

government aided schools and private unaided

schools. We shall elaborate on this aspect a

little later. It would be a different matter,

however, if there was already an existing school

of the “same type”, namely, government aided or

private unaided educational institution, as the

case may be, in the same locality, so as to

justify its decision of rejection of the proposal

to start a new school in the same locality. That

aspect, however, will have to be decided or

examined on case to case basis.

39. Rule 2.8 deals with when the permission to

start a new secondary/higher secondary school by

the management should be recommended. The

conditions to be fulfilled in that behalf have

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:42 :::
189

been spelt out therein such as availability of

sufficient fund not below the amount referred to

therein (i.e. Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 10,000/-

respectively), Audit report of the preceding two

years has been submitted, the management must have

a rented place of building of its own where they

want to start a school, no member of the

management was earlier convicted under Indian

Penal Code and atleast 30% members of the

management shall be present. These requirements

are not sufficient in the context of Sections 19,

25 read with Schedule of the Act of 2009.

40. Be that as it may, Rule 2.9 is in the nature

of instructions to the concerned officers who are

expected to send recommendation to start a new

English medium Secondary/Higher Secondary school.

It provides that recognition should be only on

permanent non-aided basis for such schools to be

sent separately. Rule 2.10 envisages that the

Government shall communicate its decision on

the the proposals made by the private management

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:43 :::
190

to the concerned officers and to the Societies

before the specified time. Rule 2.11 postulates

that the application for starting a new

secondary/higher secondary school will not be

considered except the applications obtained by the

procedure laid down for that purpose. Rule 2.12

envisages that the applications for permission

shall be considered only for that year and will

not be considered for next year or kept on waiting

list. In the present set of cases, it may not be

necessary to consider the efficacy of this

provision as all the applications for permission

have been treated as rejected by one fiat issued

by the State Government. Rule 2.13 provides that

in no case the School shall be started unless

written previous permission of the Government is

obtained and school so started shall not

ordinarily be considered for permission. Rule

2.14 postulates that upon grant of permission by

the Government, the management shall open the

school within 45 days from the beginning of the

ensuing school year and inform the appropriate

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:43 :::
191

authority within two weeks from the date of

opening thereof.

41. The primary Schools are governed by the

provisions of Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947

(hereinafter referred to as the `Act of 1947′).

Besides the said Act, in exercise of powers under

Section 63 thereof, the State Government has made

Rules known as The Bombay Primary Education Rules

1949 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of

1949’). We would now traverse through the scheme

of the said Act and the Rules. The relevant

provisions of the Act of 1947 to decide the matter

in issue are reproduced thus:

“2(2) “Approved school” means a primary
school maintained by the [State] Government

or by a school board [or Zilla Parishad] or
by an authorised municipality or which is
for the time being recognized as such by a
school board [or Zilla Parishad] or by the
[State] Government or by an officer
authorised by it in this behalf”.

“2(15) “Primary Education” means education
in such subjects and upto such standards as
may be determined by the [State] Government
from time to time.

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:43 :::
192

“2(17) “Primary School” means a school or a
part of a school in which primary education

up to any standard is imparted;

“25. It shall be the duty of the Parishad
Education Officer to prepare in accordance
with the directions received from the
Director in this behalf a scheme to provide

compulsory primary education in such area
and for children of such ages and upto such
standard and within such period as the
Director may specify. The Parishad Education

Officer shall obtain the comments and
suggestions of the Zilla Parishad upon the
scheme to be prepared by him and shall

submit it together with such comments and
suggestions, if any, to the Director who
shall forward it to the State Government

with his remarks.”

“26. (1) An authorised municipality may by a

resolution declare its intention to provide
compulsory primary education in the whole or

any part of its area in the case of children
of such ages and up to such standard as the
municipality may decide and shall submit its
proposals to the State Government through

the Director in the form of a scheme.

(2) An authorized municipality, if
called upon by the State Government so to
do, shall within a time to be specified by
the State Government submit to the Director

a scheme to provide compulsory primary
education in such area and in the case of
children of such ages and upto such standard
and within such period as the State
Government may specify.”

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:43 :::
193

“39. Recognition of and grants to approved
schools under private management – (1) Every
primary school of her school other than a

primary school maintained by the [State]
Government or by a [Zilla Parishad or school
board] or by an authorized municipality

which fulfills the conditions prescribed in
this behalf shall be entitled to recognition
as an approved School.

(2) Such recognition shall be given by
the [Zilla Parishad or school board] or by
the [State] Government or by an officer
authorized by it in this behalf, and the

manner in which grant-in-aid is to be given
to such approved schools shall be as
prescribed.”

“54. Notwithstanding anything contained in

this Act the State Government shall have
power to give to a Zilla Parishad all such
directions as it may consider necessary in
regard to any matter connected with primary

education and the Zilla Parishad shall
comply with such directions.”

The definition of “Approved School” is of some

significance. It means a primary School maintained

by the specified Authorities or which is for the

time being recognised as such by the specified

Authorities in this behalf. The benefits of being

an approved primary school are spelt out in the

Rules of 1949 to which we shall make a reference

little later. By the very nature of provisions in

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:43 :::
194

the Act of 1947 read with the Rules of 1949, it

would appear that once a School is approved, the

appropriate Authority becomes duty bound to

provide grants in aid to such a School under

“private management”. For that purpose, the Zilla

Parishad and the Municipality are required to

prepare a scheme to provide compulsory primary

education in the identified areas to children of

specified age. The Scheme, as is the case of

perspective plan prepared for the identification

of areas to establish and allow Secondary/Higher

Secondary Schools in the locality, is with a view

to ensure proper allocation of public funds to the

concerned Schools having regard to the need of

such locality, subject to the availability of

finance with the State. Notably, Section 39 of

this Act is the only provision dealing with

recognition of and grants to approved primary

schools under “private management”. It does not

provide for taking prior permission of the

appropriate Authority. That requirement, however,

flows from the provisions of the Rules of 1949

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:43 :::
195

which have been amended in the year 1998. We have

also noticed Section 42 of this Act which

obligates the State Government to contribute half

of the additional recurring and non-recurring

annual cost of the scheme sanctioned by the State.

As per Section 54 of the Act, the State Government

has power to give to a Zilla Parishad all such

directions as it may consider necessary in regard

to any matter connected with primary education and

the Zilla Parishad has to comply with such

directions.

42. Turning to the Rules framed in exercise of

powers under Section 63 of the Act of 1947, we may

usefully refer to the following Rules:

“2(1)(g) “Private School” means a primary
school which is maintained by an agency
other than Government of District School
Board or Authority Municipality and includes
night schools and other schools under
private management similar to those which

were recognised under the Grant-in-aid
Code.”

“2(1)(h) “Public School” means a primary
school maintained by the Government or
District School Board or Authority
Municipality, as the case may be.”

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:43 :::
196

“104. Opening of new primary schools by

the School Board – (1) [Subject to Rule 33],
a District School Board shall not open a new
primary school or take over a private school

or incur additional expenditure on primary
schools maintained by it without the
sanction of Government or an officer
authorised by Government in this behalf.

(2) Except as otherwise provided in
these rules, a Municipal School Board may,
subject to the provision made in its budget,

open new primary school where necessary or
to take over private school or incur
additional expenditure on primary schools

maintained by the authorised municipality.”

“104A(i) “Private School” means an approved

school referred to in section 39 of the
Act.”

106. Application for permission to start a

new private primary school- (1) Subject to
the provisions of this rule, the Department

shall invite the applications for permission
to start a new private primary school, from
the management of Educational Institutions.

(2) Such application shall be made by
the management of Education Institution to
the competent Authority, in the form `A’ set
out in Appendix `C’ to these rules
accompanied by an undertaking in writing
that the conditions of employment of

teachers in such private primary school
shall be as near as possible to those
specified in schedule `F’ appended to
principal rules. Every such application
shall also be accompanied by the scrutiny
fee prescribed by the Department from time
to time.

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:43 :::
197

(3) The application shall be
accompanied with duly atte3sted documents of

registration of the Management under the
society’s Registration Act, 1860 or under
the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950

under both.

(4) The application shall state the
name and address of the correspondent, and

the management shall report any change in
this behalf, to the Competent Authority, as
soon as possible.”

“107. Recognition of private school, –

(1)As soon as the Department grants
permission to start a new private primary

school, the Competent Authority shall
communicate the same to the management of
the concerned Education Institution. The

management on receipt of such communication
from the Competent Authority, shall start
the primary school, in the medium and at
place mentioned in the communication.

Thereafter, the management, which has been
permitted to start a new primary school

shall apply for recognition of that school
to the Competent Authority, which shall
arrange for the inspection of the concerned
school and shall forward the Inspection

Report to the Education Committee, or School
Board, as the case may be, together with its
recommendations relating to the recognition
of such private primary School.

(2) The Inspecting Officer shall, in
making his report to the Competent
Authority, take the following matters into
account, namely:-

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:43 :::
198

(a) Whether there is genuine demand in the
locality for opening of the proposal primary
school;

(b) Whether the management is registered
under the Society’s Registration Act, 1860,

under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act,
1950, or under both;

(c) Whether the site and premises occupied

for the purposes of the school are congenial
for educational purpose and are kept neat
and clean;

(d) Whether the staff engaged is adequate,

qualified and competent;

(e) Whether the resources of the school are
adequate to meet the expenses of the school.

(3) The Inspecting Officer shall inter alia
state in his inspection report –

(a)Whether the conditions on which the

school is to be recognised are duly
fulfilled;

(b) Whether the attendance of pupils at the
school is regular and satisfactory;

(c) Whether the school building is well
ventilated and provision is made for
playground, craft shed, work-experience; and
whether the furniture, books, educational
appliance and teaching aids are provided
according to the syllabus.

(d) Whether the arrangement for registering
the admission attendance and age of the
pupils are adequate and satisfactory;

(e) Whether adequate arrangement is made
for maintaining accounts of income and

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:43 :::
199

expenditure upto date, and in accordance
with the instructions issued by the
Department from time to time;

(f) Whether the teaching staff is adequate,
competent, qualified according to the stands

prescribed by the State Government and is
not changed unduly, frequently;

(g) Whether the pay-scale and other

conditions of service as laid down by the
State Government, or as the case may be, by
the local authority are made applicable to
the teaching and non-teaching staff engaged
in the schools;

(h) Whether the quality of education

imparted in the school is considered by the
Inspecting Officer as of desirable standard
and is proved to be satisfactory;

(i) Whether the records are properly
maintained, and shall statistical returns
and formal certificate given by the school

are trust-worthy;

(j) Whether the discipline and behaviour of
pupils, and in particular, their conduct and
regularity of attendance are satisfactory;

(k) Whether the Head Master appointed by
the management is qualified, trained,
experienced and is proved to be efficient
for maintaining the school in accordance
with the instructions issued by the
Department from time to time.

(4) The School Board, or as the case may
be, the Education Committee shall consider
the inspection report and the
recommendations of the Competent Authority
thereon ordinarily as its next meeting, and
may, if it is satisfied about the need of

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:43 :::
200

the school in the locality, the standard of
work in, and the general management of, the
private school, recognise the private school

as approval school; and may, if the school
has also applied for grant-in-aid, direct
that it should be treated as eligible for

the grant-in-aid from the primary education
fund or as case may be, from the district
fund.

(5) The School Board, or as the case
may Education Committee may, for reasons to
be recorded in writing, reject an
application for recognition; and thereupon,
the Competent Authority shall forthwith

communicate the decision to the Management
or Correspondent of the school.

(6) The Management of the School which
has been refused recognition may, within 45

days from the date of receipt of the
decision, prefer an appeal to the Deputy
Director of the Education division
concerned.

(7) Nothing in this rule shall be

deemed to prevent the Management of a school
which has been refused recognition from
submitting a fresh application in the next
academic year.

“108. Benefits of recognition.-(1) Subject
to the provisions of Rule 110 and 111, a
private school, recognised as an approved
school, shall unless it denies admission to
pupils on grounds only of religion, race,

caste, language of any of them or decline to
employ any person on the ground only of
religion, race and caste or any of them, be
eligible for grant-in-aid on application
made in that behalf under Rule 110, in
accordance with the rules hereinafter
contained.

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:43 :::
201

(2) Recognition as an approved
school shall also entitled the
management of the school-

(a) to present its pupils at
any public examination conducted
by the Department;

(b) to present its pupils as
candidates for scholarships and to
admit scholarship holders; and

(c) to claim such other

benefits as Government may, from
time to time, declare in this
behalf.”

“109. Withdrawal of recognition –
(1) A private school which is once

recognised as an approved school
shall continue to be so recognised

unless its recognition is
withdrawn under sub-rule (2).

(2) Such recognition may at
any time be withdrawn by the
School Board, or Education
Committee on the recommendations

of the Inspecting Officer, if any
of the conditions on which the
school was recognised is not
observed or if the standard of
instruction in the school falls
materially below the level
obtaining in public schools or for

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:43 :::
202

other reasonable and sufficient
cause:

Provided that the due warning

has been given to the managers of
the school and that reasonable
time has been allowed to them to
carry out the requirements of the

School Board or Education
Committee:

Provided further that a school

which is aggrieved by the decision
of the School Board of Education

Committee withdrawing recognition
may submit an appeal to the Deputy

Director of Educational Division
concerned whose decision shall be
binding.”

      


                [Rule   106   and   Rule   107(1)   is 
   



                substituted     vide   Government 
                Notification   dated   2nd  March     1998 
                by   Sections   3   and   4   thereof 
                respectively.]





43. The above Rules have been framed to further

the objective of Act of 1947. The definition of

“Private School” as envisaged in Rule 2(1)(g)

means a primary school which is maintained by an

agency other than the Government or District

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:43 :::
203

School Board or Authorised Municipality and

includes night schools and other schools under

private management similar to those which were

recognised under the Grand-in-aid Code. The other

definition of “private school” is found in Rule

104A (i) of the same Rules. It means an approved

School referred to in Section 39 of the Act. This

is in contradiction to the meaning of “Public

School” given in Rule 2(1)(h). The “Public School”

means a primary school maintained by Government or

District School Board or Authorised Municipality,

as the case may be. While considering the scheme

of the Act and the Rules, we may have to keep in

mind the distinction between the terms “Private

School” and “Public School”. Both these Schools

may be approved Schools. The purpose of approval

is to recognise such school being entitled for

grants in aid from public funds to be paid to

that school, as the locality where such a school

is established, is part of the scheme prepared by

the appropriate Authority. Therefore, the

distinction between the term “Approved School” and

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:44 :::
204

the “Recognised School” will also have to be kept

in mind. In that, all approved schools are

necessarily recognised schools, but all recognised

schools need not be approved schools so as to

receive grants in aid.

44. Be that as it may, Chapter III of the Rules of

1949 provide for the duties and functions of the

District School Boards, Authorised Municipalities

and Municipal School Boards, Chairmen and Vice-

Chairman. Part (a) of this Chapter deals with

aspects relating to primary schools. Chapter III,

in our view, deals with primary schools under the

control of appropriate Authority and not in

relation to private unaided schools in particular.

Rule 32 in the said Chapter obliges the District

School Board or authorised Municipality to

maintain an adequate number of primary schools in

which instruction is given through the medium of

the local regional language. In addition to

primary schools referred to in sub-rule (1) of

this rule, a District School Board or authorised

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:44 :::
205

Municipality is expected to maintain Schools

specified in Clauses (i) to (iii) thereof. Rule 33

envisages that a District School Board with the

previous sanction of Government and a Municipal

School Board, so far as the budget provision made

by the authorised municipality will allow, may,

wherever necessary, open new primary schools.

Thus, Rule 33 is in relation to new Primary

Schools to be opened by the Board in the

prescribed manner. Rule 34 is of some relevance.

It mandates that it shall be the duty of every

authorised Municipality to make such provision in

its budget as will enable the “approved private

schools” in its area to receive grants at the

rates prescribed in Chapter VII of these rules.

Notably, the expression used in this provision is

“approved” private schools and not “recognised”

private schools. The other provision in the Rules

to which reference can be made is in Chapter VI

which deals with preparation and enforcement of

the Schemes of Compulsion. Rule 84 deals with

preparation of a rough estimate of a scheme by the

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:44 :::
206

competent Authority to be later on approved by the

Government. Rule 85 deals with preparation of

detailed scheme by the competent Authority. Rule

89 which follows the rules for preparation of

schemes provides that before a detailed scheme is

prepared, the School Board shall on the

recommendation of the Administrative Officer, fix

the maximum distance measured according to the

nearest road between an approved school and the

residence if a child for purposes of clause (c) of

Section 33 of the Act. It further provides that

such distance shall not ordinarily exceed one mile

and may be different for different localities and

may be less than a mile in the case of villages

where communications are specially difficult

throughout the year. Once again, the primary

school referred to in the context of distance

between two such schools is of an “approved

school”. Obviously, this provision is an enabling

provision to not only keep in mind that there is

no crowding of schools but at the same time, to

identify the localities where it is necessary to

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:44 :::
207

establish a School either managed by the local

Authority or on grant in aid, to achieve the objective

of the enactment of providing free and compulsory

education through primary school in the neighbourhood,

while preparation of detailed schemes, subject to

availability of funds. This provision cannot be

pressed into service against the private management

intending to establish a primary School on permanent

no-grant basis subject to fulfilling the conditions

for grant of recognition thereof.

45. The crucial chapter in these Rules is Chapter VII,

which specifically deal with the “approved schools”.

From the scheme of Chapter VII, conjointly read with

other provisions of the Act and the Rules, it would

appear that grant of recognition to a primary private

school permits the private management to establish the

school; but recognition to the school as approved

School would have different connotation, indicating

that the private management is not only allowed to

establish and run a Primary Private School but the

School is recognised as approved to receive grants in

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:44 :::
208

aid. The provisions of Chapter VII therefore, will have

to be understood in the context of this distinction.

Insofar as Rule 104 is concerned, it deals with opening

of new primary schools by the School Board. It provides

that a District School Board shall not open a new primary

school or take over a private school or incur additional

expenditure on primary schools maintained by it without

the sanction of Government or an officer authorised by

Government in this behalf. It further provides that

except as otherwise provided in these rules, a Municipal

School Board may, subject to the provision made in its

budget, open new primary school where necessary or to

take over private school or incur additional expenditure

on primary schools maintained by the authorised

municipality. The provisions regarding recognition of and

grant in aid to private schools are found in part (B) of

this Chapter. In this part, Rule 106 provides that the

Management of educational institutions should apply for

permission for establishing a private primary school.

Notably, before 1998 the requirement was to take

recognition. There was no provision to take permission

for opening of a new primary school. Rule 106 and Rule

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:44 :::
209

107(1) as it appears now came to be introduced in 1998.

It specifies as to what requirements should be

complied by the management and educational

institutions to be entitled for grant of permission

to start a new private primary school. On grant of

such permission, the management is expected to start

the primary school and thereafter apply for

recognition of that school to the competent

Authority. As in the case of provisions in Secondary

Schools Code, we may have to observe that Rule 106

is in relation to private management intending to

establish a primary school on “grant in-aid basis”

and will have no application to school to be started

on permanent unaided basis. Moreover, the opening

part of Rule 107(1) is contrary to Section 18 of the

Act of 2009 which mandates that the School shall not

function or run unless it is recognised by the

appropriate Authority. We have already dealt with

this aspect in some detail while considering the

issue regarding the Secondary/Higher Secondary

Schools and the same reasoning would apply to the

regime provided in the Rules of 1949. Inasmuch as,

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:44 :::
210

the compliances to be made by the private

management while applying for permission are of

elementary nature and the crucial matters are

examined only at the stage of considering grant of

recognition to the School under Rule 107. The view

taken by us that there is distinction between the

terms “recognised school” and “approved school” is

also reinforced from the language of Rule 107(4).

It provides that the appropriate Authority shall

consider the inspection report and the

recommendations of the Competent Authority thereon

and if satisfied about the need of the School in

the locality, the standard of work in and the

general management of the private school,

recognise the private school as approved school

and may, if the school has also applied for grant

in aid, direct that it should be treated as

eligible for the grant in aid from the primary

education fund or as the case may be, from the

district fund. Even Rule 108 also throws some

light on this interpretation. It provides that a

private school recognised as an approved school,

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:44 :::
211

shall be eligible for grant in aid on application

made in that behalf under Rule 110. The scheme of

the Rules is that once a school is an approved

school, it is ordinarily entitled to receive

grants in aid from the Government or appropriate

Authority. The situation as to when grant in aid

can be refused, is spelt out in Rules 111, when

the approved private primary school disqualifies

itself to receive such grant on the grounds

specified in that Rule. Although Rule 107(3)(b)

refers to one of the condition to be stated in the

inspection report as to whether the attendance of

pupils at the School is regular and satisfactory,

considering the scheme of Section 18 of the Act of

2009, this condition cannot be insisted upon – as

the School cannot function until recognition is

granted by appropriate Authority. On similar

lines, the requirement of Clauses (h) and (j) of

Rule 107(3) presupposes that the School has

already started soon after grant of permission.

The application for permission can be and ought to

be insisted upon only if the new Private Primary

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:44 :::
212

School is to be started on grant in aid basis but

grant of permission, however, by itself, would not

entitle nor permit starting of the Primary School

in absence of recognition of the School by the

appropriate Authority. Before issuing recognition

to the School concerned, conditions specified in

Rule 107(2) as well as Rule 107(3) will have to be

fulfilled by the private management. If the

private management intends to start the School on

“permanent no grant basis”, the appropriate

Authority in exercise of powers under Rule 107(4)

may only issue order to recognise the Private

School. But if the private management intends to

start the private Primary School on “grant in aid

basis or any other aid from the Government” and

have applied for that purpose, the appropriate

Authority in the same order can direct that the

School be treated as eligible for grant in aid

being an approved School from the Primary

Education Fund or as the case may be, from the

District Fund. The recognition of the private

Primary School as approved School would result in

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:44 :::
213

treating the School being eligible for the grant

in aid. We may also advert to Rule 109 which

provides for mechanism for withdrawal of

recognition. Rule 110 provides for when

application for grant in aid can be made and the

manner in which the same will have to be

processed. Rule 111 provides when the application

for grant in aid may be refused. It may not be

necessary to advert to other provisions in these

rules. Suffice it to observe that for the reasons

already recorded, while considering the question

as to whether prior permission ought to be taken

by the private management who intends to establish

the Secondary or Higher Secondary School, on the

same reasoning, inspite of the provisions in the

Act of 1947 and Rules of 1949 to which we have

already made reference, we have no hesitation to

hold that such requirement will be unreasonable

one when the private management intends to

establish the Primary School on permanent no grant

basis and without receiving any aid from the

Government whatsoever. The provisions requiring

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:44 :::
214

applying for permission would be relevant and ought

to be insisted upon in respect of Primary Private

Schools intending to start the same on grant in aid

basis. Once the private management applies for

permission to establish a School on no grant in aid

basis, cannot later on turn around and insist for

providing grant in aid or any other aid whatsoever

for the School. We shall presently deal with this

aspect.

46. Turning to the question as to whether prior

permission of the appropriate Authority to start a

primary school or for that matter secondary or higher

secondary school is essential, the same will have to

be considered on the touchstone of reasonableness of

such stipulation. The necessity of taking prior

permission to start a school is, primarily, to give

option to the appropriate Authority to consider

whether it was prepared to take the additional

financial burden arising on account of opening of a

new school. The appropriate Authority can exercise its

Veto to avoid its further financial obligation arising due

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:44 :::
215

to providing for grant in aid to such school

immediately or at a later point of time. The

allocation of grant would be dependent on the

availability of funds earmarked for that purpose

in the budget or outlay plans.

47. However, when the private management intends

to start a new school on unaided basis without

taking any assistance of the State Government in

any manner, financial or otherwise, the only

consideration that may be relevant before

allowing the private management to start a school

can be analogous to the requirements specified

under Rule 2.8 read with Rule 3.2 of the

Secondary Schools Code in relation to

Secondary/Higher Secondary Schools or Rule 107(2)

and (3) of the Rules of 1949 applicable to Primary

Schools – so as to ensure that the financial

position of the private management is proper and

the school would be capable of imparting quality

education and also ensure security in respect of

working conditions of the teaching and non

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:44 :::
216

teaching staff to be employed by the management.

Those aspects will have to be considered to

examine the application of the private management

for grant of recognition of the school, who intend

to start a primary or secondary or higher

secondary school on unaided basis. The Rules

in the Secondary School Code which deal with the

conditions for grant of recognition and of

withdrawal of recognition, the same read thus:-

“Conditions of Recognition

3.1 The management which have
been permitted by the Government

to open a new Secondary
School/Higher Secondary School

shall apply in duplicate for
recognition of that school, to
the Deputy Director through the
Education Officer (Secondary)

concerned within thirty days
from the date of opening of the
school. The application shall be
made in the forms given in
appendix two.

3.2 A School seeking recognition
of the Department shall satisfy
it as regards the following
conditions:-

(1) The School is actually
needed in the locality and it

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:44 :::
217

does not involve any unhealthy
competition with any existing
institutions of the same

category in the neighbourhood;

(2) The management is competent

and reliable and is in the hands
of a properly constituted
authority or managing committee;

(3) The financial stability of
the management is assured;

(4) The premises of the school
are sufficiently healthy, well

lighted and well-ventilated,
with due provision for the

safety of the pupils and contain
sufficient accommodation,
furniture and appliances for the

instructions and recreation of
the pupils attending it.

Separate and satisfactory
arrangements are provided for

girls, in the case of boys’
schools in which girls are

admitted;

(5) The education imparted in
the school is considered by the

appropriate authority to be
satisfactory in all respects.

All the members of the teaching
staff are suitable and possess
the prescribed qualifications
and are sufficient in number and

the school does not employ any
member notified as unsuitable
for employment by the Deputy
Director, under Rule 77.9 and
Rule 77.11;

(6) The school follows the

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:44 :::
218

curriculum approved by and uses
text-books sanctioned or
recommended by the appropriate

authority;

(7) Admission in various

standards are accordingly to the
rules and instructions of the
Department/ State Board of
Secondary and Higher Secondary

School Education, as the case
may be;

(8) Promotions made from
standard to standard are in

accordance with the principles
laid down by the Department/

State Board of Secondary and
Higher Secondary Education, as
the case may be;

(9) The rates of fees, the pay
scales, allowances and
conditions of service of the

staff and amenities provided are
according to the instructions

issued by the Department, from
time to time, or the managements
undertakes to adopt the rates of
fees and pay scales and

allowances laid down and provide
the necessary amenities within
the time specified by
Department.

(10) The school has adopted for

its staff the conditions of
service as prescribed by rules
in this code or as may be laid
down by Government, from time to
time;

(11) The school maintains the

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:45 :::
219

necessary registers and records
in a proper manner. (Please also
see rule 83 and Annexure 15):

(12) The records, statistical
returns and certificates given

by the school or the management
are trustworthy,

(13) The school undertakes to

make provisions, to the
satisfaction of the Department,
that the general rules of
discipline as laid down by
Government from time to time are

duly observed by the school
employees as well as by the

pupils;

(14) The school undertakes to

abide by such orders relating to
any of the above conditions or
to the working of the school or
its hostel, as may be, issued by

the Department, either generally
or in specific cases from time

to time;

(15) The management undertakes
not to conduct or allow

unrecognised schools or classes
to be conducted in the premises
of the school or elsewhere;

(16) The management shall adopt
within the time specified by the

Department:

(i) In case of aided schools
Government Provident Fund Scheme
for the members of teaching and
non-teaching staff who were
appointed prior to 1st April

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:45 :::
220

1966 and have opted for such a
scheme;

(ii) In case of unaided schools
Provident Fund Scheme based on
the Government Provident Fund

Scheme for its teaching and non-
teaching staff.

(17) The establishment and

functioning of Guardians and
Teachers Associations in school
is necessary.


      (Government     




                        
                           order          No. 

SSN/2696/Pra No 622 / Secondary
Education 2 dated 16th May

1996)”

3.3.(i) The Management of a
school not in receipt of any
grant in aid, which fails to
abide by the rules or orders of

the Department already laid down
or issued by it or that may be

issued or laid down from time to
time or to set right any
irregularity committed by them,
within the stipulated period,

inspite of a specific warning to
do so, shall deposit with
Government such amount as may be
prescribed by the Director with
due regard to the merit of the
case.

(ii) The deposit shall be liable
to be forfeited in full or in
part if the action taken in
abiding by the rules or in
setting right irregularities is,
in the opinion of the Director,

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:45 :::
221

inadequate or unsatisfactory or
if similar breach of rules or
irregularities is committed

thereafter.

(iii) A fresh deposit to make

up the forfeited amount or a
larger amount will have to be
given after the forfeiture of
the previous deposits within

fifteen days from the date of
the Director’s order to that
effect.

(iv) In case, the Management is

found to persist in its defaults
inspite of these steps, the

Department may proceed to
withdraw the recognition of the
school partially or fully as may

be considered necessary. The
condition of the school shall be
tested by due inspection.”

4.1. The recognition of the

schools shall be continued
provisionally from year to year
for subsequent four years by the
appropriate authority, after

their first year of recognition,
provided they continue to
fulfill the conditions of
recognition laid down in rule 3.

4.2. After the period of five

years, they may be considered
for permanent recognition by the
Deputy Director, provided they
continue to fulfill the
conditions laid down in Rule 3.

Power to Grant Recognition

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:45 :::
222

5.1. Schools will be recognised
for the first time by the Deputy

Director.

5.2. Subject to the fulfillment

of the conditions laid down and
those that may be laid down,
from time to time and subject to
satisfactory working, the

appropriate authority, may
continue the recognition of the
school for the next year(s)
after inspection.

Refusal of Recognition

6.1. When the recognition to a
school is refused for the first
time by the Deputy Director or

its further continuance is
refused by the appropriate
authority, the officer concerned
shall send a copy of the order

to the correspondent showing the
reasons for which the

recognition or its further
continuance is refused. The
Deputy Director shall endorse a
copy of his order to the

Education Officer.

6.2. Such an order of refusal
will be communicated to the
correspondent before the end of
January of the year concerned

provided application for
recognition was sent in time as
per rules.

6.3. The Management of the
school, recognition to which is
refused, may submit an appeal to

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:45 :::
223

the Secretary to the Government
of Maharashtra in the Department
dealing with Education within

thirty days from the date of
receipt of the order of refusal
or recognition. The appeal shall

be sent by registered post.

Appeals received after the
prescribed time-limit shall not
be entertained.

Withdrawal of Recognition

7.1. When a school, including a
permanently recognised school,
has ceased in the opinion of the

Department, to fulfill any of
the conditions of recognition,
recognition of that school may

be withdrawn.

7.2. When recognition is to be
withdrawn, the management will

be allowed a full opportunity
for its explanation. In such a

case, the management will be
informed of the specific defects
and called upon to explain
within a time limit to be

specified by the Deputy
Director, why recognition of the
school should not be withdrawn.

7.3. If the management is
prepared to remove the defects

communicated to it, a reasonable
time to be fixed by the Deputy
Director, may be allowed to the
Management to do so. If the
response of the management is,
in the opinion of the Deputy
Director, satisfactory,

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:45 :::
224

recognition may be continued,
subject to such further
condition and instructions as

may be deemed necessary. But
if the response is not
satisfactory, the recognition

may be withdrawn.

7.4. The power of withdrawal of
partial or total recognition,

including permanent recognition
shall rest with the Deputy
Director.

7.5. The Management of the
school, the partial or the total
recognition to which has been

withdrawn by the Deputy
Director, may submit an appeal
to the Director within thirty

days from the date of the said
order. The appeal shall be
sent by registered post.

Appeals received after the

prescribed time-limit will not
be entertained. (The Director or

his representative not b elow
the rank of the Joint Director
of Education, may decide the
appeal after giving hearing to

the representatives of the
Management and his decision
shall b e final and binding on
the Management.)

This portion is added vide (G.R.

No. GAC-1080/147/30-37 Dt.

14/4/80)

(No Management shall close
school or any of the recognised
classes or make voluntary change
in approved school subjects,

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:45 :::
225

which may result in any of its
permanent staff being rendered
surplus, without due notice to

the Regional Deputy Director of
Education, atleast one academic
term in advance, and act as per

his decision. An appeal on the
decision of the Deputy Director
of Education in this case shall
lie with the Director of the

Education.)

This portion is added vide (G.R.
NO. GAC-1090/234/SE.2 Dt.

17/12/90)

7.6. The Management shall not

shift any school run by it from
its existing location to any
other location for any reason,

without prior written permission
of Government. If the
Management shifts the school
without prior permission of

Government, the recognition of
such a school shall

automatically stand withdrawn on
ground of such unauthorised
shifting.

The rule is added vide (G.R. No.
GAC-1081/283/SE.2 Dt. 24/7/81).

48. A priori, the regime provided in Rule

2.1. to 2.14 of the Secondary Schools Code or Rule

106 of the Rules of 1949 can be insisted upon only

in respect of proposals for starting new school

“on grant in aid basis” as that may result in

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:45 :::
226

financial implication for the Public Funds. But,

in the light of the provisions of Act of 2009,

grant of permission by itself would not entitle

the management to start the school. That can be

done only upon grant of Certificate of

recognition.

49. What is significant to notice is that

the compliances to be made for grant of permission

are of very preliminary nature, as referred to in

Rule 2.8 of the Secondary Schools Code or Rule 106

of the Rules of 1949. The crucial and material

conditions are considered only at the time of

scrutiny of the proposal for recognition, in terms

of Rule 3.2 of the Code or Rule 107 of the Rules

of 1949. Only at the stage of recognition, the

Department has to be satisfied that the school is

actually needed in the locality and it would not

result in unhealthy competition with any existing

institutions “of the same category” in the

neighbourhood; competence and reliability of the

management of the proposed school; financial

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:45 :::
227

stability of the management; regarding the

infrastructure and the due provision for safety of

the pupils and separate sufficient arrangement for

the girls is provided. There are other matters

provided in Rule 3.2 of the Code and Rule 107 of

the Rules of 1949, which are to be reckoned while

considering the proposal for recognition of the

school.

50. The fact that the private management

intending to start an unaided school is not

obliged to take prior permission of the State,

does not extricate the said management from

complying and fulfilling the strict norms and

standards including the terms and conditions for

grant of recognition. Notably, the factor

regarding existence of another school in the

locality or non inclusion of the locality for a

school in the perspective plan are not ascribable

to the conditions provided in Rule 2.8 of the Code

or Rule 106 of the Rules of 1949, but are found

in Rule 3.2 (1) of the Code and Rule 107(2)(a) of

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:45 :::
228

the Rules of 1949, which is relevant to consider

proposal for “recognition” of the school. Thus,

in relation to proposal for private unaided

schools, the regime regarding recognition provided

in Rule 3.1 to 7.6 of the Code and Rules 106 to

109 of the Rules of 1949 would be material; and

compliance of conditions specified in Rules 3.1

and 3.2 of Code and Rule 107 of the Rules of 1949

would be necessary. Indeed, hereafter these

conditions may be in addition to the norms and

standards specified in Sections 19, 25 and

Schedule to the Act of 2009.

51. As aforesaid, the entire perspective

regarding right to establish an educational

institution by private unaided educational

institution has undergone a sea change after the

decision of the Apex Court in T.M.A. Pai (supra)

and the enactment of Act of 2009. The argument

of the State that the said decision was at the

instance of the private management in whose favour

permission to run educational institution was

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:45 :::
229

already granted can be no basis to distinguish

the said decision or to overlook the exposition

therein.

52. Be that as it may, it is well established

position that the provisions of Secondary Schools

Code are only a compendium of administrative

instructions. If the requirements under the said

Rules 2.1 to 2.14 of Code or for that matter Rule

106 of the Rules of 1949 can be insisted upon even

qua the private management intending to start an

unaided educational institution, can it be said

that those requirements are in the interests of

the general public and reasonable restrictions? To

answer this controversy, we would advert to clause

(6) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India,

which reads thus:

” (6) Nothing in sub-clause (g)
of the said clause shall affect
the operation of any existing
law in so far as it imposes, or
prevent the State from making
any law imposing, in the
interests of the general

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:45 :::
230

public, reasonable restrictions
on the exercise of the right
conferred by the said sub-

clause, and, in particular,
(nothing in the said sub-clause
shall affect the operation of

any existing law in so far as
it relates to, or prevent the
State from making any law
relating to,-

(i) the professional or
technical qualifications
necessary for practicing any
profession or carrying on any

occupation, trade or business,
or

(ii) the carrying on by the
State, or by a corporation
owned or controlled by the

State, of any trade, business,
industry or service, whether to
the exclusion, complete or
partial, of citizens or

otherwise.”

53. We have already held that the subject of

imparting education cannot be said to be in the

exclusive domain of the State. It can be

supplemented by the private entrepreneurs or

Associations and institutions. If so, the

restrictions such as to take prior permission to

start the school (even if the private management

intends to establish the educational institution

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:45 :::
231

with proper infrastructure and willing to abide by

the strictest regime to be articulated by the

State to maintain high quality of education and

adequate security to its employees coupled with

guarantee of no commercialization or profiteering

that too without seeking any aid from the State-

financial or otherwise), would impinge upon the

fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 (1)

(g) of the Constitution. For, the State can only

regulate the activity by imposing reasonable

restrictions in the interests of the general

public. The reasonable restrictions can be in the

form of imposing strictest of conditions for

regulating the said activity whilst at the stage

of granting recognition and later on for

continuation of such recognition of the

educational institutions. However, insistence for

prior permission for establishing an educational

institution on permanent no grant basis; and more

so that requirement being insisted by the State in

the context of the perspective plan formulated or

to be formulated by it, cannot stand the test of

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:45 :::
232

reasonable restriction, much less in the interests

of the general public.

54. Once the right to establish an educational

institution is recognized as a fundamental right

available to any private management, the State

cannot lightly interfere with such right of private

management on the ground that the location chosen

by the private management is not specified in its

perspective plan. For, the perspective plan

referred to in the Secondary Schools Code or the

Scheme envisaged in Rules of 1949 or for that

matter the School Development Plan in Section 22 of

the Act of 2009, would be and ought to be relevant

only to those educational institutions which are to

be run by the local Authority or by the private

management on “grant in aid basis or receiving any

other aid from the Government”. The primary

objective of the perspective plan or the school

Development Plan as the case may be, is to ensure

that there is uniform and need based allocation of

grant in aid to aided institutions so as to invest and

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:46 :::
233

spend public funds to provide a platform for

pursuing compulsory education to the deserving

children in the given region, considering the

population and the felt need of an educational

institution at that place. The perspective plan is

relevant only to discharge the primary obligation

of the State of providing free and compulsory

education to children of specified age and can

have no bearing on the private management

intending to start private institutions on

permanent no grant basis without taking any aid

from the State – financial or otherwise. Whereas,

such private unaided institutions would not only

lend support to the Government in discharging its

constitutional obligation but also provide for

healthy competition to the Government aided

schools and more importantly fair opportunity to

the children in the locality to choose between

the two institutions subject to their capacity to

pay the fees of the private institution run on

permanent no grant basis. In Paragraph 56, in

T.M.A. Pai’s case (supra), the Apex Court has

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:46 :::
234

taken judicial note of the fact that better

working conditions will attract better teachers.

More amenities will ensure that better students

seek admission to that institution. Further, one

cannot lose sight of the fact that we live in a

competitive world today, where providing quality

education alone can lead to emancipation and

empowerment. A large number of institutions have

been started by private management who do not seek

Governmental aid. Resultantly, the children will

have various options open to him/her.

55. In Paragraph 61 of the same decision, the

Court proceeded to observe that it is no secret

that the examination results at all levels of

unaided private schools, notwithstanding the

stringent regulations of the Governmental

Authorities, are far superior to the results of

the Government-maintained schools. There is no

compulsion to attend private schools. The rush for

admission is occasioned by the standards

maintained in such schools, and recognition of the

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:46 :::
235

fact that State-run schools do not provide the

same standard of education. It has further

observed that the State says that it has no funds

to establish institutions at the same level of

excellence as private schools. To avoid lowering

of standards from excellence to a level of

mediocrity, the solution would appear to lie in

the States not using their scanty resources to

prop up institutions that are able to otherwise

maintain themselves out of the fees charged, but

in improving the facilities and infrastructure of

State-run schools and in subsidizing the fees

payable by the students there. It will be in the

interests of the general public that more good

quality schools are established. In Paragraph 49

of the same decision, the Apex Court opined that

not only the demand has overwhelmed the ability of

the State to provide education, but there has also

been a significant change in the way of education

is perceived. It went on to observe that the

logic of today’s economics and an ideology of

privatization have contributed to the resurgence

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:46 :::
236

of private higher education, and the establishment

of private institutions where none or very few

existed before. Even in the case of Unni

Krishnan (supra), in Paragraph 149, the Apex Court

took judicial notice of the fact that the hard

reality which emerges is that private educational

institutions “are a necessity” in the present day

context. Further, it is not possible to do

without them as the State is in no position to

meet the ever growing demand. It also found that

education is one of the most important functions

of the State but have no monopoly therein. Even

the private educational institutions too have a

role to play.

56. Considering the above, we are of the view

that children and their parents who exercise

choice in favour of the private unaided schools

would take admissions in those schools by choice

and not by compulsion. Indeed, no private unaided

school can compel the students in the locality to

take admission in their school. Nor such a

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:46 :::
237

private unaided school can be compelled to admit

children in its school after its establishment so

as to impart free education to “all its students”

– as a precondition for grant of recognition. We

have no doubt that such restriction by no

standards, can be said to be reasonable

restriction qua the private unaided institution.

However, after commencement of Act of 2009, by

virtue of Section 12(1)(c) read with 2(n)(iv), the

State whilst granting recognition to the private

unaided school, may specify permissible percentage

of the seats to be ear-marked for deserving

children who may not be in a position to pay their

fees or charges or expenses of the private school.

The Apex Court in T.M.A. Pai’s case (supra), in

Paragraph 53, has observed that the State while

prescribing qualification for admissions in a

private unaided institutions may provide for

condition of giving admission to a small

percentage of students belonging to weaker

sections of the society by granting them freeships

or scholarships, if not granted by the Government.

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:46 :::
238

Applying the said law, such condition can be

imposed while granting recognition to the private

unaided institutions, provided, however, the

percentage should not result in a situation that

running of the school would become unviable in the

long run. Indeed, by virtue of Section 12(2) read

with Section 2(n)(iv), private unaided school

would be entitled to be reimbursed with the

expenditure incurred by it in providing free and

compulsory elementary education to children

belonging to weaker sections and disadvantaged

group in the neighbourhood to the extent of per-

child-expenditure incurred by the State in a

school specified in Section 2(n)(i), or the

actual amount charged from the child, whichever is

less. That reimbursement, however, is not in the

nature of grant or aid as such, but simplicitor

reimbursement of the expenses incurred by the

school qua the specified percentage of children at

the prescribed rate. Imposing of such restriction

however, would not create any right in favour of

the private unaided school to ask for grant in aid

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:46 :::
239

for the school on the assertion that it is

virtually discharging the obligation of the State

of providing free education to children below the

age of 14 years. In as much as, by virtue of

Section 12(1)(c) of the Act of 2009, it is as much

the statutory obligation of every recognised

school to provide free and compulsory education to

the specified percentage of children admitted in

that regard and also a condition for grant and

continuation of recognition. Some what similar

arrangement is provided in respect of

hospitals run by the public charitable trusts to

offer free medical aid to specified percentage or

number of patients. Such a restriction is in the

interests of the general public and also a

reasonable restriction. Such measure addresses

both the aspects, namely, upholding the

fundamental right of the private management to

establish an unaided educational institution of

their choice and at the same time securing the

interests of the children in the locality, in

particular, those who may not be able to pursue

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:46 :::
240

education due to inability to pay fees or charges

or expenses of the private unaided schools.

Further, starting of private unaided school in a

given locality may provide a platform to the

children in the locality to avail of the facility

offered by the private unaided school on agreed

terms and conditions which terms, however, should

not result in profiteering or commercialization.

In case any complaint in that behalf is received,

it will be the obligation of the State to step in

immediately so as to remedy such mischief at the

earliest opportunity.

57. It may be relevant to mention that at

the national level, there is a serious debate of

having uniform education policy to integrate the

different educational streams so as to provide

quality and meaningful education. Significantly,

the restriction to take prior permission is only

essential in relation to the schools governed by

the provisions of the Secondary Schools Code or

the Rules of 1949. Besides the schools governed

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:46 :::
241

by the said Regulations, it is common knowledge

that other schools are also established in the

same locality which are governed by different

Boards and Regulations such as I.C.S.E., C.B.S.E.,

I.B. and I.G.C.E. etc. The existence of

perspective plan or non existence thereof, has no

relevance for establishment of those schools.

Thus, the logic given by the State of existence of

another school in the locality, so as to deny the

claim of private institution to establish an

educational institution on permanent no grant

basis in the same locality in the context of its

perspective plan, is inapplicable qua other

institutions not governed by the stated

Regulations. The Logic of the State is founded on

Rule 3.2(1) of the Code or Rule 107(2)(a) of the

Rules of 1949, which provide that the Authority

should be satisfied that the school is actually

needed in the locality and it would not involve in

any unhealthy competition with any existing

institutions of the same category in the

neighbourhood. Besides, the restriction of

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:46 :::
242

observing 5 kms. distance was on the basis of

policy placed before this Court in Gramvikas

S.P.Mandal(supra). In the first place, having

regard to the mandate of Section 6 read with 9(b)

of the Act of 2009 the Government is obliged to

ensure that school is established in the

neighbourhood at the Gram Panchayat level.

Besides, in the recent decision of Full Bench of

our High Court in the case of Shikshan Prasarak

Mandal Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. reported in

2009 (5) Mh.L.J. 969, to which one of us was

party (A.M.Khanwilkar, J), it is held that the

condition of 5 kms. radius or distance is not a

mandatory or absolute condition – as it has an

inbuilt element of relaxation. At any rate, even

as per the abovesaid provisions, the existing

institution must be of “the same category”, e.g.,

aided or unaided as the case may be. Further,

even if the existing school in the locality is of

the same category, that would not justify the

rejection of its proposal to grant recognition to

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:46 :::
243

start an unaided school of the private management,

unless it is further found that the establishment

of the new school of the same category would

result in unhealthy competition. In a given case

it is possible that the new school to be

established in the locality on unaided basis

where another unaided school already exists, may

be able to cater to the requirement of entirely

different class or category of children or with

ultra modern facilities and for more and better

opportunities to the children. Such a school may

broadly fit into the description of “the same

category” in the locality being an unaided school,

but still it can be a school with a difference

and not stricto senso of the same category.

These are matters to be decided on case to case

basis.

58. The controversy which has arisen before

us, in our opinion, is the making of the State

Government for having recently extended grant in

aid to large number of private institutions which

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:47 :::
244

were initially started on permanent no grant basis

in absence of the perspective plan. The

consequences of financial implication to the State

flowing from that decision can be no justification

to negate the right recognized by the Constitution

guaranteed to every citizen to establish an

educational institution on permanent no grant

basis, by issuing one fiat. The State Government

at best is competent only to impose reasonable

restriction as condition for grant of recognition,

such as to maintain high quality education and

provide security to the staff to be employed by

the School; but cannot reject the proposal merely

because the location where the private management

intends to start the school on permanent no grant

basis, is not specified in its perspective plan

or non existence thereof. As aforesaid, the

perspective plan or the School Development Plan,

as the case may be, are primarily to identify the

localities in which the Government intends to

provide free and compulsory education by way of

giving grants to the private aided schools. That

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:47 :::
245

has no relevance to the consideration of proposal of

the private management to grant recognition to start

school on permanent non-grant basis or any aid

whatsoever.

59. The right of the private management need not

be confused with the constitutional obligation of the

State to provide free and compulsory education to all

children of the age of 6 to 14 years. Granting

recognition to a private management school started on

permanent no grant basis, by itself cannot be the

basis to assume that the State has failed to

discharge its obligation to provide free and

compulsory education to all children of the age of 6

to 14 years in that locality. The private management

institution which has been started on clear

understanding that recognition is granted to run the

school on permanent no grant basis and not receiving

any other aid whatsoever from the Government, cannot

be heard to say that it is entitled for grant in aid

because there was no existing school in the said

locality to provide for free and compulsory

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:47 :::
246

education to children of specified age. For, it would be

a case of a conscious decision of the Private Management

to start the school on permanent no grant basis and

without taking any kind of assistance from the State. It

would be a different matter if the State recognizing the

fact that there is no school run by the local Authority

or the State or grant in aid school in a given locality

and “that locality is specified in the perspective or

School Development Plan” coupled with the fact that

substantial number of children of that locality are

unable to pursue and complete the elementary education

inspite of the private unaided school providing for

specified seats for that purpose, due to inability to

afford fees or charges or expenses therefor, may on its

own consider to provide grants to that school in terms

of Section 22(2) of the Act of 2009. Whereas, if a

locality is not included in the perspective/School

Development Plan the question of giving grants to private

schools in such locality does not arise. In that case,

however, the unaided school would be entitled only for

reimbursement of the expenses incurred by

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:47 :::
247

it on the children admitted against the specified

percentage at the prescribed rate, in terms of

Section 12(2) read with Section 2(n)(iv) of the

Act of 2009. Thus understood, the provisions

requiring prior permission from the State

Government for establishment of an educational

institution to be started on permanent no grant

basis and without taking any aid from the State

whatsoever – financial or otherwise, cannot stand

the test of reasonable restrictions or in the

interests of the general public as such. That,

however, does not mean that the private management

intending to establish an educational institution

would be entitled for recognition of the school as

a matter of course.

60. In the age of Globalisation and

privatization, it would be a pedantic approach of

the State to insist that without its prior

permission and more so unless the locality where

the proposed institution is to be started is

identified in the perspective plan to be prepared

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:47 :::
248

by it, the private management intending to

establish school strictly on permanent no grant

basis, cannot avail of the fundamental right

guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the

Constitution. On the other hand, the State should

be encouraging private investment in educational

institutions on unaided basis – which the private

management is entitled to pursue on condition that

it would fulfill the prescribed norms and

standards and not indulge in profiteering and

commercialization of education. Those are matters

of regulation and strict enforcement of such

regime. In our view, establishment of private

unaided institution would not affect the prospects

of the municipal schools or grant in aid schools.

No hard facts to hold otherwise are placed before

us. The children who do not have paying capacity

to pursue studies in a private institution would

continue with the municipal or grant in aid

schools or take admission in the private unaided

schools against the seats earmarked for as per

Section 12(1)(c) of the Act of 2009. But those

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:47 :::
249

children who can afford fees and charges of the

private institution, alone would be attracted to

the private institution provided the performance

of that institution is better and it offers higher

quality education and amenities in relative terms.

The children from the locality will have a choice

between the private unaided school and the

municipal or grant in aid schools. Taking any

other view would be denial of opportunity to the

children to exercise the option to pursue quality

education to be imparted by the unaided schools to

make them self reliant and not merely potential

pen-pushers. The apprehension of the State that by

induction of the private institution in the

locality, the strength of the students ratio in

the municipal or grant in aid school would be

affected, making it difficult to sustain the

divisions, is completely misplaced for the same

reason. The demand for more educational

institutions is ever growing. If the State cannot

provide educational institutions imparting quality

education at every nook and corner of the State,

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:47 :::
250

even though constitutionally obliged to do so, on

account of financial compulsions or inadequate

infrastructural resources, there is no

justification to deny opportunity to the private

management to establish an unaided educational

institution in such locality, on the specious

reasoning that the locality is not included in

its perspective or School Development Plan.

61.

We have no hesitation in taking the view

that preparation of a perspective plan and School

Development Plan or for that matter, non inclusion

of the locality in the said plans where the

proposed school is to be established by the

private management on permanent no grant basis,

can be no ground to disallow the private

management to establish an unaided educational

institution in such locality. That approach

cannot be sustained either on the touchstone of

the interests of the general public or reasonable

restriction as such. At any rate the approach of

the State to take a blanket decision and cancel or

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:47 :::
251

reject all the pending proposals, by no standards

can stand the test of judicial scrutiny. It is a

clear case of arbitrary exercise of power and non

application of mind, hit by Article 14 of the

Constitution of India. For, each proposal was

expected to be examined on its own merits on case

to case basis in the context of conditions for

grant of recognition and not assumed authority to

grant permission.

62. As aforesaid, the perspective plan or

School Development Plan would be only a barometer

of the requirement of educational institutions to

be “funded by the State” at the macro level as

well as micro level across the State. At the macro

level, the State would decide about the total

number of schools to be established across the

State subject to its financial capability to bear

the burden of grant in aid therefor. At the micro

level, it would be the felt need of the local area

(Tanda, village, Taluka, District) where free and

compulsory education is indispensable and

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:47 :::
252

imperative. While determining the number of

schools to be established at the micro as well as

macro level, to make the perspective plan or

School Development Plan meaningful and effective,

it is expected that the State must first

thoroughly investigate so as to identify the

schools which are receiving grant in aid but are

either non performing or performing below the

bench mark level, either in terms of

infrastructure or quality of education imparted

and other incidental matters. Now, by virtue of

the Act of 2009, all schools established prior to

the commencement of the said Act are obliged to

fulfill the norms and standards specified

interalia in Sections 25, 26 and Schedule of that

Act, as per Section 19(2) thereof. The State is

expected to first weed out those schools which are

non performing, under performing or non-compliant

schools and upon closure of such schools, the

students and the teaching and non teaching staff

thereof should be transferred to the neighbourhood

school. That would not only strengthen the

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:47 :::
253

latter school by adequate number of students to

consolidate the division and also impart quality

education due to addition of teaching staff.

Needless to observe, that if there is inadequate

response to the Government funded school, it is

but appropriate that either the divisions thereof

or the school itself be closed and the students

and staff of such school be transferred to

another neighbourhood school by resorting to

Section 18(3) of the Act of 2009. Only after

taking such hard decisions the perspective plan or

the School Development Plan would represent the

correct position regarding the need of Government

aided schools in every locality across the State,

to fulfill the aspirations of the Act of 2009 to

provide free and compulsory quality education.

Besides, it will ensure proper and meaningful

utilisation of public funds. If we may say so,

it is trite to keep in mind that right spending of

limited finance by the State would give impetus to

right education (quality education) in the schools

which deserve the Government aid. Besides, it

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:47 :::
254

will ensure proper and meaningful utilisation of

public funds. In absence of this exercise, the end

result would be that on account of existing non

performing or under performing and non-compliant

school, the perspective plan or School Development

Plan would not reckon that locality for

establishment of another school. If the State is

right in its stand that unless additional school

in the locality is permitted under the said plans,

no other school can be established in that

locality; would have direct bearing on the rights

of the children who are the consumers of the

facility of imparting free and compulsory

education in that locality to get quality

education. For, they would be compelled to pursue

their studies in the non performing or under

performing and non-compliant schools. In other

words, before the final perspective plan or School

Development Plan is finalised by the State

Government in regard to schools run on grant in

aid basis, we expect the State to examine the

above position and take appropriate corrective and

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:47 :::
255

remedial steps in that behalf in right earnest. In

our view, the State Government, by resorting to

the provisions of Act of 2009, must take

opportunity to reorganise its financial outflow

at the micro level by weeding out the non-

performing or under performing and non-compliant

schools receiving grant in aid, so as to ensure

that only such Government funded Schools, who

fulfill the norms and standards, are allowed to

continue, to achieve the objective of the

enactment – of not only providing free and

compulsory education to the children in the

neighbourhood school but also to provide them

quality education. The end product of such

exercise would be to identify the genuine need –

be it at the micro level or macro level across the

State from all angles, which will then be

reflected in the perspective/School Development

Plan and at the same time, the public exchequer

would be saved on avoidable expenditure of

propping the non-compliant schools. That is the

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:47 :::
256

power coupled with duty of the State, even in

terms of the Scheme of the Act of 2009.

63. That takes us to the argument of the State

that the experience shows that the divisions of

some of the existing grant in aid schools were

required to be closed down and that the existing

number of schools was sufficient to cope with the

demand of students in the concerned localities.

In the first place no details to substantiate this

plea has been placed before us. Besides, the

counsel appearing for the Petitioners contend

that this stand of the State is incorrect if not

misleading. According to them, the divisions of

some of the aided schools were required to be

closed down because new schools were started in

the neighbourhood villages where no school was in

existence. Students from such villages preferred

to take admissions in the newly started school in

their neighbourhood locality. If that is the

position, it is not open to the State to contend

that since the divisions of some of the grants in

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:47 :::
257

aid schools were required to be closed down,

addition of any new school would lead to unhealthy

competition.

64. As observed earlier, entry of private

institutions on permanent no grant basis and

without receiving any kind of Government aid, who

are willing to abide by the strictest regime and

terms and conditions for grant of recognition and

for continuation of such recognition, would only

create an atmosphere of healthy competition

between the aided schools and unaided schools.

Further, the children from the locality can make a

choice to opt for unaided school if they have

capacity to pay the fees or charges or expenses of

that school. But that would be entirely by choice

and not by compulsion. On the other hand, if they

are comfortable with the quality of education and

the facilities available in the Municipal or aided

school itself, there is no reason for them to

withdraw from such school and take their chance in

the private unaided school where they will be

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:47 :::
258

required to pay relatively high fees or charges or

expenses. They would do so only if they have the

means to pay such fees or charges or expenses

and are convinced that taking admission in unaided

school in their neighbourhood would be more

beneficial and would give them better opportunity

and exposure to become a self reliant person and

not be a mere potential pen-pusher.

65. We are conscious of the fact that in

rural areas and more so in tribal areas the

financial capacity may not permit the parents to

admit their children in private management schools

on payment of fees or charges or expenses. In a

given case, inspite of the necessity to have a

school in such locality, if the perspective or

School Development Plan does not provide for a

school in such locality, there would be no school

in that locality. We are informed across the Bar

that according to the Petitioners, in the State of

Maharashtra there are at least 11,000 villages

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:48 :::
259

where no primary school is available and about

50,000 villages where no secondary school is

available. On account of the inability of the

State to establish schools in such regions due to

financial constraint, the students of such

villages are being denied opportunity of education

or are forced to travel some distance to attend

schools in another locality. If, in such places,

the private institutions were to establish

educational institutions on permanent no grant

basis and provide education to the locals either

free of cost or offer a package to them which

would be affordable as any philanthropic

organization or citizen with mission in life would

do, there is no reason why private school on

permanent no grant basis in such a locality should

not be permitted. Recognizing a private

institution started by a private management on

permanent no grant basis, does not absolve the

State of its constitutional obligation to provide

free and compulsory education in that locality.

In due course, subject to availability of finance,

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:48 :::
260

the State can start a new grant in aid school or

may consider of extending grant in aid to the

private management school or consider of giving

subsidy or free scholarship to the students

deserving free and compulsory education. That

decision will have to be taken on case to case

basis and not the manner in which it has been

taken by the State to convert large number of

schools started on permanent no grant basis

without the perspective plan to grant in aid basis

by issuance of one fiat. The justification to

extend grant in aid to large number of schools

started on permanent no grant basis without the

perspective plan, is only due to some statement

made on affidavit before the High Court in one of

the Writ Petitions. We will not dilate any further

on this matter as we are not called upon to

examine the legality and correctness of the said

decision in the present proceedings. Suffice it to

observe that the interests of the general public

would be subserved by recognizing the schools to

be started by the deserving private institutions

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:48 :::
261

on permanent no grant basis in such locality.

66. The argument of the Respondents that the

private institutions exploit the students and the

teaching and non-teaching staff, is an argument

exposing the weakness of the State in having

proper and effective mechanism to regulate and

control the private institutions which are

started on permanent no grant basis. Instead of

advancing such argument, the State should play a

proactive role in setting up permanent Regulatory

Authority invested with the task of continual

monitoring of such institutions, both in respect

of infrastructure, quality of education and also

matters relating to the staff employed by the

school as well as charging of fees or charges from

the students whether results in profiteering and

commercialization of education so as to deal with

such acts of commission and omission with

promptitude. In terms of Section 32 of the Act of

2009, any person having any grievance relating to

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:48 :::
262

right of a child can make a complaint which has to

be disposed of within “three months”. In addition,

the responsibility to monitor child’s right to

education is on the Commissions established under

the provisions of the Commissions for Protection

of Child Rights Act 2005, by virtue of Section 31

of the Act of 2009. There is need to revitalize

this machinery if already in place to address

these aspects. ig

67. What is required to be addressed by the

State Government is to not only focus on the

strict norms and standards for grant of

recognition, but equally on strict regime for

ensuring that the conditions imposed are being

complied in its letter and spirit by the private

institutions run on permanent no grant basis,

failing which steps to withdraw recognition of

that school should be resorted to with utmost

dispatch. While providing for mechanism to keep

complete tab on the requirements of infrastructure

and quality education as also to provide security

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:48 :::
263

to staff employed in such institution and related

issues as well as to ensure that the said private

institutions do not indulge in profiteering and

commercialization, may if thought proper,

consider of imposing conditions in addition to the

conditions specified in Sections 19, 25 read with

Schedule of the Act of 2009 and provisions of

Rules 3 to 7 of the Secondary School Code, such

as;

(i) No exploitation of staff and of mandatory

requirement to pay the monthly salary only

through the nominated bank account.

(ii) The management of unaided school should be

asked to set apart sufficient amount in advance to

secure the full salary and emoluments for a

specified period of the entire staff to be

employed by the school, to be invested in an

escrow account of which the Education Officer

should be made signatory and authorized to operate

the same in case of exigency.

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:48 :::
264

(iii) The management should be made to deposit at

least an amount equivalent to one term (half

year’s) tuition fees to be collected by the

unaided school from the prospective students

permitted to be admitted in the school and that

amount to be invested in an escrow account of

which the Education Officer should be made

signatory and authorized to operate that account

in case of exigency.

(iv) Strict compliance about the basic

infrastructure specified in the Schedule to the

Act of 2009 including regarding building,

playground, electricity/permanent D.G. Set or such

other device to generate alternative energy,

Library, proper furniture and fixtures, sports

equipments etc., security, school transport,

drinking water and proper hygiene commensurate

with the strength of the students of the school.

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:48 :::
265

(v) Commercialization or profiteering should be

eschewed and there should be zero tolerance level

in that behalf. (There should be a permanent

Regulatory Authority constituted for timely

resolution of such grievance. That is necessary

even in the context of Maharashtra Educational

Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act,

1987).

(vi) Provide for transparency and fairness in

admission procedure. The same is adhered to in

compliance of Sections 13 and 15 of the Act of

2009.

(vii) Require the private management – until

the school to be established by the private

management is recognized, to “prominently”

display on its web site, school board, pamphlets,

receipts, bills and letter heads and all other

official documents that it is not a recognized

school.

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:48 :::
266

68. These are some of the measures which if

followed, would subserve the interests of the

general public. The above stated condition Nos.

(ii) and (iii) would ensure that the fly by the

night schools are not allowed to start even though

they may intend to do so on permanent no grant

basis.

69. The learned Government Pleader for the State

has placed emphasis on the decision in the case of

Gramvikas Shikshan Prasarak Mandal (supra) to

justify the impugned action of cancellation of all

the proposals pertaining to Marathi medium school

in absence of perspective plan. In the first

place, we are in agreement with the argument of

the Petitioners that the said Judgment is mere

restatement of the policy and scheme formulated by

the State and as modified on the basis of

suggestions made by the Court. No more and no

less. Secondly, we find force in the argument of

the Petitioners that assuming the said decision

was to be treated as a binding precedent on the

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:48 :::
267

question that no private management can be

permitted to start a school in absence of a

perspective plan even if it was to be started on

permanent no grant basis; that opinion has been

impliedly over-ruled by the Apex Court in the case

of Superstar Education Society (supra). In that,

relying on the former decision, another Division

Bench of this Court in the case of Maharashtra

Rajya Shikshan Sanstha Mahamandal vs. State of

Maharashtra and others, 2006 (6) Bom.C.R. Page 139

had quashed and set aside permissions granted to

as many as 1495 new primary, secondary and higher

secondary schools in the State of Maharashtra

granted for the academic session 2006-2007 in

absence of a perspective plan. However, the Apex

Court in the case of Superstar Education Society

(supra), reversed that view and unambiguously held

that non existence of a perspective plan does not

bar grant of permission to schools. In any case,

for the reasons mentioned earlier and more

particularly, in the context of the exposition of

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:48 :::
268

the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in

T.M.A. Pai (supra) and the enactment of Act of

2009, the issue will have to be considered in

entirely different perspective. For, by now it is

well established position that to establish and

start an educational institution is a fundamental

right which can only be regulated by imposing

reasonable restrictions and in the interests of

the general public. Besides, we have already taken

the view that the perspective plan has relevance

only in relation to the schools, which would

receive grant in aid from the State or are

Government funded schools. That perspective plan

cannot whittle down the fundamental right of the

private management to establish an unaided school

of their choice, even if they were to fulfill all

the mandatory requirements to impart quality

education and secure the interests of the stake

holders in that school and abide by the regime of

no profiteering and no commercialization. The

Government would have no option but to grant

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:48 :::
269

recognition or affiliation to start such school on

permanent no grant basis and without receiving any

other aid from the Government. In the

circumstances, the decision in Gramvikas Shikshan

Prasarak Mandal (supra), would be of no avail to

the State to answer the controversy on hand.

70. Our attention was also invited to the

decision of the Apex Court in Vidarbha Sikshan

Vyawasthapak Mahasangh vs. State of Maharashtra and

others,1986 (4) Supreme Court Cases, Page 361 to

contend that if the view which we intend to take was

to prevail, it would lead to a chaotic situation as

there will be excessive schools than the number of

students available. We have already rejected this

argument being devoid of merits. The argument

proceeds on the assumption that there will be a mad

rush for opening of unaided educational institutions

throughout the State, which may result in unhealthy

competition and unregulated situation. The argument

clearly overlooks that no private management or

entrepreneur would venture into an occupation

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:49 :::
270

which is unviable and in any case would not be

able to sustain for a long if that situation

prevails except that the said activity is mission

in his life. In any case this apprehension will be

adressed by imposing strict conditions at the time

of grant of recognition. Notably, in terms of Rule

4.1 of the Secondary Schools Code, only

provisional recognition from year to year basis is

granted for first four years by the appropriate

Authority on fulfillment of the conditions of

recognition. And only on completion of period of

five years, the School is considered for grant of

permanent recognition. Thus, there is inbuilt

mechanism provided to ensure that only Schools

which would impart quality education and comply

with the essential norms and standards and

conditions for grant of recognition would

continue to function.

71. We are conscious of the fact that on account

of inadequate response, the newly started school

may close down with the result, the students in

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:49 :::
271

the said school will have to be absorbed in

another recognized school, but that would be the

evolving process of consolidation of unaided

institutions which are able to compete and

sustain on its own and at the same time impart

quality education to the students in the locality.

The apprehension of disastrous situation arising

on account of closure of the school also can be

addressed if the State were to impose restrictions

as condition for grant of recognition, as

indicated by us earlier, so as to avoid

exploitation of staff and students. Insofar as

the apprehension of students becoming surplus due

to closure of school, clearly overlooks that the

students from the said school can be accommodated

in a neighbourhood recognized school either

unaided or aided as the case may be. As it is the

primary obligation of the State to ensure

education to children between the age of 6 to 14

years, such absorption would be ascribable to

that obligation. If the State were to impose

precondition of depositing one term (half

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:49 :::
272

year’s) tuition fees of all the students of that

school in the escrow account of which the

Education Officer would be the signatory and

authorized to operate in case of exigency, he can

direct transfer of commensurate amount or fees

received from such transferee students by the

school to the school to which the students would

be transferred and admitted to pursue their

further education. In that case, the school to

which such students are transferred can have no

grievance whatsoever and in fact would be

benefited by getting more number of students and

of wind fall gain of commensurate tuition fees. In

a given case the State may have to consider of

permitting the transferee school to open

additional division(s) or relax the number of

students in the available division. Similarly, the

sufficient deposit of advance amount towards the

salary of the entire staff, may come in handy to

atleast partly redress the financial claim of the

staff of the derecognised unaided school.

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:49 :::
273

72. The learned Government Pleader placed

emphasis on the dictum of the Apex Court in the

Case of Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. vs. Delhi

Administration and others, 2001 (3) Supreme Court

Cases, Page 635, in particular Paragraph Nos. 16,

17, 22 and 23 to justify the policy decision of

the State as reflected in the Government

Resolution dated 20th July, 2009. The Apex Court

observed that there is no fundamental right under

Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution to carry on

trade in liquor and that the State has power to

formulate its own policy regarding such trade. The

observations in this decision as is pressed into

service are inapposite. The claim of the

Petitioners that they have fundamental right under

Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution to establish

an educational institution on permanent no grant

basis, is now squarely answered by the

Constitution Bench Decision in T.M.A. Pai (supra).

Reliance was placed on the decision in Dhampur

Sugar (Kashipur) Ltd. vs. State of Uttaranchal and

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:49 :::
274

others, 2007(8) Supreme Court Cases, Page 418, in

particular Paragraph Nos. 52, 62, 63 and 66 to

contend that the scope of judicial review of the

policy of the State is circumscribed. The learned

Government Pleader was at pains to persuade us to

take the view that the restrictions provided in

the Secondary Schools Code are in the interests of

the general public. To buttress this submission,

reliance was placed on the dictum of the Apex

Court in Paragraph 16 in the case of Directorate

of Film Festivals and others vs. Gaurav Ashwin

Jain and others, 2007(4) Supreme Court Cases, Page

737, wherein the Court has noted that the scope of

judicial review while examining a policy of the

Government is to check whether it violates the

fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed

to the provisions of the Constitution, or opposed

to any statutory provision or manifestly

arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere with policy

either on the ground that it is erroneous or on

the ground that a better, fairer or wiser

alternative is available. We have already

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:49 :::
275

indicated reasons as to why restriction of

obtaining prior permission to establish a school

on permanent no grant basis violates the

fundamental rights of the Petitioners and

similarly placed persons on the touchstone of

Article 19(1)(g).

73. The next argument that needs to be

addressed is, can the State discriminate between

the management intending to open unaided school on

the basis of language e.g., Marathi, Urdu, Hindi,

English, Gujarathi etc. The policy adopted by the

State is that no new “Marathi school” will be

permitted until the finalization of the

perspective plan. We are informed that as many as

842 new schools to impart education in mediums

other than Marathi medium have been permitted by

the State after issuance of the impugned

Government Resolution dated 20th July, 2009. The

necessity of preparing perspective plan arose in

the context of the policy of the State which has

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:49 :::
276

been restated in the decision of Gram Vikas

Shikshan Prasarak Mandal (supra). Although the

perspective plan was to be prepared and brought

into force immediately, the same has not seen the

light of the day since year 2000. Even now the

State has asked for further six months time as

noted in the order dated 11th January, 2010 in

Writ Petition No.8992 of 2009. However, even after

the decision in Gram Vikas Shikshan Prasarak

Mandal (supra) in 2000, till the year 2006 the

State Government kept on granting permissions to

private institutions to start primary, secondary

and higher secondary schools including in Marathi

medium on permanent no grant basis to

substantially large number of private institutions

i.e. about 1495 institutions. Besides the number

of private institutions involved in the said

decision, it is common ground that some more

private institutions which is substantial in

number, were allowed to start Marathi medium

schools after 31st May, 2006 even though there was

no perspective plan in place. However, that was

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:49 :::
277

under the Orders of the Court. That State action

was put in issue in the case of Maharashtra Rajya

Shikshan Sanstha Mahamandal vs. State of

Maharashtra and others, reported in 2006(6)

Bom.C.R. Page 139. This decision, however, has

since been reversed by the Apex Court in the case

of Superstar Education Society vs. State of

Maharashtra and others, reported in 2008(3)

Supreme Court Cases, Page 315. In paragraph 8 of

the said decision, the Apex Court has noted that

the objects of regulating permissions for new

private schools are:

“(i) to ensure that they have
the requisite infrastructure,

(ii) to avoid unhealthy
competition among educational
institutions;

(iii) to subject the private
institutions seeking entry in
the field of education to such
restrictions and regulatory

requirements, so as to maintain
standards of education;

(iv) to promote and safeguard
the interests of students,
teachers and education; and

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:49 :::
278

(v) to provide access to basic
education to all sections of
society, in particular the

poorer and weaker sections; and

(vi) to avoid concentration of

schools only in certain areas
and to ensure that they are
evenly spread so as to cater to
the requirements of different

areas and regions and to all
sections of society.”

74. In paragraph 9 as well as 12 of the

decision in Superstar Education Society (supra),

the Court has observed that non formulation of a

master plan does not bar the grant of permission

to schools before the master plan was finalized.

As mentioned earlier, the only distinguishing

feature for treating Marathi medium different than

the other mediums is that there are enough number

of schools imparting education in Marathi medium.

This is a very wide, vague and unsubstantiated

assumption.

75. Assuming that requirement of perspective or

School Development Plan should be the quintessence

for considering the proposals of even the private

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:49 :::
279

management to establish an unaided school, whether

there was felt need in that locality in absence of

a perspective plan, could be answered on the basis

of the subjective satisfaction of the committees

at the District level and the State level as has

been done in the case of other mediums. Thus

understood, the policy of the State to totally

prevent opening of new Marathi Medium Schools

including unaided Schools, throughout the State,

results in discrimination amongst the managements

on the basis of language. There is no rationale

behind the policy as to why the same parameter

cannot be applied to “Marathi medium” schools as

in the case of other mediums, of considering the

recommendation of the local committees at the

District level and State level. On the other hand,

a blanket decision is taken that no new Marathi

medium school will be permitted to be opened in

the State until the finalization of the

perspective plan. Such decision is not only

arbitrary and discriminatory but also suffers from

the vice of non application of mind. Such blanket

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:49 :::
280

decision, in any case, cannot be sustained if the

report regarding no secondary schools in 50,000

villages and no primary schools in 11,000 villages

through out the State of Maharashtra, is to be

accepted as it is.

76. The argument of discrimination is also

advanced in the context of the fact that the

restriction regarding pre-existence of perspective

plan is not applicable insofar as Marathi Medium

schools to be started by the local Authority. No

doubt the primary obligation to start a new school

is on the local Authority and it can be presumed

unless proved to be contrary, that the local

Authority has taken conscious decision to start

such new school keeping in mind the felt need of

that locality to provide free and compulsory

education. Even so, the question whether there is

already existing school and whether the State

Government in its perspective plan has identified

that locality for the purpose of establishing a

new school to be funded from the public exchequer,

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:49 :::
281

remains unanswered. Notably, non-existence of

perspective plan is the only test applied to

justify the policy decision of the State to cancel

or reject all the proposals of Marathi Medium

Schools.

77. As aforesaid, if the two local committees

of the State have recommended opening of a new

unaided Marathi medium school in the locality,

there can be no justification for rejecting the

proposal of such institution, who would otherwise

fulfill the necessary requirements for grant of

recognition. The fact that the District level as

well as State level committee has recommended

opening of a new Marathi medium school in the

locality and in particular, the proposal of the

concerned school, presupposes that- (i) there is a

felt need of establishing a Marathi Medium School

in that locality; (ii) the proposal of the

concerned management fulfills the necessary

requirements for grant of permission. (iii) the

locality needs to be included in the perspective

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:49 :::
282

plan; (iv) In case the perspective plan exists and

the given locality is not included therein, it

would mean that the Government is unable to

fulfill the need of that locality due to financial

constraints. Rejection of even such proposal by

the State would necessarily suffer from the vice

of arbitrary action and non application of mind.

At any rate, at least the proposals of private

management for starting an unaided school with no

aid from the Government whatsoever, which have

been recommended by the District level committee

as well as the State level committee, ought to be

considered by the State Government on case to case

basis, even in relation to Marathi medium

schools.

78. According to the Petitioners, the

impugned Government Resolution suffers from non

application of mind also on the ground that the

title of the Resolution would suggest that the

Government intended to take a policy decision of

converting the permanent no grant basis primary

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:49 :::
283

schools and primary (excluding English medium)

schools to grant in aid basis. But, without

indicating any basis, the Resolution concludes

with the decision that all the proposals for

Marathi medium schools stand cancelled and no

request for starting Marathi medium school would

be considered till the finalization of the

perspective plan.

79. Considering the above, in our opinion, the

impugned Resolution and the policy of the State

articulated therein, is illegal and

unconstitutional. We hold that the private

management intending to start schools on permanent

no grant basis, have a fundamental right to

establish such schools, subject, however, on

fulfilling the conditions for grant of recognition

of such schools.

80. We have already noticed that in the reply

affidavit filed before this Court, several other

issues have been raised by the State to justify

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:50 :::
284

its action of rejection of all the pending

proposals relating to Marathi medium schools. It

is unnecessary to dilate on the said issues

considering the fact that the decision of the

State, which is subject matter of challenge in

this Petition, is Government Resolution dated 20th

July, 2009. The State cannot be permitted to

enlarge the grounds which do not form part of the

said decision. In the decision which is impugned

before us, the sole ground stated as can be

discerned from Paragraph 6 and 7 thereof, is that

a comprehensive (perspective) plan will be

prepared and the request for permissions to start

Marathi medium schools would be taken for

consideration only thereafter. The substance of

the reason is that in absence of a perspective

plan, no proposal pertaining to starting of

Marathi medium school can be considered. Hence all

those proposals were cancelled. Any other reason

stated on behalf of the State in the reply

affidavit cannot be looked into as it is well

established position that when a statutory

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:50 :::
285

functionary makes an order based on certain

grounds, its validity must be judged by the

reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by

fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or

otherwise; else an order bad in the beginning may,

by the time it comes to Court on account of a

challenge, may get validated by additional

grounds later brought out (See Mohinder Singh Gill

and another vs. The Chief Election Commissioner,

New Delhi and others, (1978) 1 Supreme Court

Cases, Page 405, Para-8).

81. That takes us to the another shade of

argument of the Petitioners that the decision of

the State Government is hit by principles of

estoppel. It is the case of the Petitioners before

us that on the basis of invitation given to the

private managements to apply on the basis of the

Government circular dated 29th July, 2008, they

applied to the appropriate Authority for grant of

permission to start Marathi medium school on

“permanent no grant basis”. Besides, they have

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:50 :::
286

already invested substantial amount in creating

the necessary infrastructure such as building,

furnitures, fixtures etc. In other words, they

have acted to their disadvantage on the basis of

the promise expressed through the Government

circular dated 29th July, 2008 that they would be

permitted to start Marathi medium school on

permanent no grant basis subject to complying

necessary formalities. To buttress this

contention, reliance is placed on the exposition

in the case of M/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills

Co. Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others,

1979(2) S.C.C. Page 409. In the first place, if

this Court were to hold that there is no

fundamental right available to the Petitioners to

establish a Marathi medium school and that the

provisions of the Secondary Schools Code and Act

and Rules of 1949 would prevail, it would

necessarily follow that the Petitioners cannot be

heard to invoke promissory estoppel. For, there

can be no estoppel against the law. However, for

the view we have taken that the Petitioners have a

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:50 :::
287

fundamental right to establish a school on

permanent no grant basis without requiring to

obtain prior permission under Rules 2.1 to 2.14 of

the code or Rule 106 of the Rules of 1949, it is

not necessary to dilate further on this issue.

Indeed, as we have observed earlier that if the

management were to provide mandatory

infrastructure and abide by the regime of no

profiteering and no commercialization as also

secure the interests of the employees, the State

would have no option but to accord recognition to

such schools. If there was any deficiency with

regard to such mandatory requirements, the

Petitioners cannot be heard to complain of

promissory estoppel as it is well settled by now

that the fundamental right to establish

educational institution need not be confused with

the right to ask for recognition or affiliation.

82. To sum up, we conclude that:

(a) Right to establish an educational institution

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:50 :::
288

of its choice on permanent no grant basis, is a

fundamental right guaranteed to all the citizens

within the meaning of Article 19(1)(g) of the

Constitution of India.

(b) That fundamental right, however, cannot be

confused with the right to ask for recognition of

the School.

(c) The proposals for recognition of the school to

be established by the private management on

“permanent no grant basis and not receiving any

other aid whatsoever” from the Government, will

henceforth have to fulfill the conditions

specified, amongst others, in Sections 12, 19, 25

read with Schedule of the Act of 2009 and of the

Rule 3.2 of the Code (for Secondary/Higher

Secondary School) or Rule 107 of the Rules of 1949

(for Primary School), as the case may be, and also

in the recognition order itself.

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:50 :::
289

(d) Indeed, it will be open to the State to impose

strictest terms and conditions including, inter-

alia, mentioned by us in Paragraph 67 above,

fulfillment whereof can be made precondition for

grant of recognition and continuation thereof, by

the private schools to be established and run on

no grant in aid basis and without receiving any

other aid whatsoever from the Government. The

terms and conditions, however, will have to be

reasonable restrictions and in the interests of

the general public.

(e) The unaided Schools so established and

recognised will be obliged to admit specified

percentage of children in the neighbourhood

belonging to weaker section and disadvantaged

group and provide free and compulsory elementary

education to them till its completion, as per the

mandate of Section 12(1)(c) of the Act of 2009.

(f) The unaided schools, however, would be

entitled only for reimbursement of the expenditure

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:50 :::
290

incurred by it to the extent of per-child-

expenditure incurred by the State, or the actual

amount charged from the child, whichever is less,

in such manner as may be prescribed, in terms of

Section 12(2) of the Act of 2009.

(g) These unaided schools after grant of

recognition cannot stake claim for grants in aid,

or any other kind of aid from the Government, at a

later point of time, as a matter of right.

(h) Initially provisional recognition shall be

granted to the unaided private Secondary/Higher

Secondary School, if it fulfills the conditions

specified in Act of 2009 and Rule 3.2 of the Code

for grant of recognition, as provided in Rule 4.1

of the Secondary Schools Code; and recognition

shall be granted to unaided private primary

school, if it fulfills the conditions specified in

Act of 2009 and Rule 107 of the Rules of 1949, as

provided in Section 39 of the Act of 1947 read

with Rule 107 of the Rules of 1949.

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:50 :::
291

(i) It will be open to the Government to consider

to amend the opening part of Rule 107(1) of the

Rules of 1949 so as to make it consistent with

Section 18 of the Act of 2009 as also to provide

for the regime of issuance of provisional

recognition to even primary Schools in the first

place as per the mechanism provided in Rule 4.1 of

the Code.

(j) The pre-existence of a perspective plan or

inclusion of the location in the perspective plan

or School Development Plan, as the case may be,

for considering the proposal for recognition of

the “private unaided schools” – on permanent no

grant in aid basis or not receiving any other aid

from the Government whatsoever, cannot be a

condition precedent.

(k) The perspective plan or School Development

Plan will be relevant and ought to be insisted

upon only in relation to proposals for

establishment of schools on “grant in aid basis or

receiving any other aid” from the Government.

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:51 :::
292

(l) The impugned decision of the State reflected

in the Government Resolution dated 20th July, 2009

to cancel all the proposals for permission to

start “Marathi medium” schools by issuing one

executive fiat or blanket order on the premise

that such proposals can be considered only after

the enforcement of the perspective plan, is

illegal and unconstitutional being discriminatory

and arbitrary and also suffers from the vice of

non-application of mind.

(m) We further hold that the provisions of the

Secondary Schools Code relating to permission

under Rules 2.1 to 2.14 of the Code and Rule 106

of the Rules of 1949 to start a school would apply

only to the proposals for establishing a school on

“grant in aid basis or receiving any other aid”

from the Government. However, even after grant of

permission, such School shall not function or run

until the grant of recognition, as per Section 18

of the Act of 2009. Only on this interpretation

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:51 :::
293

the constitutional validity of the abovesaid

provisions and the opening part of Rule 107(1) of

the Rules of 1949 can be saved.

(n) We also hold that the State shall forthwith

consider the proposals of all the private

institutions “for grant of recognition” for

Marathi medium School – on permanent no grant in

aid basis and not receiving any other aid from the

Government whatsoever, in the given locality on

its own merits and in accordance with law.

(o) That be done expeditiously and the decision so

taken be communicated to the concerned Management,

in any case, not later than 31st May 2010, so that,

if recognition were to be granted, the concerned

School can commence at the beginning of the

academic year 2010-2011, from June 2010.

(p) We have also made some broad suggestions in

Paragraph 62, as to the factors to be considered

and remedial measures taken before finalizing the

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:51 :::
294

perspective plan or School Development plan. We

hope and trust that the Government would consider

the same in right earnest.

(q) We therefore allow all these Petitions on

the above terms.

83. Accordingly, Rule is made absolute in all

these Petitions on the above terms with no order

as to costs. We however, make it clear that the

State will have to examine every individual

proposal of the concerned private management “for

recognition” of Marathi medium school on

permanent no grant basis and without receiving any

other aid from the Government on its own merits,

in accordance with law; and this Judgment is not

an expression of opinion either way in relation to

the questions to be examined in that behalf

including that the proposed terms and conditions

to be imposed for grant of recognition by the

appropriate Authority are reasonable and in the

interests of the general public or otherwise.

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:51 :::
295

84. Ordered accordingly.

[S.S. SHINDE, J.] [A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

asb/FEB10/wp345.10

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:49:51 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *